It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

English duo get 4 years for inciting riots on facebook

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 



That's a bit of a fallacy, if jail is about deterrence, then 20 years inside for parking on zig zags should be mandatory


Not at all, society does not have to deem all crime worthy of equal deterrence.

20 years for parking on zigzags might work but it wouldn’t be worth it for the benefit that it would bring to society, hence it’s not done.

However inciting a riot has such a social and economic cost that deterring it is much more important than deterring a minor parking offence.


and why then are burgularies, muggings and assaults not dealt with more severely?


Perhaps they should be, I didn’t say that the judiciary is perfect I asked why this specific sentence is disgusting.

There are also other reasons that make deterrence less workable in some circumstances, for example some crimes are habitual or caused by economic conditions. Poverty does not make one go on facebook to incite a riot nor is it a habitual act so it may be more likely deterred by a harsh sentence.


These lads got 4 years cos the powers that be are corrupt. Any hint of organised opposition by the lower classes always gets stamped on. Whether its just or no.


What were they opposing? Can you show me any banners? What political chants were they singing?

If this is an attempt by the powers that be to crush dissent then why didn’t we see the same kind of response to the UKuncut or student protests?

reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


But what is proportionate? Surely that is a subjective notion that should be determined by society as a whole isn’t it? In the absence of any means to directly consult the public we elect people to parliament to decide for us, hopefully taking our views into account; they have set guidelines for cases like this and they say that a sentence of up to 10 years is proportionate. The judge has decided that 4 years is in fact warranted. And as I said earlier it seems that the general feeling for some years has been that we need harsher sentencing in the UK.

The fact is that these two had every reason to believe that their actions would have resulted in arson, theft and violence; why should it matter whether they failed or not when the knowledge and intent was the same?




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Mike, you make some valid points and I acknowledge them but where my own concern in this lies is with the precedent in case law that has been set.

I'm sure you are aware of the Sentencing Guideline Council. When a sentencing judge, or in this case a recorder comes to figure out a sentence he/she looks to precedent and guidelines. What sentence have similar offences warranted and were they successfully appealed. To my knowledge there is no precedent for this particular offence in this context so the recorder (a part time judge!) has set the precedent and he has set it FAR too high.

There is no doubt in my mind that this will be seen by the High Court as a "manifestly excessive" sentence and it will be significantly reduced.

With regards to comparing this sentence to the punishments handed down to sexual offenders, we're comparing apples to oranges. We must find a similar offence and apply the sentencing rules. Unfortunately there is nothing similar out there so this recorder was able to ride roughshod over fair justice and make a political point.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PW229
 


Perhaps they are giving large sentences just to scare people while knowing full well that appeals will get them greatly reduced. It could be a possibility...



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PW229
 



To my knowledge there is no precedent for this particular offence in this context so the recorder (a part time judge!) has set the precedent and he has set it FAR too high.


But what makes it far too high?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PW229
 



We must find a similar offence and apply the sentencing rules.


Found this, its pretty much the same crime.


Mahfouz was released on $3,355 bail, Noor Ayman Nour, an activist with the "No Military Trials for Civilians group", said on Sunday, from outside the military prosecution's office in Cairo.

Shortly after speaking to Al-Masry Al-Youm, an Egyptian news website, Nour was also detained by military police but later released.

Lawyer Ali Atef said prosecutors ordered Mahfouz to pay the fine or face 15 days in jail pending the setting of a date for her trial. If convicted, she could face up to three years in jail


english.aljazeera.net...

So she could face up to 3 years in a country that isn't democratic, yet in a society deem "free" you will get 4 years off the cuff.

Whatta joke.

ALS
edit on 17-8-2011 by ALOSTSOUL because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
This is the statement from the CPS. Adds a bit of fact to this discussion. They could have got ten yearsm, so four sounds a good compromise.

CPS Statement

Regards



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Personally I think the way this has been handled is disgusting.. talk about the courts bowing to political pressure and handing down politically mandated sentences.

I am surprised Cameron was not the one sitting in judgement and handing down the sentences himself.. I am sure he would have enjoyed that.

As much as the riots where utterly disgusting so is this abuse of power.. which will only make the situation worse.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


They committed the crime and admitted it. Its not like they have been railroaded.

They have been extremely stupid and as a result have been used to make a very public example. They pleaded guilty so it can all be rammed through quick for headlines.

The lesson to take from it is surely that if something is illegal and stupid on real life so it is on social networking sites. You wouldn't stand at the side of the road with a sign saying 'riot here tonight at 9pm - bring your own bats' this shows you cant do it on Facebook either.

I'm not particularly sympathetic. Idiots like this give the unscrupulous cover to take away freedoms.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


The similar offence has to be have been sentenced within the English judicial system; it can’t just be any similar offence anywhere otherwise we’d have the same justice system as Zimbabwe!

Even so I’d argue there is a huge moral difference between protest against a dictatorship and looting for the sake of looting.

reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


No one is abusing their power or handing out politically motivated sentences, it has been said many times in the thread that the sentencing guidelines for this offence allow up to 10 years imprisonment.

The reason the sentences are much harsher than usual is because the rioting is an aggravating factor.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
This is the statement from the CPS. Adds a bit of fact to this discussion. They could have got ten yearsm, so four sounds a good compromise.

CPS Statement

Regards


Maximum sentences are never to be used as a guideline unless the offence is of such gravity that only a maximum sentence will suffice. In fact, maximum sentences are not the maximum, the judge can deviate if he can satisfy that it is "in the public interest" to do so.

