News Why Are Riots Escalating in London?

[FeDeX_LaTeX]

It's 22:30 and my dad just came home from work and he said there was a Caucasian teenager wearing a hoodie just sitting outside on our doorstep, saying he was "waiting for somebody". My dad told him that if he didn't go away he'd call the police, and he did go away, but I still think there's a chance he'll come back in the middle of the night and try to break a window or something. In the hallway there's a bike and a motorbike and the roof is made of lead which people have tried to steal by breaking bits of it off during the night-time. It's scary to think that this person is about my age and was sitting literally 5 metres away from me outside my window, possibly looking at me, and I didn't notice.

Just had a quick check now and he isn't there but it's only been about 45 minutes so he could be back at any time. I've heard reports on the internet of innocent people's homes being broken into at night and having their stuff looted. Now it's getting really close to home and I'm admittedly scared.

Hoping this will be over soon... I'm sleeping with a baseball bat beside my bed tonight.

Also, I heard that one of the rioters is an undergraduate at the university of Exeter, who got 9A*s and 4As at GCSE and has 4 A-levels all at grade A, and another is the daughter of a millionaire? Weird...

EDIT: 23:13, just heard distant sawing outside my window. Manual saw, sounded like sawing through metal. Called my dad to see if he could see anything or if there was any trouble, couldn't see anything/the sawing stopped. Anybody sawing around my area at this time or night can't be good. What worries me is that it was quiet enough for me to be able to sleep through it...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Amazon has removed several police-style telescopic truncheons from sale on its site as soaring sales of truncheons, baseball bats and other items that could be used as weapons sparked fears of vigilantism in the wake of widespread rioting.

Sales of one type of aluminium truncheon rose 50,000% within 24 hours, entering the top-10 bestselling items in the sports category. Before they were de-listed, two different "police-style" truncheons had seen sales increase more than 400-fold overnight, though from a low base.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/uk-riots-amazon-withdraws-truncheons

 

[Dotini]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-Lidl-water-thief-jailed-for-six-months.html

The mournful story of an electrical engineering student, no previous record, sentenced to 6 months in prison for nicking some water bottles.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-Lidl-water-thief-jailed-for-six-months.html

The mournful story of an electrical engineering student, no previous record, sentenced to 6 months in prison for nicking some water bottles.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

How can the UK pull these people in and hand out instant jail sentences? WTH? I've been reading about this kangaroo court the last 2 days and I am astonished.

 

[I like Serena]

How can the UK pull these people in and hand out instant jail sentences? WTH?

I believe there are too many to do it any other way and they are applying zero-tolerance.

 

[Evo]

I believe there are too many to do it any other way and they are applying zero-tolerance.

I don't condone looting, the guy obviously failed to use common sense, but do the people in the UK have no right to a "fair" trial?

Shoplifting the water from an open store would have resulted in a warning. I'm all for nailing numbskulls, but this is even more than I can approve of.

 

[I like Serena]

I don't condone looting, the guy obviously failed to use common sense, but do the people in the UK have no right to a "fair" trial?

Maybe later, when the immediate crisis has been dealt with, and an example has been set.

 

[Hurkyl]

I've been reading about this kangaroo court

do the people in the UK have no right to a "fair" trial?

Eh? Did I miss something?

 

[Evo]

Eh? Did I miss something?

Yeah, like how many hours between arrest and sentenced to 6 months in jail for a first offense of shoplifting. If all they have on the guy is a case of water, nothing that ties him to the riots or the damage or the violence, I think allowing him out on bail would have been appropriate.

 

[I like Serena]

Shoplifting the water from an open store would have resulted in a warning. I'm all for nailing numbskulls, but this is even more than I can approve of.

Yeah, like how many hours between arrest and sentenced to 6 months in jail for a first offense of shoplifting.

It's not for shoplifting, it's for "looting".
Quite a different behaviour than the old lady who effectively countered rioting and looting.
We need more people like her who care.
Six months seems excessive though.

