Don't put burglars in jail (unless they hurt someone)

[JohnRich 4]

News from the UK:

Don't put burglars in jail (unless they hurt someone)

"Burglars should not be jailed unless they cause damage or hurt someone when committing their crime, Government advisers said yesterday. But its report acknowledged that some experts had expressed 'grave concern' over the advice..."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html

If there's no substantial punishment for burglary, won't that just encourage more burglaries?

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html

What, no UFO sightings to report in the Mail today?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html

What, no UFO sightings to report in the Mail today?

Heard of one in Chicago, but it turned out to be a Mooney shooting toy rockets.

Luckily, it missed the IRS building.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

News from the UK:

Don't put burglars in jail (unless they hurt someone)

"Burglars should not be jailed unless they cause damage or hurt someone when committing their crime, Government advisers said yesterday. But its report acknowledged that some experts had expressed 'grave concern' over the advice..."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html

If there's no substantial punishment for burglary, won't that just encourage more burglaries?

Of course burglars need to be jailed, but to pretend deterrence works as you've stated is also absurd.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

News from the UK:

Don't put burglars in jail (unless they hurt someone)

"Burglars should not be jailed unless they cause damage or hurt someone when committing their crime, Government advisers said yesterday. But its report acknowledged that some experts had expressed 'grave concern' over the advice..."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html

If there's no substantial punishment for burglary, won't that just encourage more burglaries?

Of course burglars need to be jailed, but to pretend deterrence works as you've stated is also absurd.

Maybe; but there's a difference between "encouragement" and "non-deterrence". I've found that as much as deterrence is popularly over-valued by some, it's also popularly under-valued by others. I'd think that for people (especially adults) who are either less-than-hardened or less-than-desperate, there is some deterrent effect to stiff penalties for residential burglary. I also agree that an open policy of very soft penalties for residential burglary might very well encourage some to attempt it who might otherwise be deterred by the likelihood of jail time if they're caught.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

News from the UK:

Don't put burglars in jail (unless they hurt someone)

"Burglars should not be jailed unless they cause damage or hurt someone when committing their crime, Government advisers said yesterday. But its report acknowledged that some experts had expressed 'grave concern' over the advice..."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html

If there's no substantial punishment for burglary, won't that just encourage more burglaries?

Of course burglars need to be jailed, but to pretend deterrence works as you've stated is also absurd.

Maybe; but there's a difference between "encouragement" and "non-deterrence". I've found that as much as deterrence is popularly over-valued by some, it's also popularly under-valued by others. I'd think that for people (especially adults) who are either less-than-hardened or less-than-desperate, there is some deterrent effect to stiff penalties for residential burglary. I also agree that an open policy of very soft penalties for residential burglary might very well encourage some to attempt it who might otherwise be deterred by the likelihood of jail time if they're caught.

In order to encourage it a person must "be wired" in such a way to embrace the idea of entering another person's house for the purpose of taking their stuff. I just don't think soft laws would encourage one bit a person "not wired" like that and "rewire" them to be thiefs. Laws encourage or deter very few, other than tax laws. Most people don't have the capacity to steal and do not need deterring, some are just rotten people and cannot be deterred, teenagers are in the fringe and deterrence can work.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In order to encourage it a person must "be wired" in such a way to embrace the idea of entering another person's house for the purpose of taking their stuff. I just don't think soft laws would encourage one bit a person "not wired" like that and "rewire" them to be thiefs.

Okay, but for those already "wired" to be burglars, lack of punishment is a problem.

If they get caught committing a burglary, and you just turn them loose back out on the street, they're certainly likely to keep committing more. Thus, it "encourages" them to keep doing it, because getting caught doesn't cost them any penalty.

On the other hand, if you keep them in jail for a while, they're most certainly NOT going to commit any more burglaries while they're in jail. Thus, the number of burglaries will decline. Now you can't keep 'em in prison forever, but the longer you incarcerate them, the longer it will be before they can repeat offend.

So when it comes to no jail time, or long jail time - I vote for long.

Trivializing the crime of burglary as they suggest, makes it no worse a crime then a minor traffic ticket, and that's wrong. Having one's home invaded, should be more serious than that.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

A few years ago the Liberal Party of Canada attempted to water down a crime bill. What the Liberals wanted to do was ensure that people who commit armed robbery, arson and auto theft should not have to go to jail and instead only serve their sentences at their homes under house arrest. That is correct, you heard me right. Liberals (authors of the infamous Canadian Gun Registry) feel people who use their firearms in armed robbery crimes should not have to go to prison.

Thankfully when then public was told about this, Liberals backed down and this insanity never (at least not yet) became law.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pbwing 0]

Quote

A few years ago the Liberal Party of Canada attempted to water down a crime bill. What the Liberals wanted to do was ensure that people who commit armed robbery, arson and auto theft should not have to go to jail and instead only serve their sentences at their homes under house arrest. That is correct, you heard me right. Liberals (authors of the infamous Canadian Gun Registry) feel people who use their firearms in armed robbery crimes should not have to go to prison.

