here's why violent crime is going through the roof

If anything illustrates the point more then the pathetic sentence given out to this girl I'd like to know what it is.

A CRUEL teenage girl was jailed for 10 years yesterday for forcing a man to his death off a 100ft viaduct.

Sarah Bullock, 16, kicked her victim in the face and stamped on his fingers as he clung desperately to the railings.
And she laughed as Steven Hoskin, 39, let go and plunged to his death.

www.express.co.uk...

It just makes me sick.

To think that there are people out there that treat life with such contempt. Here's hoping for a big dose of karma for the bee-och.

MonKey!

Or someone waiting at the gate with a loaded gun when she gets out.

I can fully understand why some may be very angry about this offence which was certainly horrific but for the sake of proper understanding you have to consider the full details of the sentences which were handed down.

The principal perpetrator, (the girl's boyfriend), was jailed for life for murder with a minimum tariff of 25 years before he can be considered for parole.

The teenage girl was a minor at the time of the offence, (she was 16), and a life sentence cannot, therefore, be imposed but she was instead "Detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure" for a minimum of 10 years. This is the juvenile equivalent of an indeterminate sentence and is the only sentence available to the courts for murder committed by a juvenile. The tariff is set by the judge and, once again, represents the minimum term that must be served before the offender can be even considered for parole.

The difference in the two minimum terms reflects the fact that the man was considered to be the leader of the gang involved and the fact that the girl was a juvenile. What would be completely wrong would be to give the impression that either of these two people would be automatically released after their minimum terms or that they may be released earlier for some reason.

As far as the teenager is concerned, she will have spent not far short of half of her life in detention by the time she even becomes eligible to be even considered for parole which to my mind at least sounds like a pretty significant punishment.





[edit on 1-8-2007 by timeless test]

And with the greatest respect therein lies the problem. We've become so used to the idea of non accountability and how cheap life is that the sentence almost does start to seem reasonable.

Except it's not. She stamped on a mans hands until he fell to his death. That's murder.

She was a minor when it happened....still murder. If there's an argument to be made that she wasn't aware of the full consequences of what she was doing I'd say the age part was irrelevent and far more pertinent is this insidious idea that taking a life is no real big deal these days and will not be punished severly.

A pound to a penny she will serve no more than the minimum sentence. Ten years of her life gone and the rest of his extinguished for no other reason than malice. Doesn't seem fair, right or balanced to me.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by ubermunche]

Well then maybe it's a reflection on me rather than anything else but a MINIMUM 10 year sentence for a crime committed by a 16 year old does seem reasonable to me, and as far as I am concerned that has nothing to do with life being cheap or non-accountability.

Yes, you're quite right, it was murder, hence the maximum possible sentence which can be handed down to a minor in this country and, whilst I don't have the statistics, I would guess that a 10 year tariff under those circumstances would also be right up there amongst the longest handed out.

All I can ask is that, (not knowing how old your are ubermunche), you consider how different a person you are today from the person you were at the age of 16 to see why the possibility of parole after that period is open.

If she is still considered to be a danger she will not, (should not), be released at that point and even when she is released she will be on licence with the opportunity to be taken back to prison for the rest of her life. I guess there comes a time when we have to accept that as individuals who have not heard the evidence in detail, who have never met the perpetrator and who have no idea of how they are responding to their sentences we have to accept that those who have done all of those things may be in a position to judge sentencing policy better than us.

There is an interesting read on the subject here

Alternatively of course we could always just hang teenagers but just how little value would we have to attach to a young developing human life to follow that course?



[edit on 1-8-2007 by timeless test]

...and I know we could argue about the validity of the data for ever and a day but here is the latest information on violent crimes for England and Wales.

It has long been argued that the extent of criminality and the public's perception of the extent of criminality are two very different things.

Nothing is "going through the roof" as far as I can see.

[edit on 1-8-2007 by timeless test]

Well I suspect we’ll just have to go down the road of agreeing to disagree on this but here’s my two pen north worth anyway.

Firstly if that’s how the law stands with regards to minors committing murder then it needs to be changed.

Yes I was a very different person at fifteen and sixteen to how I am now at forty two, I was also a very different person at twenty five and thirty compared to how I am now. Should that mean the older you get the more appropriate the sentence or should the sentence be appropriate to the act committed. It’s not only about making people accountable it’s also about sending out a message to society that these acts will not be tolerated. Circumstances like age, environment or upbringing are non negotiable and the law should be sending out that signal otherwise it merely erodes public confidence about the effectiveness and safety of the society you live in and covertly tells the criminal that what they do is not so bad. Even worse it subtly informs us that our lives and the lives of our loved ones are held in less importance than some ideology that so far hasn’t proved itself very effective.

