tougher sentences for unemployed

[Mr Smin]

Graun online
I'm too tired for a proper rant really.
----------
The former Home Office minister will argue that varying sentences according to an offender's personal circumstances could help restore flagging public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensure more people were kept out of prison by a greater use of community punishments.
-----------
Reminds me of a mate who got 200 hours for a politically motivated crime (not violent, and in his case not guilty but anyway). He turned up at the community service place and naturally everyone asks how long he's gonna be there for. Most of the other people there have got say 50 hours for violent assaults etc so when he says "200 hours" they all think he's fuckin' 'ard.

 

[Fruitloop]

Of course from the standpoint of marginal utility 50 hours community service is going to make a lot more difference to someone who normally stays in bed all day, so maybe they should get less.

God this lot are a bunch of wankers, aren't they.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ignorant fucking two-bob cunt.

Introduce legalised differential sentencing in one area and where do you stop? It's bad enough that women and people from ethnic minorities already on average receive harsher sentences than white males through the institutionalised prejudices of the judiciary, make it legal to sentence a section of the populace more harshly and you start down a slippery slope that any person with a conscience and half a brain would avoid.

Fuck Denham, fuck his crypto-fascist "idea" (although "idea" is a description that dignifies such putrid bilge beyond its' worth), and fuck anyone who agrees with him.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

"One of the reasons we are sending people to jail is because there is no confidence in the system,

so they are not sending people to prison (I thought that was the role of judges and magistrates, not politicians, but maybe I am too innocent on these matters) because it is the right punishment but to please the hang'hem and flog'em brigade.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"One of the reasons we are sending people to jail is because there is no confidence in the system,

so they are not sending people to prison (I thought that was the role of judges and magistrates, not politicians, but maybe I am too innocent on these matters) because it is the right punishment but to please the hang'hem and flog'em brigade.

Mr Denham, as with many "new Labour" politicians, champs at the bit on the subject of the judiciary being the ultimate arbiters of justice.

Personally I believe that under the present constitutional system the separation of the judiciary from the executive makes sense. Unless and until we have a constitutional settlement that sets in place brakes/closely defined regulation on the power that the executive would be able to wield vis a vis the administration of justice, then I'm glad that the judiciary are prepared to "kick against the pricks" on sentencing as often as they do.

There's something wrong in the world when you feel grateful to unelected public officials for holding the line against elected officials.

 

[detective-boy]

Introduce legalised differential sentencing in one area and where do you stop?

It's already there. Has been for ages (in fact, it's been watered down a bit since first introduced).

It's called sliding scale fines.

Person A - guilty of offence X - sentence of fine decided - unemployed, fuck all disposable income - Fined £50

Person B - guilty of identical offence X - sentence of fine decided - in full-time, well-paid employment - Fined £1,000

 

[cybertect]

There's something wrong in the world when you feel grateful to unelected public officials for holding the line against elected officials.

I dunno. The American Constitution is deliberately designed that way with the Supreme Court able to strike down legislation passed by Congress and the Executive.

In some ways I'm more alarmed by the Home Office's regular pot shots at the judiciary over the last decade or so.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Unchallenged capitalism isn't pretty is it?

 

[detective-boy]

I dunno. The American Constitution is deliberately designed that way with the Supreme Court able to strike down legislation passed by Congress and the Executive.

As is the UK's tripartite structure. The Civil Service does what it is told by Parliament (which is, theoretically at least, the voice of the people) and the Courts rule on the lawfulness of the legislation passed and actions taken (by Judicial Review, by the application of the statute law and, more recently, by the application of the Juman Rights Act.

 

[cybertect]

Indeed, but in the UK Constitution is done with a bit of a nod and a wink, innit

 

[cybertect]

I must admit when I first read the headline in the article, I thought it said "Denning calls for tougher sentences for unemployed"

Which had me worried for a moment

 

[detective-boy]

Indeed, but in the UK Constitution is done with a bit of a nod and a wink, innit

Still works pretty well though - and at least we don;t have politically appointed judges (well, not overtly, anyway!! though more independence of the Courts would be a good thing in my opinion)

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's already there. Has been for ages (in fact, it's been watered down a bit since first introduced).

