Monday, September 15, 2008

Depressing but vital

It may surprise you to know that, despite my angry tirades, your humble Devil is quite optimistic about humanity in general. My opinion is that most people are reasonable, that the majority of them just want to go about their lives and be left alone.

That is why I find reading coppers' blogs so incredibly fucking depressing: day after day these people wallow amidst the very pits of human evil and depravity.

But these members of the constabulary are illuminating too, and it is for this reason that I consider them to be vital to the blogosphere—perhaps, indeed, their writing is entirely necessary in order to bring the bright and optimistic types, such as myself, down to earth again.

Nightjack has been a regular commenter at The Kitchen for some time now, and I have been reading his thoroughly excellent blog for a couple of months—might I suggest that you do the same?

The one repetitive strain in such fora are the utterly inadequate prison sentences doled out to the utter bastards that make people's lives a misery—or shorter. Like this cunt...
Trevor is walking home one way and Planet Barry with his twin moons is coming the other. Words were not exchanged. Trevor has thoughts of home, family, maybe hangover and a fried breakfast. As they pass, Barry punches him once, as hard as he can. Some essential part of Trevor’s brain immediately rips and tears as his head is torqued sideways. As he lies dying, Barry, Trace and random lad gather round him wondering at what Barry’s single punch has done. Trevor dies in the street before the ambulance could possibly arrive.
...

Somebody is going to have to tell Trevor’s missus that the Judge isn’t going over 4 years on the sentence. Me? No thanks. I think the Judge should tell her and he can explain why because I am damned if I can.

I find these random, done-for-no-reason assaults scary—not least because I have been a victim of such aggression a couple of times. But in my opinion, the fact that Barry did not mean to kill Trevor should be no mitigation: that evil, fucking little bastard should be put away for life and the case publicised as much as possible, pour encourager les autres.

This cunt didn't care whether or not he ruined someone's life, whether he would ensure that they were scared to go out, and he didn't care that he killed him: he only gave two craps because he didn't want to pay the price for his actions.

He should pay the price for his actions: he should pay every, single day. And, most importantly, he should be kept off the streets, so that we might all be that little bit safer.

40 comments:

Sandy Jamieson said...

The judge should say to Barry, "You will be taken from here to a place of execution..... and you shall be hanged by the neck until dead and may the Lord have mercy on your sole."

Trouble is those bastards in Europe won't allow it.

Another reason for rising and being a nation again.

Snowolf said...

It is truly chilling that someone can act like that. I have no comprehension of the mentality, or lack thereof, of individuals like this.

That being said, I have to disagree with Sandy. Execution solves nothing, it is vengeance and revenge is not justice. If I were to kill someone in revenge it would not spare me a murder charge, for the state to do it in my name does not legitimise it. Killing in self defence is one thing, by the rope, chair or needle is another.

marksany said...

Anyone who can just reach out and kill someone, or even hit someone really hard, is sick - sick with an actual disease of the brain. Lock him up, forever, in Broadmoor.

Old Holborn said...

A wise post DK

My father, a policeman, always said the longest sentences should be reserved for those who kill for no reason. Because no one can tell who, or when they will kill again.

Those who kill during a robbery had factored it in. They knew the risk. Those who kill over romance had done the same.

Those who simply kill on the spur of the moment are the most dangerous amongst us. They couldn't give a shit either way

Killed over an argument over an orange

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7616916.stm

Delroy, I NEVER want to see you free. You are simply too dangerous

Anonymous said...

One interesting aspect of Nightjack's depressingly familiar tale...the role of CCTV in securing the conviction.

John B said...

But where d'you draw the line?

Hitting someone is cuntish behaviour; so is shouting at someone.

Hitting someone is extremely unlikely to make them die; so is shouting at someone. But both can.

So if you get into a row with someone and they keel over from a heart attack, you should be done for murder? Hmm.

(and if not, why is one act from which no reasonable person could have forseen serious harm to be treated differently from another?)

@ Old Holborn: Delroy hasn't been convicted of anything; he's on trial. Those of us who aren't authoritarian tyrants wait for the jury's verdict before deciding whether or not someone should ever be set free.

Diogenes said...

@ Mr Snowolf, you say execution solves nothing.

It drastically reduces reoffending.

That said, I oppose execution for purely cynical reasons.

Diogenes said...

@ john b

You do not need to draw a line, that is what juries are for.

