Burglar freed to care for children

[AndyHB]

Couldn't find the previous thread on the justice system, but found this story interesting.  What do folk think?

[ecuworrier]

well it potentially could keep him out of mischief... alternatively create more trouble for him.... still will be a bit cheaper for social services in the short run


we don#t have much info about his personal circumstances whether he is the proud father of numbers of kids or his kids are the life and soul of his life.....   

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndrewF]

IMO, considering the impact on his children and that it was a first offence, he should not have had a custodial sentence in the first place but a stiff community sentence.
Actually I think this would have been a better choice even disregarding the children, as they are more effective at reducing recidivism than short prison sentences during which no effective rehabilitation is possible.

[Boudi]

yes,makes sense, and cheaper than a children's home followed by more trouble

[EliB]

IMO, considering the impact on his children and that it was a first offence, he should not have had a custodial sentence in the first place but a stiff community sentence.
Actually I think this would have been a better choice even disregarding the children, as they are more effective at reducing recidivism than short prison sentences during which no effective rehabilitation is possible.

I agree! Children aside, prison should be for violent crime! That way there might be more room for violent offenders and non-violent ones could be put to good use in the communities they've offended against!

And whilst I DO NOT think kids should suffer for the downfall of a parent, at the same time, I don't also think it should necessarily be used as an excuse against custodial sentences - albeit not for non-violent crimes....it goes back to the "actions have consequences" fact and that this dad obviously didn't think enough about the possible impact of his actions on his kids.....

[ecuworrier]

IMO, considering the impact on his children and that it was a first offence, he should not have had a custodial sentence in the first place but a stiff community sentence.
Actually I think this would have been a better choice even disregarding the children, as they are more effective at reducing recidivism than short prison sentences during which no effective rehabilitation is possible.

I agree! Children aside, prison should be for violent crime! That way there might be more room for violent offenders and non-violent ones could be put to good use in the communities they've offended against!

And whilst I DO NOT think kids should suffer for the downfall of a parent, at the same time, I don't also think it should necessarily be used as an excuse against custodial sentences - albeit not for non-violent crimes....it goes back to the "actions have consequences" fact and that this dad obviously didn't think enough about the possible impact of his actions on his kids.....

i think it's really difficult to assess the levels of violence another person feels at having their home or workplace or leisure place tampered with....

i think the letting him out early to look after his kids gives him the chance to think about the impact on his family or whoever he was caught from invading...  clearly he didn't spend much thought on that previously though he probs thought he would get away with it


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[EliB]

Ecu, when I was talking about "violent" and "non-violent" crime, I was meaning violence against the person! A break in, whilst extremely upsetting (as opposed to traumatic!!!!) is a crime against property, not the person!

[AndyHB]

A break in, whilst extremely upsetting (as opposed to traumatic!!!!) is a crime against property, not the person!

This is debatable, Eli.  When one's private space is invaded in this way - as I know from personal experience - it feels remarkably 'personal'.

[EliB]

A break in, whilst extremely upsetting (as opposed to traumatic!!!!) is a crime against property, not the person!

This is debatable, Eli.  When one's private space is invaded in this way - as I know from personal experience - it feels remarkably 'personal'.

I know from experience what it's like too Andy - both when our house was tanned when I was a kid (whilst we were away visiting for Hogmanay...Happy New Year(!!) and in the flat I'm in now - and whilst yes, it's your personal space/belongings that have been invaded and everything feels tainted......it is still crime against property and not the person - no matter HOW it feels, it's not comparable!

[tranchiebabe]

The judge must be puddled. The burglar should have been jailed, no question of that. Community service orders are soft options, imo. By all acounts that low life was crowing at getting off so lightly!

[ecuworrier]

Ecu, when I was talking about "violent" and "non-violent" crime, I was meaning violence against the person! A break in, whilst extremely upsetting (as opposed to traumatic!!!!) is a crime against property, not the person!

i disagree ....  i'm not sure what crime against property means? i mean even graffiti can be taken really personally..

i think part of the problem is the depersonalisation of incidents that can have profound effects of the affected person

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[EliB]

Ecu, when I was talking about "violent" and "non-violent" crime, I was meaning violence against the person! A break in, whilst extremely upsetting (as opposed to traumatic!!!!) is a crime against property, not the person!

i disagree ....  i'm not sure what crime against property means? i mean even graffiti can be taken really personally..

i think part of the problem is the depersonalisation of incidents that can have profound effects of the affected person

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

Ecu - of course crime against property, whether your home, car, graffiti etc can be 'personal' and extremely upsetting, but still not in the same league as violence against YOU! 'Upsetting' is not the same as 'traumatic'!

And YES, I fully agree that the impact of a crime needs to be taken into account more, but that impact needs to be realistically measured! And as I've stated, I DO know what it's like to have your home broken into (and my car!) - horrible, upsetting and invasive - but still not 'traumatic'!!

[ecuworrier]

sorry elib i don't agree... what is traumatic is traumatic however that comes about... and it's a bit rich for a third person to comment on how many degrees of injury one should feel or not...

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[EliB]

Ecu, obviously people don't all react the same way to any given situation, all I'm pointing out is the, very real, difference between being 'upset' and 'distressed' and being 'traumatised'!! They're not on the same scale!

[ecuworrier]

Ecu, obviously people don't all react the same way to any given situation, all I'm pointing out is the, very real, difference between being 'upset' and 'distressed' and being 'traumatised'!! They're not on the same scale!

we'll just have to disagree on the assumptions we make


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,