As for the fear of crime outweighing the actuality, that’s very true. It’s human nature that our fears very often outstrip the reality. This though does not automatically follow on that the actual level of violent crime is negligible or not at a level that justifies concern. Put it another way, when the Yorkshire Ripper was stalking the northern towns most women were, statistically speaking, unlikely to end up being his victim. The fear of becoming a victim greatly overshadowed the likelihood. Should we have been complacent then?

I don’t know where you live, but where I live the rise is both obvious and frightening. Most of us don’t want to be seriously injured or die merely on the playful whim of some sadistic thug with the belief that whatever he does will ultimately be excused and forgiven. I’m sorry if that seems an unreasonable request to have in a civilised 21st century country but…..

Until we become a truly enlightened society at all levels I’m afraid a justice system that operates on the fear of the consequences of doing wrong is the best we have to protect us from the wrongdoer. To try and apply these well meant but misguided philosophy’s on those unwilling or incapable of grasping them is conversely only going to lead to an even more unenlightened society, as we are seeing now. Either by seeing the criminal element becoming completely out of control or, as the lesser of the two evils, the community deciding it has to look to itself for protection and justice.

Originally posted by ubermunche
Firstly if that’s how the law stands with regards to minors committing murder then it needs to be changed.

Why? The law allows for a minor found guilty of murder to be detained for the rest of their life. Short of capital punishment where else can we go?

Originally posted by ubermunche
Should that mean the older you get the more appropriate the sentence

No, it just means that a sixteen year old will develop and change more over a ten year period than a 42 year old or even a wrinkly 50 year old like me. The tariff has to reflect the fact that that when dealing with a minor there is a strong chance that after ten years you may have someone in custody who is no danger to the public and might even contribute to society if they were released. At a young age in particular appropriateness may not only be measured by length of time in custody.

Originally posted by ubermunche
I don’t know where you live, but where I live the rise is both obvious and frightening.

Well I live in the deep south of England, (any further south and I would have to swim for it). Yes, I see violent crime reported in cities near me ranging from murder and assault to rape but where is the evidence that the situation is getting significantly worse? The facts just don't bear out the perception which is often fuelled by circulation hungry newspapers. And this really does matter because if violent crime, or any other kind of crime, is falling then just maybe our criminal justice system is working, albeit slowly, and we would shoot ourselves in the foot if we tried to change it.

If you want to deal with a really serious crime how about starting with the criminal irresponsibility of the tabloid editors who are never happy unless we're being scared out of our wits by the unlikely prospect of Great White Sharks swimming up the Solent or gangs of rampaging drug addicts lurking around every street corner.

Originally posted by ubermunche
...a justice system that operates on the fear of the consequences of doing wrong is the best we have

That's not a justice system, that's a system of institutionalised retribution. That may be what you want but let's not call it justice.

...oh, and yes, I'm afraid we probably are going to have to agree to disagree.




Why? The law allows for a minor found guilty of murder to be detained for the rest of their life. Short of capital punishment where else can we go?

And then more often than not lets them out ten years later. Again not justice.


No, it just means that a sixteen year old will develop and change more over a ten year period than a 42 year old or even a wrinkly 50 year old like me. The tariff has to reflect the fact that that when dealing with a minor there is a strong chance that after ten years you may have someone in custody who is no danger to the public and might even contribute to society if they were released. At a young age in particular appropriateness may not only be measured by length of time in custody.

If the justice system is so anxious to only enforce sentences on people while they remain a danger why are there people who get ten plus years for fraud while some chav gets two years for beating a pensioner up, I know what one I see as more of a danger. You seem to view the whole system as set up to first and foremost to aid and rehabilitate violent criminals, I see it first and foremost as a means of punishing those who do inexcusable things appropriately and keeping them away from the rest of us while secondly sending out the message to any other toe rag thinking of doing the same that ultimately he’ll come off worse. By all means work on bringing out the best in them while they’re inside but let them serve a just sentence. Let’s face it the former approach hasn’t really worked has it?



And this really does matter because if violent crime, or any other kind of crime, is falling then just maybe our criminal justice system is working, albeit slowly, and we would shoot ourselves in the foot if we tried to change it.

If you want to deal with a really serious crime how about starting with the criminal irresponsibility of the tabloid editors who are never happy unless we're being scared out of our wits by the unlikely prospect of Great White Sharks swimming up the Solent or gangs of rampaging drug addicts lurking around every street corner.