Anonymous said...

Here's a thought: why not punish based purely on what the outcomes of an action are, not on what the court may suppose a person was thinking at the time?

If you work purely on facts, such as "Did the accused cause the death of the victim?" then impose consistent punishment based on this basis, then criminals will then have an idea of what to expect from a detected crime.

Also, get away from this serving of concurrent sentences. If you sentence someone to 2 years and 3 years, sum the sentences. So what if some low-level scrote ends up not seeing light of day for a decade; we're well rid of the fool.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:39:00,

How the hell would that work?

So if you're a floor cleaner and break health and safety rules by not putting up and sign and someone slips, hits their head and dies then you're sent down for life?

But if you're a terrorist who's bomb doesn't go off then you just walk free do you?

Anonymous said...

I'm by no means opposed to execution however I think that it's too soft a sentence - their nasty little lives are meaningless anyway. Likewise banging them up with telly and three square a day means fuck all.

I'd much prefer the re-introduction of Hard Labour as a sentence. A lifetime of breaking rocks 18 hours a day or digging deep, pointless holes seems about right. It has the twin benefits of being a terrible unremitting punishment :) and offering a way back if (say) evidence that they didn't do it turns up.

Tomrat said...

DK,

Nightjack's 24 hours to crack the case are an excellent series and I suggest everyone should read them; some top notch reading. But it got me thinking. *unoiled gear cranking noise*.

Lets say for a minute that a libertarian government is established - one result of this would be that we institute constitutional changes that protect individual property rights and so forth; what then happens to people who infringe on the rights of others?

Personally I think removing the right to life is too much - in the anatomy of any murder or assault their are far too many variables as to be sure of guilt (Barry, as deplorable a character as he is, may have exacerbated a prestanding condition such as a tumour, aneuryism or haematoma. Note: I'm not trying to bypass the seriousness of Barry's crime, as you will see if you read on).

One thing I do know is that any criminal act should have the option of redemption - true redemption - made possible; thus punishment should be reversible for that very same reason.

That said, punitive measures should be as unpleasant as possible and be a complete removal of those rights the individual took away from another.

I am of course referring to the Panopticon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

The ability to give back liberty so stolen by the state of late should be tempered with a stark promise of its swift removal to any who try to steal anothers.

John B said...

"You say execution solves nothing. It drastically reduces reoffending"

Not really. The kind of murderers who'd get executed are the kind who wouldn't be let out until they were 70 anyway.

Roger Thornhill said...

john b: "Hitting someone is extremely unlikely to make them die; so is shouting at someone. But both can."

Just read that again, john, so you realise what an UTTERLY stupid thing you said. What if someone thumped you in the head AND shouted at you? Little or no risk, right? Fancy testing your "theory" on yourself? I could sell tickets.

If you are a (possibly) powerful thug practised in the art of lamping people, punching someone by surprise in the head or torso DOES bring a reasonable risk of serious injury and, happening at night and alone, potentially death. Most people will be decked by such an attack and if you are walking along the street, the pavement, kerbside, cars, walls, lamp posts etc are all around waiting to cause even more injury as you crumple and fall as dead weight.

Barry needs to be away for life unless you can PROVE the risk of him hitting another is as low as the risk you assert for harm (which I dispute). You cannot prove that, so Barry should rot in prison.

We will not have our prisons full if we do this, we will just have our prisons containing some uncontrollable psychopaths or just plain evil bastards, for the word will get out that if you seriously injure or kill, your life outside is basically over. If they are psychopaths, then they should be moved to a hospital to get treatment. if they are plain evil bastards, some CORT training or such to at least enable them to live out the rest of their days inside a little more calmly.

Vicola said...

The evil little fucktard is evidently a psychopath. Why else would he randomly punch someone as hard as he could for no reason whatsoever? For that reason he should be put into the rankest psychiatric establishment that this country has, until a permanent cure for psychopathic tendencies is discovered.

Anonymous said...

Plucking one actual case at random: a man aged 23, helped by one of his mates, murdered his wife in a particularly calculated and pitiless way. His defence included stress, depression and general uselessness, and he served just over two years. On release he managed to shake off his depression and took up a very successful career as a drug dealer; five years later he was sent down again, serving three years. Once back out again he said no to drugs and retrained as a pimp. In an attempt to cover up the evidence of his people-trafficking he set fire to a house, trapping himself in it by mistake and (unfortunately) being rescued. A further spell in the slammer (for the arson, not for the trafficking) ensued, this time for five years.

