Letting the mob into justice was never a good idea

More lawyers are to be recruited to a scheme that reviews “unduly lenient” sentences after a sharp rise in the number of complaints about judges’ decisions on jail terms.

The attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, is to announce on Wednesday an extension of the legal programme that allows prosecutors to review cases on behalf of the government. The number of sentences considered by his office under the unduly lenient sentence (ULS) scheme soared by 97% between 2010 and 2014, from 342 cases to 674.

For a sentence to be reviewed, the attorney general’s office must receive a complaint from at least one member of the public.

Fire them all immediately and rescind this stupid, stupid, law.

29 thoughts on “Letting the mob into justice was never a good idea”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    This wouldn’t be a problem if they actually punished people. The public complains because the legal profession is determined to keep the cash flowing by releasing as many criminals as possible to re-offend. At least that is the only explanation I can think of. Public trust has been destroyed.

    They can keep fiddling to try to restore that trust but it isn’t going to work. There is, however, a one-step programme to restoring trust that would get rid of the need for these stupid laws – a Three Strikes law. Jail the habitual criminals, see crime fall, see public confidence rise. Simple.

  2. It’s not “the public” complaining, SMFS. This scheme is a bat-phone from the pressure groups to the State.

  3. Three strikes laws are shite. They lead to petty crims getting life sentences for stealing £10. Not only unjust but a ludicrous expense.

    First–stop letting more crims in. And deport imported scum.

    Second–start getting rid of welfarism and bastardy–a long-term project.

    Third–As two above–lets have some respect for men and Fathers restored to this society instead of the man-hating femmi-spew that now dominates everywhere.

    Fourth–self-defence and gun rights restored in full. Unlimited firearms ownership and a rifle+ beside every decent hearth. The non-decent ones can already get the firepower they want. Create a people who once again have the balls to look after themselves and frame the law accordingly.

    Fifth–replace most of the Judge class with those who respect the rights of decent folk and respect justice but have little regard for the Home Office pukes telling them to go easy on crims. Perhaps paid independently of the state. Smashing the Senior Civil Service would help here-as in so many areas.

    Sixth–De-emphasise jail and replace with more corporal punishment. Cheaper and less disruptive for society.

    Seventh–find and elect some “leaders” who aren’t middle/upper class socialist scum.

    That should do to be going on with.

  4. Mr Ecks: “Three strikes laws are shite. They lead to petty crims getting life sentences for stealing £10. Not only unjust but a ludicrous expense.”

    Well, what else to do? Can’t transport them anymore!

  5. Well, what else to do? Can’t transport them anymore!

    I would add a ‘recidivism tariff’ to any sentence. It would be calculated by doubling the entire previous sentence before adding on the amount chosen by the trial judge. And I would also end the practices of concurrent sentences, and automatic early release.

    For example, someone that served a 6 month sentence before offending similarly again, would get 12 months + another 6 month term (assuming the judge sentenced him to 6 months this time too). The third time would be 36 months + another 6-or-whatever month term etc. Even the thickest crim would soon work out that a life of crime no longer pays.

  6. Plus extra punishment for:

    * Innovative crime–if you come up with or are an early adopter of new versions of the old stand-bys you get extra punishment. A few years back there was a fad for robbing pigeon-fanciers lofts in the North-East. It was a new innovation in thievery at the time. Such antics would get you the initial sentence –be it X months or X lashes–and then the sentence would be doubled for criminal innovation. In the ordinary world innovation brings rewards. In the crim world it would then bring greater punishment–a disincentive to be a crim creative.

    Also travelling to commit your crimes gets you extra pain. As with extras for being a recidivist.

    Thus the more commitment you show to a life of crime the more you get hurt in retaliation for your crimes.

  7. “Can’t transport them anymore!” Send them on holiday to northern Mexico and tell ’em they’re not coming back. They will then enter the USA. Bye-ee.

