keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,597
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Jul 10, 2023 20:22:24 GMT
If we have 2.5x the incarceration rate of say Germany, should we not be curious about that ? If we have 30% more than France, should we not be curious about why ? If we are (from memory) 3x that of Scandinavian countries should we not be curious about that ? Yet we still have higher crime rates. So if our actual objective is lower crime, less impact on society resulting from crime (both the act of, and the side effects) then shouldn't we look at ourselves in comparison and ask what we can learn ? Higher crime, higher incarceration rates. Those all come with negative societal outcomes and costs. Personally I think that should tweak our curiosity as to "why ?" and think about perhaps we are getting some things wrong. Rather than just knee jerk: build more prisons, lock more people up. . Ok let me throw this one out, I've never heard of cases from Europe where people on benefits are sanctioned, result they shoplift because they need food end up in court where they get fined, they can't pay the fines or if they do it pushes them further into poverty causing them to shoplift again. It's a vicious circle and I've seen someone in it, the end result was he got jailed for nicking 2 mars bars. Why did he get sanctioned believe it or not he was in court but the DWP refused to accept that as a valid reason. I also understand from European friends that they send nearly as many people to jail as we do however they tend to have far shorter sentences. this as an example www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64431903 yes he shouldn't have been drivng and it is tragic what happened but is jailing a man of 96 appropriate
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710 
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 10, 2023 20:39:35 GMT
If we have 2.5x the incarceration rate of say Germany, should we not be curious about that ? If we have 30% more than France, should we not be curious about why ? If we are (from memory) 3x that of Scandinavian countries should we not be curious about that ? Yet we still have higher crime rates. So if our actual objective is lower crime, less impact on society resulting from crime (both the act of, and the side effects) then shouldn't we look at ourselves in comparison and ask what we can learn ? Higher crime, higher incarceration rates. Those all come with negative societal outcomes and costs. Personally I think that should tweak our curiosity as to "why ?" and think about perhaps we are getting some things wrong. Rather than just knee jerk: build more prisons, lock more people up. . Ok let me throw this one out, I've never heard of cases from Europe where people on benefits are sanctioned, result they shoplift because they need food end up in court where they get fined, they can't pay the fines or if they do it pushes them further into poverty causing them to shoplift again. It's a vicious circle and I've seen someone in it, the end result was he got jailed for nicking 2 mars bars. Why did he get sanctioned believe it or not he was in court but the DWP refused to accept that as a valid reason. I also understand from European friends that they send nearly as many people to jail as we do however they tend to have far shorter sentences. this as an example www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64431903 yes he shouldn't have been drivng and it is tragic what happened but is jailing a man of 96 appropriate Definitely not - especially for non-violent crime like this. When you're dealing with risky pursuits, maybe because you're a surgeon, you're flying an aircraft or even driving a car, the slightest mistake can have terrible consequences. Does it mean we should jail everyone who makes mistakes whilst taking part in these activities? Especially when they are 96 for goodness sake. For me jail is the obvious place for criminals deliberately causing causing their victims to suffer.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 10, 2023 21:15:13 GMT
Ok let me throw this one out, I've never heard of cases from Europe where people on benefits are sanctioned, result they shoplift because they need food end up in court where they get fined, they can't pay the fines or if they do it pushes them further into poverty causing them to shoplift again. It's a vicious circle and I've seen someone in it, the end result was he got jailed for nicking 2 mars bars. Just going to put this here... www.lag.org.uk/article/206242/do-benefit-sanctions-breach-echr-article-3-"ARTICLE 3 - Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 638 
Likes: 866
|
Post by 09dolphin on Jul 11, 2023 4:43:46 GMT
If we have 2.5x the incarceration rate of say Germany, should we not be curious about that ? If we have 30% more than France, should we not be curious about why ? If we are (from memory) 3x that of Scandinavian countries should we not be curious about that ? Yet we still have higher crime rates. So if our actual objective is lower crime, less impact on society resulting from crime (both the act of, and the side effects) then shouldn't we look at ourselves in comparison and ask what we can learn ? Higher crime, higher incarceration rates. Those all come with negative societal outcomes and costs. Personally I think that should tweak our curiosity as to "why ?" and think about perhaps we are getting some things wrong. Rather than just knee jerk: build more prisons, lock more people up. . Ok let me throw this one out, I've never heard of cases from Europe where people on benefits are sanctioned, result they shoplift because they need food end up in court where they get fined, they can't pay the fines or if they do it pushes them further into poverty causing them to shoplift again. It's a vicious circle and I've seen someone in it, the end result was he got jailed for nicking 2 mars bars. Why did he get sanctioned believe it or not he was in court but the DWP refused to accept that as a valid reason. I also understand from European friends that they send nearly as many people to jail as we do however they tend to have far shorter sentences. this as an example www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64431903 yes he shouldn't have been drivng and it is tragic what happened but is jailing a man of 96 appropriate