Thankfully when then public was told about this, Liberals backed down and this insanity never (at least not yet) became law.

Not quite sure if that's right. Conditional sentencing was passed by the Liberals in 1996 as an option for justices to consider. House Arrest was an option for a variety of offences including drug related and possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes.

In 2008, the Conservatives removed that as a option for sentencing for serious crimes. I'm not sure that the Liberals ever 'wanted to ensure' that everyone convicted of a serious crime be automatically placed under house arrest.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You can defend the Liberals all you want ... but they and their Marxist NDP allies and their Separatist Bloc Quebecois pals did indeed attempt to water down a bill which would allow armed robbers, arsonists and auto thieves to serve their time under house arrest.

Quote

During the last Parliament, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois voted together to ensure that numerous serious crimes would still be punishable by house arrest. A re-elected Harper government will make the crimes ineligible for house arrest. The list includes:

* Serious property crimes, such as robbery, breaking and entering, and arson.
* Weapons offences, such as possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose..
* Home invasion.
* Serious vehicular crimes, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm or death..
* Drug trafficking.
* Kidnapping and trafficking in persons.

http://www.fpj.ca/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=346

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pbwing 0]

Quote

You can defend the Liberals all you want ... but they and their Marxist NDP allies and their Separatist Bloc Quebecois pals did indeed attempt to water down a bill which would allow armed robbers, arsonists and auto thieves to serve their time under house arrest.

Quote

During the last Parliament, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois voted together to ensure that numerous serious crimes would still be punishable by house arrest. A re-elected Harper government will make the crimes ineligible for house arrest. The list includes:

* Serious property crimes, such as robbery, breaking and entering, and arson.
* Weapons offences, such as possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose..
* Home invasion.
* Serious vehicular crimes, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm or death..
* Drug trafficking.
* Kidnapping and trafficking in persons.

http://www.fpj.ca/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=346

It's never been my attempt to 'defend' Liberals. What I prefer is non biased, fact based discussion.

That quote is taken for the Prime Minister during a campaing. Of course it's going to be inflammitory.

Like I said originally, the intent of the Liberal changes in 1996 were to make it an option, not make it a requirement to use house arrest for some violent crimes.

You said they wanted it to be mandatory for house arrest and I called you out on it. Simple as that.

[captain1976 0]

I vote for jail, but if I catch 'em in the act, they won't be going to any jail, just the cemetery

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257309/Dont-burglars-jail-unless-hurt--courts-told.html

What, no UFO sightings to report in the Mail today?

You just have to understand JR's mindset. He's pro-death penalty for people performing mentalist tricks on TV and I think most of us will probably burglary is way beyond that.

I do think if you look at his recent postings you'll see the severity of retribution he's looking for.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I guess you were not paying attention to the HoC in the fall of 2006 when the Liberals, NDP and Bloc attempted to gut Bill C-9. Not your fault, they are all clowns in the HoC (every last one of them). You won't find references of this water down attempt in the official Bill C-9 documents because the tactics of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc failed. But that does not change history. That does not change the long history the LPC has for supporting criminals.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pbwing 0]

Quote

I guess you were not paying attention to the HoC in the fall of 2006 when the Liberals, NDP and Bloc attempted to gut Bill C-9. Not your fault, they are all clowns in the HoC (every last one of them). You won't find references of this water down attempt in the official Bill C-9 documents because the tactics of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc failed. But that does not change history. That does not change the long history the LPC has for supporting criminals.

Actually, I do pay attention (I know, that kinda makes be a sucker for punishment).

What the biggest contention the opposition had to Bill C-9 - along with a number of other groups including the Canadian Bar Association, was that it removed any sort of judicial discretion WRT conditional sentencing. It truly was a knee jerk reaction on the part of the Conservatives in order to fulfill a campaign promise.

It's interesting that you are very critical of the NDP in this case, but without their support, the bill never would passed.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You just have to understand JR's mindset. He's pro-death penalty for people performing mentalist tricks on TV and I think most of us will probably burglary is way beyond that.

If you're referring to the "sorcery" thread, then you completely misunderstood my response. What I was writing about was bigotry towards muslims in general, because of the actions of a few. It was not support for the few mullahs who have sentenced the mentalist to death.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What, no UFO sightings to report in the Mail today?

I didn't look for them - I didn't realize you were such a fan of UFO's.

Here's the same story from the Telegraph, so I guess it's got to be true now, UFO's or not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7422313/Burglars-can-still-escape-prison-despite-Lord-Chief-Justice-demand.html

And the Mirror:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/12/good-thieves-spared-prison-115875-22105200/

Oh wait, um, the Telegraph reports upon UFO's too:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?queryText=ufo&Search=Search

And the Mirror:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/search.cfm?what=ufo&Search=Search

Oh no! The BBC is also doing it!
http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?scope=all&tab=ns&q=ufo

Gosh, I guess you just cant' trust anyone. If they report upon UFO's, then everything else they say must be a lie! Isn't there one single legitimate no-UFO source of news in England? What are the people of England to do for news? Oh woe is them - an entire country full of illegitimate newspapers!