  8. Be careful what you wish for. I agree with Mr Ecks three strikes laws are shite, they go totally against the concept of the punishment fitting the crime. Plus what is likely to happen in practise is they will be brought in, plus a lot of laws punishing what most people on this blog consider thought crime, or other non crimes. Several mailers here would probably be serving life sentences for inappropriate blog comments before very long.

  9. This group would hardly be needed if prisons weren’t so short on space and so badly run as to dissuade judges from handing down custodial sentences.

  10. I thought the “unduly lenient sentences” procedures were a reaction to lefty judges. Retire them and bring back the more robust sort and there won’t be a problem.

  11. Oh the irony.

    TW deplores the mob invading the application of justice and then it turns up here and fills the comments with more mob remedies.

  12. I think it was probably sold to the Daily Mail demographic as a cure for lefty judges. It was actually as I said above so that activist types could have a mechanism for doubling the sentence of the paedo du jour, etc.

    Of course, it makes no sense to have such a referrals system. EIther you would review every case regardless, or not do it at all. What any particular sentence has to do with Angry Of Tonbridge Wells who wasn’t in court and knows nothing of the circumstances is precisely zero.

  13. Note that the Hammond case in Oregon and the occupation going on there stem from a “too light” sentence.

    The Hammonds were pressured into an agreement whereby they gave up their right to appeal, and the judge gave them a sentence below the “mandatory” minimum on the grounds that even this minimum was absurdly harsh. The fuckers in the FedGov immediately appealed — and got — a harsher sentence.

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “It’s not “the public” complaining, SMFS. This scheme is a bat-phone from the pressure groups to the State.”

    There is no pressure group calling for tougher sentences. Only the public. All the NGOs get hard ons for violent offenders and want them out on the street.

    Mr Ecks – “Three strikes laws are shite. They lead to petty crims getting life sentences for stealing £10. Not only unjust but a ludicrous expense.”

    Prison is only expensive because we let it. We don’t need to make it so. A petty crim who did not listen, did not listen again and still did not learn his lesson should never be allowed to walk the streets of Britain again. How many times do we need to tell him before he gets the message? Life, meaning literally life, with him being buried behind the wire, seems a sensible response. Letting him out to offend yet again does not.

    “First–stop letting more crims in. And deport imported scum.”

    Absolutely.

    “Third–As two above–lets have some respect for men and Fathers restored to this society instead of the man-hating femmi-spew that now dominates everywhere.”

    That would be a sensible first step. The thing no one is talking about with the recent mass shooters in America is that virtually all of them are the product of divorce.

    “Fourth–self-defence and gun rights restored in full.”

    Amen!

    “Sixth–De-emphasise jail and replace with more corporal punishment. Cheaper and less disruptive for society.”

    OK. Three strikes and we hang you then. Capital not corporal.

  15. ” A petty crim who did not listen, did not listen again and still did not learn his lesson should never be allowed to walk the streets of Britain again.”

    That is just nasty SMFS. Tell him –each time after the first– with a fist for emphasis if you like but petty crimes do not deserve life sentences. It also means that they might as well be hanged for a sheep and do a rape or murder if they are going to be punished as if they had.

    And it better be your money they use to keep him in jail. I’m not paying out to have the law prove it is an ass.

  16. So Much For Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “That is just nasty SMFS. Tell him –each time after the first– with a fist for emphasis if you like but petty crimes do not deserve life sentences. It also means that they might as well be hanged for a sheep and do a rape or murder if they are going to be punished as if they had.”

    Is it? Why? Why should we be made defenceless against people who prey on us? I might agree that it should be three felonies, but it hardly matters. We have a problem with recidivists. Someone makes a mistake. OK. Once. We tell them not to do it again. The average criminal admits to something like 140 break ins in the year before they were jailed. How many chances do you want to give people?

    Predators need to be dealt with.

    “And it better be your money they use to keep him in jail. I’m not paying out to have the law prove it is an ass.”

    Hang him then. Again prison doesn’t have to be expensive. Some prisons even make money. Even so, prison is a bargain compared to the enormous costs we all pay from having these people out on the street. We all now have to live behind bars, security alarms, video cameras. It costs.