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 11, 2023 5:18:55 GMT
If we have 2.5x the incarceration rate of say Germany, should we not be curious about that ? If we have 30% more than France, should we not be curious about why ? If we are (from memory) 3x that of Scandinavian countries should we not be curious about that ? Yet we still have higher crime rates. So if our actual objective is lower crime, less impact on society resulting from crime (both the act of, and the side effects) then shouldn't we look at ourselves in comparison and ask what we can learn ? Higher crime, higher incarceration rates. Those all come with negative societal outcomes and costs. Personally I think that should tweak our curiosity as to "why ?" and think about perhaps we are getting some things wrong. Rather than just knee jerk: build more prisons, lock more people up. . Ok let me throw this one out, I've never heard of cases from Europe where people on benefits are sanctioned, result they shoplift because they need food end up in court where they get fined, they can't pay the fines or if they do it pushes them further into poverty causing them to shoplift again. It's a vicious circle and I've seen someone in it, the end result was he got jailed for nicking 2 mars bars. Why did he get sanctioned believe it or not he was in court but the DWP refused to accept that as a valid reason. I also understand from European friends that they send nearly as many people to jail as we do however they tend to have far shorter sentences.this as an example www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64431903 yes he shouldn't have been drivng and it is tragic what happened but is jailing a man of 96 appropriate and hence lower incarceration rates. Unfortunately though, evidence based approaches to "crime and punishment" tend not to curry much favour with the popular media, the public and hence politicians. Instead the prevailing view tends to be "build more prisons" and "lock 'em up". Jailing someone who is 96 is almost certainly pointless. Unless one thinks its the only way you are going to prevent him doing the same thing again. But what is an appropriate punishment ? I think the answer here would be there simply isn't an "appropriate" punishment that could sensibly be applied, and hence one that is far more "lenient" should prevail because of age. What we should not lose sight of (pun not really intended) is the severity of what he did. He had been told by his optician that he was unfit to drive from an eye sight perspective. His decision to do so was therefore a deliberate act in the full knowledge that he should not do so, and his actions directly resulted in someone's death. The 'edge case' aspect of it is his age and therefore what point to jailing him (and cost). Of course its possible that he lacked cognitive function to understand what he had been told, but I suspect if that was the case it would have been taken into account. There is also another aspect here: what on earth was he doing still driving at that age at all ? EDIT: I also noted this bit, very easy to not notice if not reading the whole article: "Judge Williams said he believed Beer had not mentioned his medical treatment to the DVLA in order to care for his late wife who had dementia." Which adds another level of sadness to the whole thing.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 11, 2023 7:14:27 GMT
Ok let me throw this one out, I've never heard of cases from Europe where people on benefits are sanctioned, result they shoplift because they need food end up in court where they get fined, they can't pay the fines or if they do it pushes them further into poverty causing them to shoplift again. It's a vicious circle and I've seen someone in it, the end result was he got jailed for nicking 2 mars bars. Why did he get sanctioned believe it or not he was in court but the DWP refused to accept that as a valid reason. I also understand from European friends that they send nearly as many people to jail as we do however they tend to have far shorter sentences.this as an example www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64431903 yes he shouldn't have been drivng and it is tragic what happened but is jailing a man of 96 appropriate and hence lower incarceration rates. Unfortunately though, evidence based approaches to "crime and punishment" tend not to curry much favour with the popular media, the public and hence politicians. Instead the prevailing view tends to be "build more prisons" and "lock 'em up". Jailing someone who is 96 is almost certainly pointless. Unless one thinks its the only way you are going to prevent him doing the same thing again. But what is an appropriate punishment ? I think the answer here would be there simply isn't an "appropriate" punishment that could sensibly be applied, and hence one that is far more "lenient" should prevail because of age. What we should not lose sight of (pun not really intended) is the severity of what he did. He had been told by his optician that he was unfit to drive from an eye sight perspective. His decision to do so was therefore a deliberate act in the full knowledge that he should not do so, and his actions directly resulted in someone's death. The 'edge case' aspect of it is his age and therefore what point to jailing him (and cost). Of course its possible that he lacked cognitive function to understand what he had been told, but I suspect if that was the case it would have been taken into account. There is also another aspect here: what on earth was he doing still driving at that age at all ? EDIT: I also noted this bit, very easy to not notice if not reading the whole article: "Judge Williams said he believed Beer had not mentioned his medical treatment to the DVLA in order to care for his late wife who had dementia." Which adds another level of sadness to the whole thing. It's also worth adding that two years inside is the absolute minimum for death by dangerous driving - to which he pleaded guilty, and of which he is unequivocally guilty. So, yes, the judge was as lenient as it was possible for him to be. www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A"2A Meaning of dangerous driving.