 

[ThomasT]

I've been through a few riots in my lifetime. Cincinnati in 1967 and 1968, and Miami in 1980. These were huge riots, fueled mostly by the random energy of young people, and involving mostly African Americans.
I think that it can be at least partly (maybe mostly?) attributed to youthful negative exuberance and opportunism.
It shouldn't be too surprising that communities of kids who grow up in a street culture of violence riot every now and then.
I don't think that there are any particular underlying political reasons for such outbursts.
But there's an extreme undercurrent of racial (coupled with economic?) tension in the US (maybe most everywhere that there are mixed ethnic/racial populations?).
Whether something akin to this is a primary reason for the UK riots is an open question afaik.
Certainly the problem is compounded by the ability to organize via social media, but that's not the root cause.

Just some thoughts on this regrettable recent turn of events from an old guy (me) who's experienced a good bit of this sort of thing first hand.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yeah, like how many hours between arrest

A speedy trial doesn't make it a sham.

and sentenced to 6 months in jail for a first offense of shoplifting.

I find it hard to judge. The normal rationale I see people give for being lenient towards crimes of opportunity really doesn't apply to the situation in London.

I think allowing him out on bail would have been appropriate.

Bail is for suspects that are being held in jail while awaiting trial, and has nothing to do with criminals that have been convicted and sentenced. Did you mean that you think he should have merely been fined rather than jailed?

 

[Evo]

A speedy trial doesn't make it a sham.

It does when emotions are high and there is pressure on to be tough, as it is right now according to the articles.

Bail is for suspects that are being held in jail while awaiting trial, and has nothing to do with criminals that have been convicted and sentenced. Did you mean that you think he should have merely been fined rather than jailed?

In the US, if you are arrested, you can be immediately released pending your court date. You can get bail *before* your trial and before sentencing (if convicted), it's your promise that you will appear at your appointed court date.

A person's first thought upon landing in jail is often how to get out -- and fast. The usual way to do this is to "post bail".

Bail is cash, a bond, or property that an arrested person gives to a court to ensure that he or she will appear in court when ordered to do so. If the defendant doesn't show up, the court keeps the bail and issues a warrant for the defendant's arrest.

How Bail Is Set

Judges are responsible for setting bail. Because many people want to get out of jail immediately (instead of waiting for a day or longer to see a judge), most jails have standard bail schedules that specify bail amounts for common crimes. An arrested person can often get out of jail quickly by paying the amount set forth in the stationhouse bail schedule.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bail-getting-out-of-jail-30225.html

He was arrested and in his case bail should have been offered so that he would have time to prepare a defense. Just my opinion, if he really was a fine, upstanding student that made a stupid mistake. But I'm the kind of person that would never steal, ever. I wouldn't even take a gift if I knew it had been stolen.

I understand that they want to crush what happened, but I think this particular sentence was too harsh, the sentences being handed down aren't uniform.

Fears of rough justice as courts rush to process riot arrestsOf more than 1,600 people arrested in connection with the riots and looting, more than 500 have already appeared in court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/riots-arrests-courts-prisons-justice

 

[Hurkyl]

You can get bail *before* your trial and before sentencing (if convicted), it's your promise that you will appear at your appointed court date.

That was my point -- it doesn't make sense to suggest letting someone out on bail *after* they have been tried and sentenced.

He was arrested and in his case bail should have been offered so that he would have time to prepare a defense.

But from your elaboration I see that's not what you meant. You meant that the trial should have been postponed

 

[Evo]

But from your elaboration I see that's not what you meant. You meant that the trial should have been postponed

That's exactly what I meant, he should have been offered bail and released, not immediately sentenced.

 

[Proton Soup]

Why is not completely surprising that even a 1/4 of those arrested in mob violence for looting and/or arson were employed or even well off? Maybe that watched Clockwork Orange to many times?

interesting thing about Clockwork Orange. when Burgess wrote it, it had 21 chapters. when it was published in the USA, the publisher required omission of the 21st chapter where our hero grows up, gets bored with violence, and turns over a new leaf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_orange#Omission_of_the_final_chapter

i do have to wonder the reason for feeling the need to ever write the book, unless these sorts of violence have long been a part of the culture.

 

[ThomasT]

As for the student who stole the case of water and was sentenced to 6 months in the nick. Well, he shouldn't have done that, and he knew that before he did it. So, he goes to jail. That's how laws are supposed to work.

Is he just a victim of a situation that he got caught up in? How many people who've done much more serious crimes during this riot are victims of situations that they just got caught up in and wouldn't have done what they did otherwise? The point is that the law doesn't and shouldn't differentiate in this regard. It's the responsibility of people to not knowingly engage in unlawful behavior.

Maybe this guy and lots of others are only really guilty of behaving stupidly. But that's enough to land you behind bars. Besides, it's only 6 months. It will be a good learning experience for him.

Hopefully, the people who are convicted of setting fires and hurting people during this riot will be spending significant portions of the rest of their lives in prison.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the student who stole the case of water and was sentenced to 6 months in the nick. Well, he shouldn't have done that, and he knew that before he did it. So, he goes to jail. That's how laws are supposed to work.

Is he just a victim of a situation that he got caught up in? How many people who've done much more serious crimes during this riot are victims of situations that they just got caught up in and wouldn't have done what they did otherwise? The point is that the law doesn't and shouldn't differentiate in this regard. It's the responsibility of people to not knowingly engage in unlawful behavior.

You don't think the law should differentiate between silly screwups and legitimate criminal behavior?

Maybe this guy and lots of others are only really guilty of behaving stupidly. But that's enough to land you behind bars. Besides, it's only 6 months. It will be a good learning experience for him.

Do you really believe that? Do you really think the way to improve someone's life is to send them to jail?

 

[Evo]

As for the student who stole the case of water and was sentenced to 6 months in the nick. Well, he shouldn't have done that, and he knew that before he did it. So, he goes to jail. That's how laws are supposed to work.

What? Any violation of the law is an immediate jail sentence?

Is he just a victim of a situation that he got caught up in? How many people who've done much more serious crimes during this riot are victims of situations that they just got caught up in and wouldn't have done what they did otherwise? The point is that the law doesn't and shouldn't differentiate in this regard.

Bolding mine. The law is supposed to differentiate. There is a difference in just picking something up and actually destroying property with homemade bombs, incendiary devices, and other implements meant to cause harm/destruction. Huge difference. Did you steal someone's wallet off of a table when they weren't looking or did you bash their head in with a baseball bat? What makes you think that the law should not differentiate between the level of crime?

I feel that I must've been sucked into an alternate dimension sometime today.

 

[Hurkyl]

The law is supposed to differentiate. There is a difference in just picking something up and actually destroying property with homemade bombs, incendiary devices, and other implements meant to cause harm/destruction. Huge difference.

I think he meant differentiate as in "shoplifting during normal conditions" versus "shoplifting during a riot".

He's claiming that you wouldn't let off light someone destroying property with a bomb just because it happened during a riot, and arguing that implies you shouldn't let a shoplifter off light just because he shoplifted during a riot.

 

[ThomasT]

You don't think the law should differentiate between silly screwups and legitimate criminal behavior?

If it could, then it should. But it can't.

Do you really think the way to improve someone's life is to send them to jail?

We don't send people to prison to improve their lives. It's a punative contingency wrt breaking the law.

But jail or prison time can be a positive experience. It just depends on how one approaches it and what one does while confined.

 

[ThomasT]

What? Any violation of the law is an immediate jail sentence?

Who's saying that. The kid got caught redhanded, he admitted his guilt, and he got sentenced by a judge within the bounds of the law. What's the problem?

The law is supposed to differentiate. There is a difference in just picking something up and actually destroying property with homemade bombs, incendiary devices, and other implements meant to cause harm/destruction. Huge difference. Did you steal someone's wallet off of a table when they weren't looking or did you bash their head in with a baseball bat? What makes you think that the law should not differentiate between the level of crime?