Violent crime is falling. Sorry but I think you may be the one whose perceptions are out of whack. The Daily Mail/Express rhetoric aside I can’t get that worked up about a few tabloid headlines the way I can about someone being killed for kicks. If the editors make much out of it it’s because there’s much there to make something of.



That's not a justice system, that's a system of institutionalised retribution. That may be what you want but let's not call it justice.

Well let’s not call the alternative justice either, rather a charter for thugs and murderers and a balm to those enlightened souls who do not have to live amongst the consequences of their ideologies. And yes if it comes down to a violent yob being punished for what they do over innocent people having their lives tainted or even ruined I’ll plump for that thanks. Call me old fashioned.

...oh, and yes, I'm afraid we probably are going to have to agree to disagree.

Well that’s one bit you got right.

ubermunche, I can see where you are coming from on this. Not sure if I entirely agree that violent crime is going through the roof, but would certainly agree with you that some of the sentences being handed down do not reflect what the public think of the crime.

And yes, I know that judges judge based on the evidence before them, but there seems to be a lack of creditability will some sentences handed down.

At least, there is the option for the sentence to be reviewed if the CPS think the sentence is too soft.

Should we change the law so a minor can be sentenced to life? Will this girl serve a life sentence? If you murder someone, then it should be life and life should mean life. In prison until you die.

OK ubermunche, we clearly are not going to come to terms on this one, but let's be clear, just because I believe that it is vital to try to give minors who have committed even the most serious crimes a chance to live a constructive life that does not equate to a charter for thugs and murderers.

I support absolutely the 25 year tariff for the man involved and maybe longer if necessary. Ten years for the girl is a long time, (the Bulger killers only served eight), and may well be appropriate but I would not argue for one second if the authorities later decided that she should serve further time in custody.

Just out of interest, what would you consider an appropriate sentence for a 16 year old in these circumstances?

FreedomERP, there is no effective difference between a "life" sentence for an adult murderer and indefinite detention for a minor and no change in the law is necessary on that basis. This girl could spend the rest of her days in prison if she is regarded as a danger and does not recognise her wrong doing.

Let me make something very clear also, if the act had been comitted accidently, had been a case of bullying that went too far, the girl suffered some type of mental illness that GENUINELY made her unaware of the seriousness of the act she was committing, all of those I would accept as extenuating. As it was she stamped on a mans hands so he fell 100ft to his death. That's murder and a life should forfiet a life albeit behind bars.

Freedom maybe saying going through the roof is a slight exagerration but an alarming and constant rise I think accurately describes it. Which I believe had a direct correlation to the leneint sentences and lack of adequate policing in the communities, like mine, that are being blighted by this.

Originally posted by ubermunche
an alarming and constant rise I think accurately describes it.

But the published statistics say exactly the opposite is the case. Do you have anything to support this contention or is it just down to a personal perception?

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by ubermunche
an alarming and constant rise I think accurately describes it.

But the published statistics say exactly the opposite is the case. Do you have anything to support this contention or is it just down to a personal perception?

It all depends on the area.

A lot of Inner City Areas are going down in crime.
However, a lot of small towns to villages are going the other way.

Of course, if Inner City crime goes down quicker than the crime in the villages it shows it as a reduction in over-all crime. But in reality is that fair? You should not look at crime as a solid picture such as:
Last year in England there were 10 murders.
This year there were 6.

Clearly, six is better than 10. However, is it in reality better than 10 if all of those six crimes exist in an area that the year before had none?

We should look at crime as a much smaller picture. It should not be, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, but Oxfordshire, London, Manchester, Warwickshire, etcetera.

I know the area I lvie in, crime has got a lot worse. I even know why - all of the Youth Centers, in fact, everything for people under 18 to do, has been shut down over the last 5 years. Now they are all in parks getting drunk - reguardless of the weather. To the point the local council is cutting down trees, to make it easier for the Police to see from the road into these areas.

Violent crime has got worse for some of us.
It has got better for others.

To argue it is fair because it has got better for yourself or person A and worse for Person B isn't a good thing. Of course if you solve Inner City crime, over all crime will go down - that looks good. Doesn't change a thin if you don't live in a city though does it?

Originally posted by Odium
Violent crime has got worse for some of us.
It has got better for others.

To argue it is fair because it has got better for yourself or person A and worse for Person B isn't a good thing. Of course if you solve Inner City crime, over all crime will go down - that looks good. Doesn't change a thin if you don't live in a city though does it?

Some very good points, Odium.

A lot of the way we look at crime has to do with our own personal experiences, perceptions and so on. If you look at the figures I'm sure they show a fall in many types of crime - but switch on the news or open a newspaper and you'll find stories which change your perception despite what the facts say.