It's called sliding scale fines.

Person A - guilty of offence X - sentence of fine decided - unemployed, fuck all disposable income - Fined £50

Person B - guilty of identical offence X - sentence of fine decided - in full-time, well-paid employment - Fined £1,000

Hardly the same thing, is it?

I mean, are you seriously putting forward an argument that fines based on income are in any way equivalent to giving someone a harsher punishment because they're unemployed?

The former is a commonsense approach to preventing blocking up prison cells with fine-defaulters, and poses little danger of establishing a precedent that could be used to differentially punish other social groups, the latter does.

 

[detective-boy]

I mean, are you seriously putting forward an argument that fines based on income are in any way equivalent to giving someone a harsher punishment because they're unemployed?

Er ... yes. Because that's exactly what it is. Giving a harsher punishment to someone because they're employed.

The only difference is you love the unemployed (oooh, aaah) and hate the employed (boo, hiss).

 

[Mallard]

Er ... yes. Because that's exactly what it is. Giving a harsher punishment to someone because they're employed.

The only difference is you love the unemployed (oooh, aaah) and hate the employed (boo, hiss).

And you love punishment

 

[lostexpectation]

there is the impression that unemployed get a much harsher sentence and are somehow more guilty of crime then a well paid person, and that if the unemployed perons has kids the sentence is increased and if the employed person has kids the sentence is decreased but isn't what denhma actually said was alteast I wish it was that longer community work sentences should be giving to the unemployed rather then sending them to jail because the have an excess of time, but that employed people should get a standard sentence including jail.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Er ... yes. Because that's exactly what it is. Giving a harsher punishment to someone because they're employed.

The only difference is you love the unemployed (oooh, aaah) and hate the employed (boo, hiss).

Makes note. "in detective boy's world a larger fine is "the same" as a longer sentence".

You should have stayed in the old bill. With such impeccable logic you'd have been Commissioner of the Met by now.

Or do I mean "commissionaire at Scotland yard"?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The ethical logic of fining richer people more - not that it exactly happens in practice - is that the actual value of money is not directly linked to the amount of money, but is dependent on how much you have left. That's not very controversial really. It's not as much of a penalty to be fined a grand if you earn 100K as if you earn 10K.

The punitive value of time spent painting walls or whatever, though, doesn't work that way, because the experience whilst on community service is the same. It's more serious to lose or be penalised in your job than if you don't have one in the first place, but that's all, and that's better dealt with by employment legislation, which would have the greater benefit of helping people who can't get work after coming out of prison for example.

Really, though, this is academic, because value theory is hardly in the forefront of the minds of people thinking this shit up. They want to demonise a group of people and give them an extra kicking. We all know that the richer you are the more you can get away with anyway.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The ethical logic of fining richer people more - not that it exactly happens in practice - is that the actual value of money is not directly linked to the amount of money, but is dependent on how much you have left. That's not very controversial really. It's not as much of a penalty to be fined a grand if you earn 100K as if you earn 10K.

The same goes if you're unemployed though, your time has less value.

It's not much of a crushing blow to your day to day life if you spend a day painting walls instead of sitting on your arse, it's more so if you'd be in the office brown nosing instead. There are parralells there.

Incidentally what happens if you're employed and have to do CS, do you take unpaid/paid leave?

 

[lostexpectation]

but then how does the court know what your employment status is going to be like if you have job and then may either be fined or sent to prison, you may keep your job you may not,

 

[Fullyplumped]

I always say this but never mind. What about the option of not doing the crime that gets you convicted and sentenced?

 

[detective-boy]

It's not as much of a penalty to be fined a grand if you earn 100K as if you earn 10K.

It's not as much of a penalty to be made to do 100 hours community service if you have 24 hours of (State-subsidised) leisure time every day as if you have 2 hours.

The actual value of leisure time is not directly linked to the amount of leisure time, but is dependent on how much you have left.

 

[detective-boy]

but then how does the court know what your employment status is going to be like if you have job and then may either be fined or sent to prison, you may keep your job you may not,

Courts regularly step back from custodial sentences they were minded to pass because they are told that the defendant would lose their job if they were imprisoned.

This mitigation is available to the unemployed. All they need do to avail themselves of it is get a job. (And I have known lots who have done just that ... only to mysteriously be unemployed again the week after the Court appearance!)

 

[detective-boy]

Incidentally what happens if you're employed and have to do CS, do you take unpaid/paid leave?

It's done in your time, not your employers.

 

[laptop]

The actual value of leisure time is not directly linked to the amount of leisure time, but is dependent on how much you have left.

Touché.

But FridgeM is still right about the total absence of understanding of value theory (or even marginal utility) and the desire to go for the "hate-my-job-but-have-to-save-for-the-school-fees" vote by bashing the unemployed. There's always the risk that the unemployed might either have fun or do something useful or both.

Hence:

Denham's comments are likely to enrage civil liberties campaigners on the grounds that they amount to discrimination against the poor.

Translation: "Shani's out and I can't be arsed to call round for a quote from another actual group - this is so fucking obvious"

 

[detective-boy]

But FridgeM is still right about the total absence of understanding of value theory (or even marginal utility) and the desire to go for the "hate-my-job-but-have-to-save-for-the-school-fees" vote by bashing the unemployed. There's always the risk that the unemployed might either have fun or do something useful or both.

I'm sure there is some aspect of that about it - they're middle class politicians behind this after all - but my point is simply that there is another, parallel argument to be made (you could actually extend it to motorists as the victimised / bashed group) but it is ignored or denied by some posters out of prejudice. Absolute mirror image situation but one that they have no sympathy for.

Perhaps the unemployed could be made Magistrates - would help get rid of all the Court delays ...

 

[laptop]

Perhaps the unemployed could be made Magistrates - would help get rid of all the Court delays ...

Good plan

"I find you guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and sentence you, you rich cunt, to eat your BMW".

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's not as much of a penalty to be made to do 100 hours community service if you have 24 hours of (State-subsidised) leisure time every day as if you have 2 hours.

The actual value of leisure time is not directly linked to the amount of leisure time, but is dependent on how much you have left.

Being on the dole doesn't actually make your every waking moment "leisure time". And I did go on in the second paragraph to say why I don't consider time analogous to money as well.

Edit: I will reiterate though that as I said there is a certain logic to the value thing, it's just that this isn't about that, it's about social divisiveness and politics, and that's the basis on which I oppose it. It opens up lots of wormcans too e.g. should depressed people get longer CS, since they'd be having less fun in the hours that they give up compared to somebody who wasn't? If somebody can prove they really hate painting walls, should they get less?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's not as much of a penalty to be made to do 100 hours community service if you have 24 hours of (State-subsidised) leisure time every day as if you have 2 hours.

Riiight.
So, if we're to take the above statement as an indicator of your views, you're one of those fucknuts who believe that anyone who is "unemployed" has 24 hours of leisure time a day?

Have you had an aneurysm? It's the only reason I can think of for someone who generally talks sense spewing such gibberish.

That, or pdxm has hacked your account.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

It's not as much of a penalty to be made to do 100 hours community service if you have 24 hours of (State-subsidised) leisure time every day as if you have 2 hours.

apart from your nonsensical way of working out leisure times (don't the unemployed sleep sometimes, or is that counted as leisure time? if so, why only 2 hours leisure time for the employed?), the unemployed have to look for jobs and prove they have done so, sometimes. often they are sent on "courses", or useless special schemes to help them in their search for work, and all this eats into their "leisure time".