That's not the differentiating that I was referring to. The point is that if you do a crime and get caught and say that you just did this stupid thing because you got caught up in the action of the moment isn't an excuse for your action or a defence that can be used in court. Anybody who wants to be excused for their transgressions claims that they regret what they did and that they wouldn't under normal circumstances have done it. Doesn't matter. The kid did what he did. He knew what he was doing was wrong, that he was being part of the problem and not the solution, and he did it anyway. And now he's going to jail, which is what the law prescribes for his actions.

I feel that I must've been sucked into an alternate dimension sometime today.

The law can be adminstered and enforced so flexibly that it functions in a way that it wasn't intended to. Laws don't differentiate (in the sense that I meant it), judges and prosecutors and lawyers and police do, and because of this we have legal systems which are nothing more, in many cases, than tools of arbitrary force.

You might think that the kid's sentence was too harsh. Maybe I do too. But the point is that the consequences of his actions are entirely within the bounds of the law.

If he's smart, then he won't get some sort of attitude against the law, but will use this experience to improve his life.

 

[Evo]

But the point is that the consequences of his actions are entirely within the bounds of the law.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure these convictions are going to come back and bite the UK. To say that a rash decision by a judge is above questioning and that a judge can't abuse their position and make mistakes is wrong.

 

[ThomasT]

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure these convictions are going to come back and bite the UK.

I doubt it, insofar as the convictions and the sentences are within the bounds of the law -- as they must be.

To say that a rash decision by a judge is above questioning and that a judge can't abuse their position and make mistakes is wrong.

On this I agree with you, because I've had the displeasure of knowing some particulary screwed up judges. But of course I didn't say anything remotely indicating that I advocate or think that judges can abuse their positions and make mistakes with impunity, so it's sort of curious that you would say that.

Do we know that the judge in this situation made a rash decision? If the sentence given to the young man was within the bounds of the law then it's pretty hard to argue that it was a mistake.

The thing is that nobody has any way of knowing who meant to do what. All that's known is what was done. The law is empirical. Ok, the kid did a stupid thing and he was unlucky enough to get caught, but maybe he's a nice kid. That's just too bad, and, honestly, I don't care. If he does go to jail for 6 months then he'll either make the best of it or he won't.

It's a more or less insignificant incident in a much larger and more serious situation.

 

[Evo]

I doubt it, insofar as the convictions and the sentences are within the bounds of the law -- as they must be.

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge. Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

 

[apeiron]

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge. Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

The guy pleaded guilty and was being dealt with by Magistrates Court, so next day sentencing not a big deal. Especially as special sessions were being held. Six months is max such courts can dish out for a single offence.

Of course the sentence seems over the top - sending a signal - and will probably be challenged and reduced.

On the other hand, the system can become very punitive when dealing with civil disorder.

Here in Christchurch, we had an austistic boy pinching a few light switches from a damaged building after the earthquakes. Light fittings are his obsession. But the police are still trying to push through a prosecution despite no public support at all.

 

[ThomasT]

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge.

I'm doubtful that sentencing isn't limited by UK law. Where's the article that you posted?

Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

No. I'm just assuming that they have limitations on sentences for various offences like we have in the US. And within the limitations any particular sentence might depend on the mood of a judge.

I don't think that judges should have any discretion wrt sentencing, but the status quo is that they do.

But if we take discretionary sentencing away from judges, then sentencing for particular crimes has to be written into the law. So what do you think should be the mandatory sentence for a first offence of simple stealing or larceny? How would you define it? Etc.

And keep in mind that we're getting somewhat off-topic with this stuff. It really isn't important, or thematic wrt this thread, what happens to this kid. I think he'll be fine even if he has to do the full 6 months in jail -- unless he's an idiot, and I don't think we should have any sympathy for idiots. Do you?

But apparently this kid isn't an idiot. He just screwed up, got caught, and got sentenced accordingly. Forget it. It's not important.

 

[JesseC]

For those of you wondering how such relatively large sentences can be handed out for committing rather small crimes, they are simply being made an example of to deter others. (as is the conservative way)

I wouldn't claim that the courts/police/government are all in complete cahoots, but whenever it comes to acts of public disorder, those they catch get put down hard even for relatively minor crimes. For more examples you only have to look back a few months to our recent student protests where Charlie Gilmour was sentence to jail for 16 months for "throwing a bin at a convoy of cars containing Prince Charles, sitting on a protection officer's car and smashing a window".