  17. “The average criminal admits to something like 140 break ins in the year before they were jailed. How many chances do you want to give people?”

    OK- sentence them to one hundred and forty beatings then. After that their enthusiasm for thieving would have waned somewhat. But it is still not just to have someone rot the rest of their days for petty thieving.

    The average also means that likely a small number of crims will have done a huge number of jobs while most have done far less.

    ” Some prisons even make money.” Yeah–the US corporate socialist slave empire now worth 3 billion a year to the corporate crooks up the local/federal tyrannies arse. Let’s have matters over here so you can look forward to having some traffic offence trumped up to get you time working in a shackled call centre. With rules that have lots of room to charge you with lovely sentence-extending infractions. Hey–now you are a crim and you need to pay your debt to society right?

    Strive to do what is needed to solve the matter. Extra cruelty is just a bogus tough-guy ego trip.

  18. So Much For Subtlety

    Mr Ecks – “OK- sentence them to one hundred and forty beatings then. After that their enthusiasm for thieving would have waned somewhat. But it is still not just to have someone rot the rest of their days for petty thieving.”

    What makes you think that their enthusiasm will have waned? People hate you. They really really hate you. What are you going to do about it? Lie back and ask to be hit again? It is not petty thieving. It is persistent thieving. It is depraved indifference to the rest of us.

    “The average also means that likely a small number of crims will have done a huge number of jobs while most have done far less.”

    Indeed. Most crime is committed by a very small number of people. So we need to identify them and prevent them from preying on the rest of us.

    If only we had 1. a way to identify those guilty of persistent reoffending and 2. a way to keep them from preying on the rest of us. Any suggestions?

  19. This is odd. There’s another thread not far from here in which sundry commentators are opining that the police are dishonest and useless. The same commentators on this thread want anyone the police manage to get convicted to be locked up forever. Or else beaten to a pulp.

    How are the courts to tell which criminals deserve indefinite incarceration and which ought to be feted as innocent victims of the police state?

  20. Little did I know that the previous thread would lead so seamlessly into this. Luckily making the UK self-sufficient will open a new colony with labor needs. I say go back to the days when stealing a loaf of bread could earn you a one-way trip to the colonies.

  21. SJW: Clearly the answer is to post the bare outline of each case on a blog and let the commenters decide on sentencing. It’s working well here – if nothing else, it’s tremendously entertaining watching SMFS and Mr Ecks argue.

  22. So Much For Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “This is odd. There’s another thread not far from here in which sundry commentators are opining that the police are dishonest and useless.”

    They are incompetent. Dishonest, not so sure about. But so what? It would be better if they were honest and competent, but even if they are not, they are what we have. They are the only game in town at the moment. The alternative to them is lynch mobs. Which would not be much of an improvement.

    “How are the courts to tell which criminals deserve indefinite incarceration and which ought to be feted as innocent victims of the police state?”

    I don’t know, but how about we leave conviction to someone other than the police? Like, oh I don’t know, twelve randomly chosen members of the public under the instructions of a paid professional with tertiary education and years of experience in the field? How do you think that would work Paul?

    Not that it would work perfectly. Juries aren’t that good either. But again they are all we have. The alternative is for mobs to hang people fairly randomly from lamp posts. At the moment we are in the worst of all possible world because we are transitioning from one system to the next so no one much gets punished.

  23. Matthew Hell: “It’s working well here – if nothing else, it’s tremendously entertaining watching SMFS and Mr Ecks argue.”

    And why should there not be argument. It is only the scum of the left who sing–badly–from the same evil songsheet.

  24. SJW–Who said the Bluebottles would be dealing out official good hidings?

    A job for robotic interface. A good quality beating delivered to a high standard of quality each time without sadism or human failings involved.

  25. A good quality beating delivered to a high standard of quality each time without sadism or human failings involved.

    I believe the Japanese are working on these, or similar, for, erm, other purposes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *