Bertie the bus
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,791
People seem to forget that he might be suffering from "mental health issues" so he, himself, is a victim. Apparently...
The court heard Corr, a customer service advisor, of Bird Hall Road, has nine previous convictions for 14 offences.Absolutely disgraceful, 14 previous convictions and walks away
In May he was convicted of criminal damage after smashing up a pub TV when he became ‘enraged at a VAR decision in a football match’.
Corr pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced to 200 hours community service and ordered to pay £100 compensation with £175 costs.
That's splitting hairs. What matters is 14 offences. Even if there were 'only' 9 it would be equally appalling. Unfortunately we allow people like this to get away with it.The court heard Corr, a customer service advisor, of Bird Hall Road, has nine previous convictions for 14 offences.
I don't believe it is.That's splitting hairs.
I agree, in part.What matters is 14 offences. Even if there were 'only' 9 it would be equally appalling.
We are far too soft on violent offences. I know some people strongly disagree with me but I stand by it.
It's all well and good saying that "we are far too soft on violent offences" but if, as seems to be the case with this individual, the root cause is that he himself has been the victim of a violent crime, and is now suffering from PTSD, I do question the value of a criminal sentence when, perhaps, appropriate mental health treatment might be a more effective way of preventing him reoffending.That's splitting hairs. What matters is 14 offences. Even if there were 'only' 9 it would be equally appalling. Unfortunately we allow people like this to get away with it.
And let's face it, realistically someone who has committed 14 offences will no doubt have done far more that they weren't convicted for.
We are far too soft on violent offences. I know some people strongly disagree with me but I stand by it.
It's all well and good saying that "we are far too soft on violent offences" but if, as seems to be the case with this individual, the root cause is that he himself has been the victim of a violent crime, and is now suffering from PTSD, I do question the value of a criminal sentence when, perhaps, appropriate mental health treatment might be a more effective way of preventing him reoffending.
Hence my, "if".His defence said "he was thought to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after being the victim of a knife attack". It wasn't stated that he has actually been diagnosed with PTSD.
Also, do we know if any of his 9 previous convictions occurred before the knife attack?
Disgraceful sentencing.
He assaulted a woman in front of everyone. And his daughter.
And he has the nerve to blame someone else. Utter scumbag. Let’s hope he gets his just deserts and someone deals with in like he thinks he can behave.
This is why people don’t believe in the UK justice system. Every excuse is swallowed hook line and sinker to avoid putting more people into our already full prisons.
He needs keeping apart from his daughter. What will the poor girl learn with a violent father ... apart from that’s how men Behave. Let’s hope all of the train cos ban him. And hang the consequences.
They all claim it’s someone else. There’s a reason why someone else is to blame. People make excuses and say anything to avoid jail. He is an ambarrasent of a man. But I suspect he doesn’t really care. And people rarely just get stabbed. Most of the time it’s criminal idiots stabbing other criminal idiots . I think we know where this one is...
Good postThat's splitting hairs. What matters is 14 offences. Even if there were 'only' 9 it would be equally appalling. Unfortunately we allow people like this to get away with it.
And let's face it, realistically someone who has committed 14 offences will no doubt have done far more that they weren't convicted for.
We are far too soft on violent offences. I know some people strongly disagree with me but I stand by it.
Well the restorative approach did not work the previous nine times so......It is evident from your post that the kind of justice you are looking for is retributive justice. You want to see the perpetrator get his "just deserts" and (possibly) thrown into prison or, going back a many few years, put in stocks, humiliated or flogged in public. I include in there the dehumanising of people who commit crimes by using labels like scumbag, thug, pervert, monster et cetera which are casually and routinely dished out by the public and tabloid media. What does this achieve? Perhaps a very brief feel good factor for the victim? A release of anger and a 'hurrah!' from the baying mob? But it provides no long-term benefit to society, if anything it causes more harm. Imprisoning people is costly and does very little to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes often resulting in them coming out more hardened than when they went in. The labeling of people who commit crimes will have long-term repercussions preventing them from turning their lives around and making a more positive contribution to society.
Alternatively you can take a restorative approach to justice whereby you seek to achieve a positive outcome for all parties and for society to be bettered too. There are various ways to do this and Norway as a great example of where restorative justice works. One of the lowest incarceration rates in the world and a very low crime rate.