Saying they're "lucky" they only got 4 years when they could have gotten 10 is patently ridiculous. The maximum penalty for fraud is 10 years but would we say to an individual who received a 12 month sentence for defrauding £1 that he was "lucky" because he could have gotten 10 years? Of course not.

The CPS report states that these men were "previously of good character." This is legalise for no previous convictions. So we have two men that have no doubt acted irresponsibly, they have no records to speak of and one of them admitted he was blind drunk when he made the Farcebook group and when confronted with the realisation of what he had done the next day immediately removed the group. They both pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity (in the Magistrates Court) and both co-operated fully with the police. No actual harm came of their misguided foibles. What COULD have happened should not be in the sentencing judges mind, he should be sentencing based on what DID happen. One of them did nothing at all, he passed out drunk shortly after making the group. The other rather farcically was the only person to turn up for his "event" and was promptly arrested (I'd like to think the police report contained the words "moron" and "idiot" liberally).

I'd like to state this. I have been impressed with the level of debate that has been going on in this thread. It has been intelligent and civil. This is an emotive subject that many of us will never agree on. I'll make my point, others will counter that point with their own. I welcome that and hope that civility will reign supreme.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 



Even so I’d argue there is a huge moral difference between protest against a dictatorship and looting for the sake of looting.


Not in the eyes of their respective governments (or dictatorships).

The point of the example was to show how this sentence is particually harsh even compared to lesser nations.

ALS



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noviz
reply to post by PW229
 


Perhaps they are giving large sentences just to scare people while knowing full well that appeals will get them greatly reduced. It could be a possibility...


Indeed, an insightful observation and one I have myself put forward in discussion with friends and colleagues. It would also explain the staggering rate of remand for the accused. Remand them to custody for sentencing at Crown Court and when Crown sentences they are given "time served." A short sharp shock.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
I just heard that people wanted them to get LONGER!!

Damn this country is finished.

ALS


This country was finished a long time ago.

These idiots should have been given community service at most.

Sure, what happened last week was shocking. No more shocking than the M.P's expenses scandal or the admittance of corruption in our Police forces.

And before anyone comes back with the M.P's didn't set fire to buildings, neither did these two.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 



They committed the crime and admitted it. Its not like they have been railroaded.


Absolutely no doubt in my mind they have been rail roaded and to claim otherwise risks insulting all the other victims in the UK who have been or are going through our legal system.

I recently lost a friend.. the killer admitted manslaughter and although that took a year to get to court he got a 1 year sentence... and I do not kid myself in thinking if that trial took place after this one the outcome would be any different. and this is where I am coming from.. and on this I stand my ground in stating the way the courts are behaving is utterly disgusting.

When compared to other victims in the UK this smacks of a political agenda with the courts bowing to political pressure handing down politically mandated sentences.

Do not mistake my words for condoning the rioters or for calling on harsher sentencing as I do not feel we should become the worlds jailers as that is what would happen if we start jailing everyone who does the smallest thing wrong or handing down harsher sentences to everyone.

Our system of justice should hand down exactly that. It should be free of political bias and should hand out the same level of justice for everyone and on this our systems fails.. our system fails miserably and this only goes to prove how broken the system is and how easy it is for the system to be manipulated by those with power.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
This is ridiculous! Sex offenders do less time in this # country. It will be curfews and check points next, c if im wrong(Hope i am).



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


By rail-roaded I meant fitted up, as in falsely convicted. I don't believe that is the case. This went through so quickly because they pleaded guilty and there was an incentive to get it done.

With regards to the actual sentencing. Theres no doubt there is an element of 'making an example' going on. However under the relevant law the sentencing for incitement reflects the crime that is being incited. So if you are found guilty of incitement to murder the sentence reflects the severity of murder, if its riot then the sentence reflects the severity of rioting. The fact that no rioting actually occurred is not relevant.

Dont misunderstand me, i'm not defending the UK court system as a shining example of common sense generally. Its partly because its been so broken that people thought they could loot/riot and get away with it.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I bet the rioters themselves won't even get half of that time in prison.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by angus1745

I think the funniest part is that they didn't even manage to incite any rioting but they still got jailed. When did the UK turn into China? I cant help feeling a wee bit sorry for these two muppets.


The fact that they DIDN'T manage to incite violence/rioting is reason enough to NOT give them 4 years.
FOUR YEARS! MY GOD! They could have screwed the taxpayer for thousands and got less. They could have committed armed robbery and atleast DESERVED the time.

This makes me laugh, i feel so bad for these kids. Yeah, they wanted to commit crime, but they didnt. They couldnt. Obviously no one listed to em, therefore people must know that these two are jokers.

If these riots have proven anything its how people of different classes get treated by the law.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by maskfan
 


It was to make an example to deter people from using social media to incite rioting (and by extension discourage criticizing the government, organizing protests etc. on said forums)

I don't agree with the sentencing, but that's my take.
edit on 17-8-2011 by StripedBandit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I think talking about the sentences other crimes get is pointless, all it shows is that we have a broken justice system in the England, and we allready knew that. So instead lets simply focus on this jail sentence and this one alone.


4 years is perfectly acceptable considering they were attempting to start riots, not protests but riots. They were trying to cause violence on a mass scale throughout the streets, leading to damage, theft, almost certainly injury and as seen in other parts of the country possibly death.

If somebody threatens to burgle your household, then gets arrested and put in prison for it would you still complain?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join