If I run across any UFO stories, I'll be sure to send them to you.

I look forward to a response from you, that is as lame as the one to which I replied here.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Okay, but for those already "wired" to be burglars, lack of punishment is a problem.

That was never indispute between us, just that it IS punishment and NOT deterrence, that is the issue.

Quote

If they get caught committing a burglary, and you just turn them loose back out on the street, they're certainly likely to keep committing more. Thus, it "encourages" them to keep doing it, because getting caught doesn't cost them any penalty.

You're confusing deterrence with incapacitation, it is the latter, the former is a fairly tale.

Quote

On the other hand, if you keep them in jail for a while, they're most certainly NOT going to commit any more burglaries while they're in jail. Thus, the number of burglaries will decline. Now you can't keep 'em in prison forever, but the longer you incarcerate them, the longer it will be before they can repeat offend.

Right, you incapactiate them, to deter them you have to change their mind, not merely their address. Deterrence must have the element of choice, merely incapacitating them doesn't change their mind, it just disables or incapacitiates them. You might hear of 2 types of deterrence under the fairy tale:

- General Deterrence
- This is when I get punsihed and others see this and decide not to go down that path.

- Specific or Special Deterrence
- This is when I get punished and I don't want to get punished again, so I change my mind on that behavior again.

There is no specific deterrence with the death penalty, there is no choice. And to assert general deterrence with the DP you would have to show a decrease in the murder rate as executions rise, and there is no constant, repeatable data for this.

Quote

So when it comes to no jail time, or long jail time - I vote for long.

For multi-time offenders, but too much jail time as with drug crimes does nothing to help the matter either. How about education while in prison for 1st offenders so they have a stake in society when they get out, rather than dump them on the streets so they go back to their old ways? Of course that would be yucky and liberal so we'll just advocate the cycle and not give them education so they can get out and revictimize another innocent person; sounds like a conservative wet dream.

Quote

Trivializing the crime of burglary as they suggest, makes it no worse a crime then a minor traffic ticket, and that's wrong. Having one's home invaded, should be more serious than that.

Of course. But teh other isssue is that of enforcement. I had a dirty pig play a role in the robbing of my house, his dept refused to even write a report on any of the people or the incident. Basically, the country is a toilet, is it worse than all? No. better than some, worse than others; it is what it is, just don't get absorbed by the deterrence rhetoric; it's BS.

[kawisixer01 0]

Perhaps we should go to the methods of some arab countries. You touch someone elses shit you lose a finger or a hand. It's pretty cut and dry. My stuff is my stuff and your is yours. Don't touch my stuff. I work hard to earn my stuff and NOBODY has a right to touch it. I catch you touching my stuff and you are going to wish the cops caught you. I have absolutely no patience for lazy pukes that don't know the meaning of respecting other peoples things and earning things in life. The damn government gives enough shit away to the "poor and underprivelaged" funded by my tax dollars already.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Perhaps we should go to the methods of some arab countries. You touch someone elses shit you lose a finger or a hand. It's pretty cut and dry. My stuff is my stuff and your is yours. Don't touch my stuff. I work hard to earn my stuff and NOBODY has a right to touch it. I catch you touching my stuff and you are going to wish the cops caught you. I have absolutely no patience for lazy pukes that don't know the meaning of respecting other peoples things and earning things in life. The damn government gives enough shit away to the "poor and underprivelaged" funded by my tax dollars already.

I wasn't expecting such a cogent (look it up) response to the reality of deterrence theory. Too bad you weren't born 200 years ago, but by today's standards and laws, you cannot kill or harm someone in most states to defend property. Now if you try to stop them from taking it and they assault you, then you can defend yourself, but shooting someone in teh back, other than hillbilly states, constitutes assault/murder, etc.

[skyrider 0]

My gawd...this sounds like a joke, I can;t believe what I just read from the OP's Link!

[shropshire 0]

Quote

The damn government gives enough shit away to the "poor and underprivelaged" funded by my tax dollars already.

Hey, they're not OUR tax Dollars ... they're the governments and you get the government that you deserve - Harsh but true

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[BillyVance 34]

That is fucked up. In a country that has banned gun ownership, they want to keep burglars out of jail as long as they don't hurt anybody while committing their crimes? Fuck that bullshit.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

That is fucked up. In a country that has banned gun ownership, they want to keep burglars out of jail as long as they don't hurt anybody while committing their crimes? Fuck that bullshit.

You might as well just leave your doors open at night and let complete strangers walk in at random and take whatever they want.

[rhaig 0]

pretty much can't they do that already? if you try to stop them from taking what they want don't you get thrown in jail for assaulting the robber?

--
Rob