Now in what insane polytechnic-lecturer's world would this worthless scumbag have been any loss if he had been topped after the first offence? Or at least banged up for life - his entire life, not two years? And if all offences of violence more serious than ABH attracted a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence (with no reductions) the crime rate would plummet.

John B said...

"What if someone thumped you in the head AND shouted at you? Little or no risk, right? Fancy testing your "theory" on yourself? I could sell tickets."

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about here - but yes, while it's annoying to get lamped in the head, it's very seldom going to do anything particularly serious (and I've got a kerbstone print in the back of my head highlighting the cosmetic things it can do).

a man aged 23, helped by one of his mates, murdered his wife in a particularly calculated and pitiless way. His defence included stress, depression and general uselessness, and he served just over two years.

No, he didn't. Nobody in the UK has ever served "just over two years" for murder. Either he committed manslaughter (and therefore definitionally didn't do so in 'a calculated and pitiless way'), or he served an absolute minumum of seven years (which is bloody unlikely given that seven years is the absolute minimum tariff to serve for murder, with every mitigating circumstance present and every aggravating one absence, which a calculated, premeditated domestic murder would not quite fit into...). Whatever the truth of the case you present, it's not what you're presenting.

cinda said...

john b: your comments illustrate perfectly the gulf between the theoretical or academic view of crime and punishment and that of the real world. It's all too easy to get a plea of manslaughter accepted.

Old Holborn said...

And as if by magic

‘Two boys who killed a partially-sighted man by kicking and stamping on him at a tram stop in Sheffield have been jailed for four years each for manslaughter’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7618051.stm

The judge has ordered they serve HALF their sentences, MINUS 519 days remand.

On the streets again in six months from now. Joy. Just in time to pick up their 10 A grade GCSE's no doubt.

Old Holborn said...

Oh, I forgot to add:

Fuck off John, you cunt. These cunts are in control on the streets now, thanks to oily fuckbubbles like you.

"while it's annoying to get lamped in the head, it's very seldom going to do anything particularly serious"

Unbelievable. You deserve to be glassed, rubbed down with a housebrick, fed your own genitals, dipped in cyanide and then passed through a lawnmower. Your remains should then be fed to pigs.

Spunkjizzle

Dave said...

I visit someone in prison. He's doing life for murder (he kicked to death the man who raped his sister). We are united in our belief that they should bring back hanging. He says that after twelve or more years in jail, he's no longer being punished. I suspect if a poll was taken of the prison population, there would be a majority in favour of the return of the death penalty.
And I know they say that turkeys don't vote for Christmas, but my evidence says they would.

Robin said...

Hanging is a good cheap punishment for scum.
It`s a one way ticket that the establishment we`ve got cant renage on.
It`s a deterrrent.

Thud said...

impossible to argue with your conclusion.

Roger Thornhill said...

Thanks to OH, I pull these snippets from the disgraceful tram-stop incident.

"Barlow then stamped on the victim's chest and head before Gray kicked him at "full pelt" to the side of his head, connecting with his temple and causing his head to hit the kerb.
After the attack, Mr Greenwood fell, hitting his head hard on the road, before continuing his journey by tram and bus."

richard allan said...

I don't actually think the death penalty is a deterrent, according to the research I've seen. And there's the minor problem of getting the wrong bloke...

I'd have restitution (blood-money) payments to compensate the victim's survivors (and his life-insurance company). Somewhere up to a round million, perhaps? You would stay in prison until you'd shown a "serious commitment" to repay the debt (probably working at least 10 years at a reasonable job), at which point you would have the option of borrowing the rest of the money at whatever interest rate you could command. I would have a minimum sentence to prevent millionaires from murdering people with relative impunity.

Robin said...

Richard Allan,

Since the abolition of the death penalty, the amount of UNLAWFUL KILLINGS has gone up.It seems a glossed over fact.Was it in the researches you`d seen ?

Don said...

Anon said "Here's a thought: why not punish based purely on what the outcomes of an action are, not on what the court may suppose a person was thinking at the time?"
O.K here we go case 1.
Mother driving kids home from school. Roads are wet. Kids are playing up in the back seat. She looks back to tell them off, misses the red light until the last dmoment, skids to a halt 3 yards over the stop line. No one hits her no one cares.
Case 2 Mother driving kids home from school. Roads are wet. Kids are playing up in the back seat. She looks back to tell them off, misses the red light until the last moment, skids to a halt 3 yards over the stop line. School bus at the junction swerves to avoid her car. Turns over three fatalities. Should case two be punished to a grater extent than case one. There is no difference in the commission of the offence, the only difference is the outcome.
Don't get me wrong I am a great believer in the punishment fitting the crime, but it is not as easy as it first seems.
for the record my solution to the current crime problem would be. First offence, community punishment. Second offence a LONG sentence. This would give the prison service time to rehabilitate the offender which is what prison is for. It would also give these scum the incentive not to commit a second offence. There are only two reasons crime is commited regardless of what you may be told. Reason 1 they do not believe they will be caught.
Reason 2 they do not fear the consequences of being caught. To solve problem 1 more police. To solve problem 2 longer sentences.

The Happy Rampager said...

JohnB showing his true colours once again.

Calling someone who'd prefer a violent dangerous psycho be locked up without hope of release an 'authoritarian tyrant', because as we all know, if you can't go round punching people in the face whenever you feel like it, you can't claim this is a free country.

When it comes to crime, johnB would side with the psycho over anyone else every goddamn time.

John B said...

No, I called somebody who thought people should be locked up *without trial* an authoritarian tyrant. If you disagree with that, fuck you - our host certainly wouldn't.

On the tram stop attack, the Court of Appeal quashed the boys' murder conviction and then banned all reporting of the hearing aside from the result. This makes it hard to speculate on exactly what happened - however, my suspicion is that the Court of Appeal had a good reason for quashing the conviction rather than doing so for shits and giggles, and that the judges have a damn sight better idea of the facts of that case than anyone on this thread (my speculation, which is no more ill-informed than any of the others in this thread, is that the fact that the victim was a lairy abusive pisshead may have had some bearing on the case).

Oh, and cheers for the wishing of violence on me - always a winning and grown-up way to win an argument. I imagine I'll continue to live in a working-class inner-city area without facing any violence or lairyness, as I have done for the last 6ish years, but if I do get beaten up at any point then I'll let you know so you can crack open the fizz...

John B said...

Since the abolition of the death penalty, the amount of UNLAWFUL KILLINGS has gone up.It seems a glossed over fact.Was it in the researches you`d seen ?

The rising trend started before death penalty abolition, and was mirrored across most other categories of crime. Most sane commentators attribute it primarily to shifting social values.

(as a demonstration of why your argument fails: since the abolition of the death penalty, the number of Muslims in the UK has risen tenfold. This proves that Muslims would prefer to live in countries without the death penalty...)

Robin said...

john b,

The trend went up sharply after the death penalty was abolished even though certain categories of murder were reclassified such as manslaughter.
The point I was making was that "research" in this field is usually based around satatistics- so your statistic there can prove that muslims increase the murder rate.(also the amount of muslims living in muslim countries has increased so your argument is fallacious)
Explain why the murder rate has not gone down, when the amount of lethal weapons held by the public is more strictly controlled, the medical first aid and after care has improved dramatically and instant communications to the emergency services is commonplace.

John B said...

"The trend went up sharply after the death penalty was abolished even though certain categories of murder were reclassified such as manslaughter."

No it didn't, and no they weren't - it continued to rise after the death penalty was abolished at the same rate as it did in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and there weren't any recategorisations.

"Also the amount of muslims living in muslim countries has increased so your argument is fallacious)"

Yes, but the proportion of Muslims living in Muslim countries has declined (as the number of expats has increased), whereas the proportion of Muslims in the UK - and other countries without the death penalty - has risen.

Robin said...

john b,

You had better review your figures ,as unlawful killings had increased markedly after abolition, and there were recategorisations.
Why, after the three issues I mentioned above, hasn`t the murder rate declined ?
(what have you got against muslims ?)

The Happy Rampager said...

@ JohnB:

No, I called somebody who thought people should be locked up *without trial* an authoritarian tyrant. If you disagree with that, fuck you - our host certainly wouldn't.

Ah, but he didn't. He said nothing whatsoever about Delroy being locked up *without trial*. He simply said, 'Delroy I never want to see you free', which if you think about it, rather indicates that there would have to be a trial wouldn't there?

