chiark

I heard this on the radio this morning, and the BBC news website is carrying the article.

Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, says that the justice system is knackered and that there's a real danger of civil unrest unless this is looked at. For once, someone with influence has said something to stir things up!

Check the article. In my opinion, with this sort of criticism coming from the top, something has to be done.

This did get me thinking about crime and justice in society in general. Society seems to be accepting lesser sentences for crime. Just look at how many "caught speeding, facing ban, how do I get off" threads we get on here. OK, we're several orders of magnitude away in the seriousness of the crime in our opinion, but tell that to the parents of the child killed by a speeder? If society is to prosper, we need to look at our own attitudes, too.

I don't want to turn this into a speeding thread, as we've done that to death, but am just pointing out a slight hypocracy. We can argue in our own minds that speeding isn't a crime so it doesn't matter. However, when someone else argues "nicking a car from a rich bloke isn't a crime because he can afford it and he must be rich if he can afford an Impreza" then you can see where this attitude could ultimately take us...

I've gone off on one here, but the whole thing has made me think.

Nick.

Here's an extract from the BBC website article:
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens told students at Leicester University that the legal system was like a football match in which each side played by different rules.

In a speech to celebrate the 80th anniversary of his former college, Sir John said defence lawyers played "fast and loose" by attacking witnesses' characters and police procedures.

And there was a real danger of civil unrest unless the criminal justice system was overhauled.

Sir John further criticised lawyers who exploited legal loopholes and "shopped around" for forensic experts who would support their cases.

He said that judges, defence lawyers and court administrators were shielding criminals and ignoring the rights of terrified victims and intimidated witnesses.

Dizzy

damn right [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
and I never break the law

chiark

I think that's what Sir John has realised. Before long, people will start taking justice into their own hands, hence the "real danger of civil unrest".

jon hill

interesting point re. the somewhat hypocritical attitude to speed that most of us have; i.e. Its not a "real" crime

I can rememeber a program some time ago profiling some low life. He'd just done over someones garage, nicking whatever he could. His attitude when confronted was "The door was open, anyone can walk in - if they don't want the contents stolen then they should lock it all up"

At the time it was a bit of a shocker that someone can have that little disregard for anothers property. But thinking about it now I'm beginning to feel that its a fundamental way of thinking - whatever I do is "right" from:

"if you can afford a car like that, then you must be over privileged and so its ok for me to take from you"

right down to:

"I consider my speed is appropriate, I am in the right regardless of posted limits or other road users"

P1Fanatic

I think the whole point is the difference in magnitude between the two. Speeding doesnt always affect someone else but when it does a death is not uncommon, however nearly every driver has sped at one time or another and most of us (myself included) do it fairly regularly. On the other hand - how many of us go out and knick cars in our spare time???? The main complaint by most is that they are getting a worse punishment for doing 85 in a 70 than thief x is getting for stealing cars, driving away from 5 police cars and a helicopter at speeds over 100 mph and then getting 50 hours community service and a whopping £120 fine!

chiark

Jon, that's exactly what I'm thinking. It is down to attitude, and if there's an endemic attitude of people being able to justify their own actions to their own conscience, this is not a good portent for the future of society.

Coupled with light sentencing, what's the "risk" of crime?

This could be a downward spiral, with vigilante groups forming and acting illegally because they can justify their motives. Where does it end? I don't know, but I'd rather something be done about it.

I even attended our neighbourhood watch meeting for the first time last week. There is a general attitude of annoyance with crime and punishment there amongst all ages. It's got to the point that the police send a weekly update telling the organiser about known criminals that are back on the scene, and warning of their "MO". The police know they will offend because they know they have needs to feed, but can do 'ck all about it.

I really think Sir John has hit a nerve here too. Lawyers advise clients that they know to be guilty to claim they were unloved as a child, or whatever. Guilty party spouts this out, and is offered "counselling". Afterwards, guilty party admits it was all made up.

It stinks, and as you can tell this has rattled my cage . If enough people feel passionate about this, something can be done. I almost added "to restore law and order" to that sentence, but that's possibly over-egging things at the moment. Or is it?

jon hill

But

Firstly the people who nick the cars have the same attitude to their crime as you have to yours

Secondly, if something happens in the car you can seriously hurt a real person. The vast majority (ok - recent high publicity jackings excepted) of car thefts are "only" property

Ok, I'm playing devils advocate. But my point is that just because we have an agreed perception on this board doesnt make it everybodies reality.

chiark

P1Fanatic, I have to disagree with you. You are shutting your mind to justify your actions.

"Speeding doesn't affect anyone else". *You* tell the parents of the dead child that. OK, that's the extreme, but ultimately that's why the law is there. And yes, in that case it was the child at fault but laws are here for the good of society in general - including kids who don't know better but should.

I'm as guilty as the next person of pressing on where conditions allow. I'm just trying to illustrate the same "speeding doesn't affect anyone and shouldn't be a crime attitude" can be carried over to justify any manner of crimes.

"How many go out nicking cars". I would guess that a car thief will say, "the car's insured, so I'm not hurting anyone".

There's two sides to every argument.

Sbradley

Speeding is in itself a true victimless crime. When it all goes pear shaped and someone gets hurt (as I agree can happen) the offence the driver gets charged with is not speeding, it is dangerous driving or manslaughter. FAR more serious.

On the other hand, theft is never a victimless crime. There is always a cost to the victim, be it financial, emotional or psychological, as well as the inconvenience of suddenly having to rely on what is jokingly referred to as public transport until an alternative is found.