Looking at the case ubermunche brings up, this girl is sixteen - she is old enough to know the difference between right and wrong at that age unless she has a mental illness or some similar affliction (which doesn't seem to be the case). She is also certainly old enough to know that her actions directly lead to the death of another human being and that she deliberately caused it - so does she deserve an adult sentence? It's a tricky one because the law at 16 is not balanced. At 16 you can join the armed forces, buy cigarettes (though this may change soon), get a full-time job, have sex, start a family and get married (with parental consent). But at present, 16 year olds can't vote, purchase alcohol, serve on a jury and it's generally accepted that 18 is the 'age of majority', since an 18 year old can do all these things and more. You've also got to be 18 to be tried as an adult in court.

It's really a tough choice... one I'm glad it isn't my job to make since it may set a legal precedent and cause a major upheaval in the way cases regarding those aged 16-18 are dealt with by the courts whichever way you go. As the facts are presented then it's clear that this girl should stay in prison for life (literally) - but then again, if the Daily Express ran our court system then the right to a fair trial would be straight down the pan

I have to agree with ubermunche

What she did regardless of what age she was @ the time is absolutely appalling. The sentence she was given is a slap in the face of the victims family or relatives..

Murderers, shoud be imprisoned for life, not a mimimum of 10 years. No matter what rehabilitation they go through. You cannot change someone who has murdered another human being. Once a murderer always a murder.

Another thing the crime in violent attacks, stabbins, shootings, muggins, breakins, assaults is on the rise you just have to open either national or local newspaper, or even watch local news or the national news to see it is on the rise. Also there is a rise in teenagers/adults being attacked, which is being filmed on mobiles and this is being posted on the internet.

So yes crime is on the rise...

While I know it's deeply unfashionable and almost tantamount to an admission of neo nazism to admit to reading the Mail or Express here's a little food for thought. Yesterday both papers reported the death of a man at the hands of teenage thugs who stoned him when he was playing cricket with his son and, if the coroners opinion is to be believed, this was the main contributor to his having a heart attack. I know about this because it happened just down the road from me. I also know that neither paper overplayed or sensationalised the case infact this was just one of about a dozen violent incidents with two others resulting in deaths that has occurred in the area in the past twelve months. Rather than sensationalising or confabulating I'd say the papers were merely skimming the tip of the iceberg and could make much more of it if they so pleased.

As for myself I'm happy to take a healthy dose of anger, outrage and plain human emotion with my morning papers rather than the Asperger like intellectual dis-association some of the more 'socially conscientious' press like to espouse. The so called liberal papers with their repeated implacable assertions and subtle condemnation of anyone who expresses concern come very close to practicing their own covert form of oppression at times.

I agree with timeless test about this sentence. If the girl had been the only one involved, then yeah 10 years would not be nearly enough. The fact is her boyfriend is the one who is really responsible and as he has got at least 25 years; frankly I’m extremely impressed (by English standards.) What I despise is when they say someone has got life and they let them out after 12.5 years on good behaviour.

The Real Reason Why Violent Crime Is Going Up...
Simple: We lack a draconian system of escalating prison sentences for repeat offenders. I have no problem with light sentences for first time offenders (except the most serious crimes life murder above).

However I think that when you've been to prison 3,4,5 times the 6th time should carry a sentence of at least 12 years (even if the crime is quite small). The 5th time should be at least about 6 years, and the 4th say 3 ect. It makes sense because a repeat offender will have caused far more crimes than he'll ever be caught for.
I believe that (bare rare exception) anyone who been prosecuted in court more than 4 times should be looking at a custodial sentence by the 5th.

What I'm saying makes sense as over 50% of violent crime is caused by a hard core of criminals. We need to eliminate they're culture by putting it in a cage so that others can live in peace, and society can experience less assault.
I do not believe locking them up to be the only solution, but I do not believe tolerating indefinite numbers of crimes against society is a solution ether.

I know the Liberal Left often makes valid remarks about the cost of prison. My attitude is that as long as they serve meat, there are still ways costs can be cut.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The Real Reason Why Violent Crime Is Going Up...
Simple: We lack a draconian system of escalating prison sentences for repeat offenders. I have no problem with light sentences for first time offenders (except the most serious crimes life murder above).

What I'm saying makes sense as over 50% of violent crime is caused by a hard core of criminals. We need to eliminate they're culture by putting it in a cage so that others can live in peace, and society can experience less assault.
I do not believe locking them up to be the only solution, but I do not believe tolerating indefinite numbers of crimes against society is a solution ether.

I know the Liberal Left often makes valid remarks about the cost of prison. My attitude is that as long as they serve meat, there are still ways costs can be cut.

Great post Liberal and spot on.