I wonder... had the convoy not contained Prince Charles would he have gotten the same sentence?

Other scary stories I've heard are that in some cases when the police couldn't catch the real rioters, they would bundle up some innocent bystanders (normally young black guys) and cart them off.

This doesn't surprise me at all, for example on the TUC march a few months ago two distinctly separate events occurred: 1) UKUncut protestors occupied a shop, peacefully causing practically no damage. 2) Black bloc anarchists when around breaking windows and throwing paint.

The police, unable to catch the real trouble makers rounded up all the peaceful ukuncut protestors and sentenced them, when they had promised not to! All charges against these guys have now been dropped thankfully... but it just goes to show that in public disorder situations the Police really aren't interested in catching the criminals, just putting on a show for the public.

 

[Ken Natton]

Some of what is being said and suggested here is at the limits of credulity. Here’s some rationality. Yes, UK law sets limits to sentencing for specific offences. Judges have sentencing discretion within those limits to consider any mitigating circumstances. All serious offenders have something called a ‘pre-sentencing report’ prepared which judges use in setting sentences. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are considered. Central to sentencing decisions are something called ‘tariffs’ for certain offences, set by politicians, not by the judiciary. The far more usual complaint issued against British judges is for lenient rather than draconian sentencing. One of the significant pressures on judges is the reality of the limited available spaces in British jails, but there also has been growing recognition of the simple truth that sometimes the most effective response to certain crimes is not custodial sentences.

These are for the more usual shall I say ‘routine’ criminal justice operations. Clearly, the riots of the last few days are not, by any stretch, usual. I know that one of the big concerns was the build up of a large backlog of cases. There have been a large number of arrests in the last few days and it was reported a couple of nights ago that London police cells were full. There is, undoubtedly also a notion about sending a clear message to deter further riots in the coming nights. Whatever the case may be about that, magistrate courts sitting through the night is equally clearly, not usual. I am to some degree relieved that there does seem to be some degree of consensus across the political spectrum about some of the issues relating to these riots, central to which is the acceptance that these riots were not in any way genuine protests, they were, in truth, just mass, opportunistic criminality. The fact that such occurred is itself a comment on British society that needs to be considered at more length. But the immediate problem is the restoration of order and the protection of honest, hardworking citizens and small business men and women. That may call for measures that even those of us with a more liberal view might need to deal with however it might make us wince. Meantime, inflammatory and ill-informed comments are not helpful. As ever, choice of language is a clear indicator of what constitutes thoughtful analysis and what does not.

 

[cristo]

That's not what I've read and I posted an article about it, sentencing seems to depend solely on the mood of the judge. Do you know UK law, can you post those laws here? Thanks!

Just to clarify, these courts that you refer to as 'kangaroo courts' are magistrate courts. These are the lowest courts which deal with summary offences with a maximum sentence of 6 months. The magistrates court is made up of a panel of 3 justices of the peace (or magistrates, who are volunteers, and not judges). An accused will appear before the court and be asked to enter a plea. If the plea is not guilty, then a trial date will be arranged and the defendant either remanded in custody or offered bail. If the plea is guilty, then the defendant will be sentenced.

I don't see how this is any different to the US (with the exception of the use of magistrates). If you plead guilty, there will be no trial, and so no reason to release you on bail. In the US you aren't automatically granted bail if you plead not guilty, so if the judge thinks it likely that you'll commit another crime, or disappear, you will be remanded in custody. The only real difference I can see is that the courts are running overnight to attempt to clear the backlog since all the Met's holding cells were full -- I think this is a good thing!

Of course, the young man mentioned in this article will likely appeal his sentence (which he is perfectly entitled to do; we're not a barbaric country), but having pleaded guilty he will have to do some jail time. The fact that he ran from police and resisted arrest will not do him any favours!