I accept that if I'm speeding I'm breaking the law and, if I get caught, deserve punishment accordingly. What I struggle to accept is that if I'm *really* speeding (say around 120) then I could (and probably would) get a more severe sentence, including possibly prison, than I would if I'd nicked the car.

Have I missed something or is there a slight prioritisation issue here?

jon hill

The damage you do when you **** it up at 120 is directly life threatening.

Car theft is purely property.

There is a fundamental difference between these two events. The priorties are people first, property second. Which, you have to agree, is the correct apporach. We would all rather have our car or bike stolen than meet with someone at 120 mph.

How many folk are injured or die on the roads each year ? (6000 ? 2000 ?, cant remember). How many are injured or die in car theft - maybe 4 or 5 ?


Many people hold a different opinion and sense of priorities than you or I with regards to car crime, speeding, etc. Rather than get frustrated with it all, try and understand why they hold that opinion and see things from their point of view. If your original view has not altered then at least you'll now have a feeling for how best to present your case and get your point across.

(This is all very much IMHO btw)

carl

But speeding is a crime with no malicious intentions. If somebody does get hurt, it's an accident (I'm sure the speeding driver doesn't intend it to happen). You could argue that in certain circumstances someone is bound to get hurt, but contrast that with stealing where the intention is to deprive someone of their goods. Not "I was enjoying myself by breaking into someone's house and as a consequence some of their stuff was accidentally stolen."

jon hill

i agree with your statement, but I dont think a conclusion automatically drops out -

If i make a concious decision to speed, drive dangerously, with some beer inside or whatever (even if in my own opinion it is "appropriate to the conditions"). The possible outcome (and actual outcome in the 2000 or 6000 or whatever cases a year) is that someone will _personally_ get injured or killed

If i steal a car all that happens is that you loose some property

Which is the higher priority ? Thats easy answer if you apply to yourself, friends or family.

astraboy

Jon, you are going on the assumption that anyone who breaks the speed limit is going to mow down a bus queue. You gotta ask the question which is more dangerous? the owner making good progress and driving within the limits of the car, albeit faster than the limit, or some wizzed up ratboy in a nicked car, desperatly trying to get away from the police?
I think you know the answer.
astraboy.

jon hill

no, i'm not going on any assumptions

the simple facts that there are handful of deaths and injuries each year through joyriders and car jackings, and several thousand deaths and injuries through people driving at their perceived "within the limits of the conditions" and being wrong

Whatever else, you must accept this as a fact ?

NBW

The difference between say, speeding, and theft, is that the speeder may be acting irresponsibly. The thief is acting with malicious intent.

3 years ago I was convicted of speeding, and opted to plead guilty and take the punishment. Today, because of the proliferation of 'revenue' cameras, I would use every legal loophole (as is my right) in order to escape conviction.

Nevertheless, the government policy HAS influenced my behaviour in a good way as regards speeding, as I know that I have a higher chance of being caught.

Now there needs to be a change of policy towards violent crimes, so that potential offenders have a similiar fear of detection and punishment.

BTW Please don't try to make the association between 1000's of deaths on the roads and speeding. The government statistics count the death of, for example, a speeding joyrider who dies in a RTA as a death caused by 'speeding'. Put as many speed cameras out as you like, he's still going to do it.

I for one would rather pay a little more tax to see more coppers about - instead of having to spend £000's on security myself....

Tim

Sbradley

Jon, much of what you say makes perfect sense, and your logic is basically sound.

Except for one thing.

TRL who are about as objective as you're ever going to get i this sort of thing) put the proportion of KSI (killed & seriously injured) accidents directly attributable to excessive speed at just under 4%.

So of the 3500 people who die on the roads every year, just 140 of them are down to speeding.

I don't have the full report to hand, but when I dig up a URL I'll post it here...

SB

NBW

Well said SB, ABD's website covered a report on this a few weeks back.

IIRC Accidents attributed to 'speeding' in government statistics included joyriders, novice drivers taking parent's cars without consent, banned drivers, habitual drink-drivers, etc, etc.

Tim

chiark

I did say at the start I that didn't want to turn this into a speeding thread. Whether we like it or not, speeding is a crime.

This isn't about trying to justify our objections to speeding, so perhaps I picked the wrong example. I should have realised it's an emotive subject - it is to me.

There were two points to my post, both of which complement each other as reasons why crime is rising in my view.

One of the points I was making is that people can rationalise the most stupid things, and as Jon said, people will use the excuse "I nicked it because it was there and not tied down" or "it's insured so it doesn't hurt anyone - it's a bit like Robin Hood stealing from the rich and people *loved* him". In their own mind, they are not committing a crime. This is the same logic that leads someone coming on here saying "got caught at 120mph, dunno why I was stopped, road was clear..." (yes I KNOW we're talking different things here, but it's the same logic).

The other point is that sentencing is not a deterrant. Lawyers are, in my opinion, put in an impossible position that must really question one's morals. How do you defend someone that you think is guilty? I could not do that. Unfortunately, people will do anything for money.

So, people feel nothing wrong in committing a crime, and furthermore if they're caught there's no real punishment, especially if they get a canny lawyer who argues that they were abused as a kid, or were feeling stressed with their job, or any number of mitigating circumstances.

Perhaps if courts made it easier for victims to have a say as to how they felt then things would be easier?

I really don't know what the solution is, but society is getting more warped, IMHO. Or perhaps we just hear more about it. Dunno.

Nick.