The UK justice system is a bit of a mixed bag (in terms of being a restorative or retributive system) but is thankfully we are (in general) a civilised society where by and large we seek to find reasons why people commit crime and find means to try and prevent them happening them again. But as we live in an increasingly polarised society with a liberal centre left views on one side and right of centre on the other, there is a bit of a battle between what kind of justice we "dish out". Restorative justice is done half-heatedly with a bit of retributive justice thrown in for the sake of balance. The inevitable failure of this hotchpotch justice is more often than not wrongly attributed to the restorative element of the justice. I believe the lack of forgiveness in UK society has a detrimental effect on restorative justice.
Now, before I'm called a soft-touch liberal-lefty do-gooder snowflake terrorist sympathiser, I wholly understand that in the immediate moments, hours maybe days after being a victim of crime that it's human nature to want to see the person or persons who have just hit you in the face suffer the same humiliation plus a lot more. But once that immediate anger has receded to wish that humiliation continues on indefinitely is not justice by vengeance. (If you have seen the episode of Black Mirror "White Bear" you'll see what I mean)
Retributive justice may work in totalitarian and oppressive societies (China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia et cetera) but I believe it's a backward thinking mentality to think it should be applied in a free and liberal society.
Well that's an understatement. Getting away with murder would be a more accurate statement.We are far too soft on violent offences.
If people don’t want to be labelled as filth they shouldn’t behave like filth. All this hug a hoodie nonsense is precisely that – nonsense. They just take the huggers for the mugs they are.I include in there the dehumanising of people who commit crimes by using labels like scumbag, thug, pervert, monster et cetera which are casually and routinely dished out by the public and tabloid media. What does this achieve? Perhaps a very brief feel good factor for the victim? A release of anger and a 'hurrah!' from the baying mob? But it provides no long-term benefit to society, if anything it causes more harm. Imprisoning people is costly and does very little to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes often resulting in them coming out more hardened than when they went in. The labeling of people who commit crimes will have long-term repercussions preventing them from turning their lives around and making a more positive contribution to society.
Alternatively you can take a restorative approach to justice whereby you seek to achieve a positive outcome for all parties and for society to be bettered too. There are various ways to do this and Norway as a great example of where restorative justice works. One of the lowest incarceration rates in the world and a very low crime rate.
I do have to question why some people seem to prefer to offer 'treatment' to a man who has just punched an innocent member of staff in the face.It's all well and good saying that "we are far too soft on violent offences" but if, as seems to be the case with this individual, the root cause is that he himself has been the victim of a violent crime, and is now suffering from PTSD, I do question the value of a criminal sentence when, perhaps, appropriate mental health treatment might be a more effective way of preventing him reoffending.
I tend to agree. Rehabilitation is more important than punishmentIt's all well and good saying that "we are far too soft on violent offences" but if, as seems to be the case with this individual, the root cause is that he himself has been the victim of a violent crime, and is now suffering from PTSD, I do question the value of a criminal sentence when, perhaps, appropriate mental health treatment might be a more effective way of preventing him reoffending.
That's probably the most offensive thing I've ever read on here.People like yourself actually encourage these people and are responsible - indirectly - for people getting violently assaulted. I would find that difficult to live with. IMO of course.
DarloRich said:Could we just save time by a mod adding a note like @yorkie has done to every thread like this and then locking it as debate isnt possible and sensible posts are lost in an orgy of self righteous indignation
I spent time arguing for proper sentencing whilst studying law with my oxford tutors. They were all soft on crime. The difference from one lefty published specialist tuto on rights of criminals when he had his own bicycle stolen was marked. He lived in a bubble. Textbooks was where he’d learned it all. He was all for ‘dominion’, as it was then... that the idea is the least impact on everyone for punishment. He was apoplectic when a Blackird Leys toerag nicked his bike. Wanted him strung up.
Punishment and sentencing many aims. Protection, deterrence are also pretty high. Do we care more about the offender, or the victim? If you ask the People, they want stiff sentences, they want incarceration, they want to ensure that they are safe from violent criminals. They don’t want them out there. Others believe they can change people and rehabilitate and ‘cure’ them. And those tend tend to be fanatical that they’re right...
If this cretin were locked up, he’d not have been out to punch this poor lady. It’s fairly clear that if you remove a small number of people from circulation, crime levels plummet. Huge cost and emotional savings for society.
New York became a safe place to walk. Because of due process and proper punishment. Not crime control and empathy. I am off for breakfast with Judge Jeffries and Harold Callahan.
To give some sort of comparison a thug who pushed rather than punched a traffic warden in Sheerness was jailed for two years for GBH rather than assault at Maidstone Crown Court.
The disparity between the two sentences is quite remarkable.