Disingenuous attempt to portray your kneejerk response as something it isn't. What we're left with, see, is you using the words, 'authoritarian tyrant' to describe someone who doesn't like violent scum.

John you have made your feelings on the subject abundently clear. I thank you.

The Happy Rampager said...

my speculation, which is no more ill-informed than any of the others in this thread, is that the fact that the victim was a lairy abusive pisshead may have had some bearing on the case

So in your opinion, would that fact have had more bearing than the following facts?

The court was told how Mr Greenwood, an alcoholic, was well-known in the local community for shouting abuse if provoked and that the two boys, who were both 14 at the time, were trying to provoke such a response from him on the day of the attack.

So from that we know who was responsible for the situation arising.

Judge Peter Collier QC, the Recorder of Leeds, said the teenagers began their attack by taunting Mr Greenwood, with Barlow throwing a mock punch and Gray threatening him with a penknife.

When Mr Greenwood responded by kicking out at the boys, Barlow punched him, causing him to fall to the floor.


I wonder why you felt it necessary to refer to the deceased as a 'lairy abusive pisshead' if not to create the impression that Greenwod was the one causing trouble for these innocent little laddies and not the other way round.

Or maybe you actually believe these lads weren't doing anything to him and their killing of a 'lairy abusive pisshead' was justiiable...quite at odds with your apparent attitude that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment for crime

John B said...

@ Robin: I'm looking at the statistics. I know the statistics. I've repeatedly blogged at the statistics. You aren't, don't, and haven't. Fuck off.

@ Rampager #1: Old Holborn said "Delroy I never want to see you free". Not "Delroy, if the facts are as stated by this article, I never want to see you free". He's pre-empting the court's decision, based on nothing more than a two paragraph press report. And that - nothing to do with whether or not 'scum' should be locked up - is what makes him an authoritarian idiot.

@ Rampager #2: the facts are: the boys were convicted of murder, despite not being guilty of it, because the jury were swayed by the horror of what happened. The Court of Appeal, which knows both the law and the facts of the case better than you, decided for reasons which it sadly declined to reveal, that the first conviction was wrongful. The second court convicted the boys of manslaughter. Again, I'm going to take the court's decisions over your angry rants and the press's emotive reporting...

Whoops said...

Well, I've read all your comments, and my opinion has swung one way, then the other, as I've been swayed by all your real and hypothetical cases, until I've come to the conclusion the Common Sense in sentencing is the only way to go. Of course the mother in the car shouldn't go to the chair because the outcome of her crime was worse in case (2), and of course the guy that goes around randomly assaulting people in the nioght should get banged up until he learns (maybe never) that it's not the right behaviour, but these sorts of cases are far too variable to EVER codify. And isn't that the point of judges? We just need to make sure we only appoint (independent) judges that have Common Sense. How to do THAT, now, there's the problem!

The Happy Rampager said...

@ JohnB

Sorry, Old Holborn said nothing about without trial, why don't you think about what you're doing now, are you seriously claiming that he should have said 'if the facts are as stated by this article' if he didn't want you to think he meant 'oh just go locking people up without trial'?

You put words in his mouth, you then affected to have a go at him on the basis of those words, that's called the 'straw man' fallacy as I'm sure you're aware. But again, we know that the real reason you didn't like what he said is because you instinctively side with the bully and the scum.

Regarding the little bastards who got done a favour by the courts, tell me, are you disputing the facts I posted that indicated the two killer kids were the ones who targetted Greenwood and not the other way round? Are you going to say that they didn't start harassing him or not? Hiding behind 'we must heed the decision of the courts even though we don't understand their reasoning' isn't going to cut it.

That's another example of your ugly behaviour. Smear Greenwood as a habitual troublemaker to create the impression that he is at fault and the lads weren't. Get provided with evidence that dispproves your supposition. Proceed to waffle on about how the courts know best instead of responding to the fact that you basically lied, in favour of some sadistic, evil little bastards.

Peregrine John said...

OH said what I was going to, so I hereby defer to him, and to Sir William:

When constabulary duty's to be done, a policeman's lot is not a happy one.

Robin said...

John b,

You are looking at skewed figures and you know it.Also if you want to tell me to F... O.. I`ll make you a GBH statistic.
I know I`ve won the argument when ==== like you get offensive, you loser.