(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 11, 2023 7:40:43 GMT
and hence lower incarceration rates. Unfortunately though, evidence based approaches to "crime and punishment" tend not to curry much favour with the popular media, the public and hence politicians. Instead the prevailing view tends to be "build more prisons" and "lock 'em up". Jailing someone who is 96 is almost certainly pointless. Unless one thinks its the only way you are going to prevent him doing the same thing again. But what is an appropriate punishment ? I think the answer here would be there simply isn't an "appropriate" punishment that could sensibly be applied, and hence one that is far more "lenient" should prevail because of age. What we should not lose sight of (pun not really intended) is the severity of what he did. He had been told by his optician that he was unfit to drive from an eye sight perspective. His decision to do so was therefore a deliberate act in the full knowledge that he should not do so, and his actions directly resulted in someone's death. The 'edge case' aspect of it is his age and therefore what point to jailing him (and cost). Of course its possible that he lacked cognitive function to understand what he had been told, but I suspect if that was the case it would have been taken into account. There is also another aspect here: what on earth was he doing still driving at that age at all ? EDIT: I also noted this bit, very easy to not notice if not reading the whole article: "Judge Williams said he believed Beer had not mentioned his medical treatment to the DVLA in order to care for his late wife who had dementia." Which adds another level of sadness to the whole thing. It's also worth adding that two years inside is the absolute minimum for death by dangerous driving - to which he pleaded guilty, and of which he is unequivocally guilty. So, yes, the judge was as lenient as it was possible for him to be. www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A"2A Meaning of dangerous driving.
(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."I don't think that is correct. For starters he was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months, which is therefore greater than the minimum sentencing guideline. Secondly, from a very quick look, I think the 2 years is only the sentencing guidelines. I do not know whether there is a statutory minimum, but the offences that have a legal minimum custodial sentence are few. Judges can go outside the sentencing guidelines in exceptional cases. A 96 year old and a custodial sentence is an "exceptional case", regardless of how one might feel that does or doesn't impact sentencing consideration.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 11, 2023 8:37:23 GMT
It's also worth adding that two years inside is the absolute minimum for death by dangerous driving - to which he pleaded guilty, and of which he is unequivocally guilty. So, yes, the judge was as lenient as it was possible for him to be. www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A"2A Meaning of dangerous driving.
(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."I don't think that is correct. For starters he was sentenced to 2 years and 4 months, which is therefore greater than the minimum sentencing guideline. Secondly, from a very quick look, I think the 2 years is only the sentencing guidelines. I do not know whether there is a statutory minimum, but the offences that have a legal minimum custodial sentence are few. Judges can go outside the sentencing guidelines in exceptional cases. A 96 year old and a custodial sentence is an "exceptional case", regardless of how one might feel that does or doesn't impact sentencing consideration. You're right, I missed the four months. And, tbf, that 2yr is before the discount for a guilty plea, too. So, clearly, the judge thought that the premeditation in ignoring the optician's advice was more serious than simple momentary bad driving. I wonder what an identical case, but for a driver <say> fifteen or twenty years younger, would have seen?
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Jul 11, 2023 16:28:55 GMT
I can't really compare Brits with another others in the ' northern european' area ,
except possibly Norwegians,
for 'sheer pigheaded bloody mindedness'.
It was pretty obvious the the 96 year old need to be banged up to comply.
They'd probably let him out for 'health reasons' pretty quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jul 11, 2023 20:03:27 GMT
The period is simple in law... its 7 years. that the "law" is simple: for IHT purposes, if you continue to live in it without paying a fair market rent, and certainly if you live in it rent free, then it will almost certainly be deemed to be a "gift with reservation of benefit". With the result that the 7 year gifting clock will never be deemed to have even started. Still, since this has now been pointed out to you several times, you are of course free to do your IHT planning on whatever false premise you wish to. Thanks.. my IHT planning is working just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jul 11, 2023 20:10:13 GMT
The period is simple in law... its 7 years. You seem to be missing the point that the 7 year rule will only apply if the person gifting the property no longer continues to live in it or they pay the recipient full market rent for doing so. This info is included in the link you posted. Mmm.. i think you should revisit this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jul 11, 2023 20:12:43 GMT
I can't really compare Brits with another others in the ' northern european' area , except possibly Norwegians, for 'sheer pigheaded bloody mindedness'.It was pretty obvious the the 96 year old need to be banged up to comply. They'd probably let him out for 'health reasons' pretty quickly. Makes you proud.. well it does me. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 11, 2023 20:38:33 GMT
You seem to be missing the point that the 7 year rule will only apply if the person gifting the property no longer continues to live in it or they pay the recipient full market rent for doing so. This info is included in the link you posted. Mmm.. i think you should revisit this post. Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jul 11, 2023 20:41:41 GMT
Mmm.. i think you should revisit this post. Why? cos its wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 11, 2023 20:48:59 GMT
I don't believe it is, but unless you can be more specific about what you think is wrong, I'm at a loss to know how I can help. The rules seem pretty clear to all other posters and in the link provided by yourself.
|
|
