Anger as violent criminals get fiscal fine deals
 |
| LACK OF PROTECTION: Victims of domestic abuse could be left afraid to return to their own homes as offenders' cases are diverted under the new system. (Picture posed by model). |
Serious and violent criminals have avoided court and a criminal record under a new Scottish Government initiative introduced to deal with low-level offences.
Thousands of offences, including serious assaults, have been diverted from court and treated with fiscal fines under reforms to the summary justice system that began in March. Scores of other crimes, including sex offences against children, have been downgraded to summary complaints which carry a lesser sentence.
Victims groups reacted with incredulity to the revelation and demanded the policy be reviewed.
When the initiative was introduced on March 10, the Crown Office insisted the diversions would only apply to those accused of low-level offences such as minor assaults, vandalism and shoplifting.
However, The Herald can reveal that those charged with violent crimes including domestic abuse and serious assault, have since been diverted from the courts to be given a range of fiscal punishments including fines of up to £300.
Those diverted from court also avoid a criminal record, although the charge will be held in the system for two years in case they reoffend within that timescale.
In addition, the reforms have meant a significant proportion of serious cases have been downgraded to be heard under summary complaint, with a maximum prison sentence of 12 months.
Lawyers say this equates to a sentence of three months as, in practice, custodial sentences are halved and then often halved again for offenders to be released early on home-detention curfew.
Legal experts say many of these cases are inappropriate for summary complaint and in the past most would have been dealt with by a sheriff and jury and given a longer sentence.
Because of the sentencing restrictions of 12 months, it also means sex offenders can be placed on the register but would not be given supervision in the community.
A list of these cases seen by The Herald at Airdrie Sheriff court alone, includes:
l lewd and libidinous conduct against an 11-year-old girl;
l assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement;
l lewd and libidinous conduct against a victim with cerebral palsy;
l lewd and libidinous conduct against a 12-year-old girl.
Lily Greenan, manager at Scottish Women's Aid, said: "We don't believe pre-trial diversion is an appropriate response to domestic abuse. We are concerned to hear that fiscal fines are being used and we will be exploring this issue with the Crown Office."
David Sinclair of Victim Support Scotland, said: "If serious and violent offenders are bypassing the courts then this is something which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency."
The Crown Office predicted 28,000 offenders, or 15%, would be punished directly by prosecutors rather than being sent to court.
Anecdotal reports from courts including Edinburgh, Airdrie and Glasgow indicate there has been an estimated 50% decrease.
However, the Crown Office refuted this and said its figures show a 12% drop in prosecutions, in line with its original estimates.
A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "Summary justice reform is about improving the delivery of justice for victims and witnesses. There has been no change in how domestic abuse is prosecuted; Crown Office Procurators-Fiscal Service operates a clear policy that the appropriate action for domestic abuse which involves assault is to prosecute in court.
"With more than 300,000 cases reported each year, it is possible that individual decisions are, on occasion, not taken in accordance with policy and this is why the impact of the reforms is being closely monitored and reviewed by area procurators-fiscal."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Kiera Hardie on 1:17am Mon 23 Jun 08
The criminals are continuing to do crimes, and the cops are catching them. GOOD.
The Crown Office are setting arbitrary quotas, and so violent crims are getting off with a fine, so the government can look good, pretending it is hitting these targets. BAD. VERY BAD.
Fiscal fines is a good idea for low level offending. Not for domestic abuse.
Summary procedure i good for low level crime. Not for lewd and libidinous conduct against wee girls.
Mr McAskill should stop pontificating about carry-outs and start making sure that bad men go to jail for a very long time, as the public expects.
The criminals are continuing to do crimes, and the cops are catching them. GOOD.
The Crown Office are setting arbitrary quotas, and so violent crims are getting off with a fine, so the government can look good, pretending it is hitting these targets. BAD. VERY BAD.
Fiscal fines is a good idea for low level offending. Not for domestic abuse.
Summary procedure i good for low level crime. Not for lewd and libidinous conduct against wee girls.
Mr McAskill should stop pontificating about carry-outs and start making sure that bad men go to jail for a very long time, as the public expects.
Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 1:34am Mon 23 Jun 08
Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be.
Is drink driving a serious crime? I know it should be. No different in my opinion than brandishing a pistol at people and then shooting it up in the air in a crowded market.
Is a crime committed while under the influence of alcohol considered as serious as if it were committed when the person was not drunk? That is, is alcohol ever allowed to be an excuse for a crime?
Unfortunately, it is a legal excuse when you kill someone with a car when you are drunk. What's the maximum sentence for murder while drink driving? What's the maximum sentence for murder with a gun?
Instead of making punishments softer for crimes involving alcohol, punishments should be harsher.
No alcohol related criminal should ever get off with only a fine.
Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be.
Is drink driving a serious crime? I know it should be. No different in my opinion than brandishing a pistol at people and then shooting it up in the air in a crowded market.
Is a crime committed while under the influence of alcohol considered as serious as if it were committed when the person was not drunk? That is, is alcohol ever allowed to be an excuse for a crime?
Unfortunately, it is a legal excuse when you kill someone with a car when you are drunk. What's the maximum sentence for murder while drink driving? What's the maximum sentence for murder with a gun?
Instead of making punishments softer for crimes involving alcohol, punishments should be harsher.
No alcohol related criminal should ever get off with only a fine.
Posted by: Kiera Hardie on 1:34am Mon 23 Jun 08
Sod off, Alkie.
Posted by: Kiera Hardie on 1:37am Mon 23 Jun 08
Actiually, Alkie, I didn't read what you wrote before I told you to sod off. Well now I have. Drunkenness is no mitigation of guilt or sentence in Scots criminal law. You know nothing about our country and its situation but presume to pronounce upon it
Now sod off, Alike.
Actiually, Alkie, I didn't read what you wrote before I told you to sod off. Well now I have. Drunkenness is no mitigation of guilt or sentence in Scots criminal law. You know nothing about our country and its situation but presume to pronounce upon it
Now sod off, Alike.
Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 1:55am Mon 23 Jun 08
I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person.
Tell me how that is just.
I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person.
Tell me how that is just.
Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 2:01am Mon 23 Jun 08
Over 80% of all domestic violence cases involve the attacker being influenced by drink.
A large percentage of those attacked also were influenced by alcohol.
How can anyone say they care about justice for the domestically abused and not be anti-alcohol? The two -- alcohol and domestic violence -- go together like a horse and carriage.
Over 80% of all domestic violence cases involve the attacker being influenced by drink.
A large percentage of those attacked also were influenced by alcohol.
How can anyone say they care about justice for the domestically abused and not be anti-alcohol? The two -- alcohol and domestic violence -- go together like a horse and carriage.
Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 2:35am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Alkie[/bold] wrote:
I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person. Tell me how that is just. [/quote] because the person with the gun clearly had premeditation if tried for murder. Otherwise it would be manslaughter if shot by accident.
[bold]Now sod off.[/bold]
Alkie wrote:
I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person. Tell me how that is just.
because the person with the gun clearly had premeditation if tried for murder. Otherwise it would be manslaughter if shot by accident.
Now sod off. Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 2:36am Mon 23 Jun 08
Drink driving is no accident. A person willfully consumed the alcohol and willfully got in the car.
It is your sort of thinking that allows drink driving murders to go underpunished. That is not justice.
Drink driving is no accident. A person willfully consumed the alcohol and willfully got in the car.
It is your sort of thinking that allows drink driving murders to go underpunished. That is not justice.
Posted by: Gordon Blain, Ayrshire on 5:35am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote]Thousands of offences, including serious assaults, have been diverted from court and treated with fiscal fines[/quote]
[quote]A list of these cases seen by The Herald at Airdrie Sheriff court alone include.......[/quote]
Let me see if I've got this right, the cases have been diverted from court but The Herald has seen a list of these cases at the Sheriff Court? Hmm, something doesn't add up here.
Thousands of offences, including serious assaults, have been diverted from court and treated with fiscal fines
A list of these cases seen by The Herald at Airdrie Sheriff court alone include.......
Let me see if I've got this right, the cases have been diverted from court but The Herald has seen a list of these cases at the Sheriff Court? Hmm, something doesn't add up here.
Posted by: beckypumps1, fife on 7:45am Mon 23 Jun 08
Serious and violent criminals , I would call Wendy a serious criminal but not violent But the baron on the other hand could turn nasty if he has been on the sauce. Anyway can we put some names to the Lawyers,Legal experts and Crown office spokesperson or is this another fluffy story.
Serious and violent criminals , I would call Wendy a serious criminal but not violent But the baron on the other hand could turn nasty if he has been on the sauce. Anyway can we put some names to the Lawyers,Legal experts and Crown office spokesperson or is this another fluffy story.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 8:24am Mon 23 Jun 08
what this shows is that the legal system has failed, and the Establishment wants it to fail. This shows that vigilantes are going to be born from this mess. This shows that decent people cant rely on the legal system anymore and need to organise vigilance groups. If the police and the legal system are failing us we need to do it for ourselves. The era of the vigilante is about to begin.
what this shows is that the legal system has failed, and the Establishment wants it to fail. This shows that vigilantes are going to be born from this mess. This shows that decent people cant rely on the legal system anymore and need to organise vigilance groups. If the police and the legal system are failing us we need to do it for ourselves. The era of the vigilante is about to begin.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, Glasgow on 8:35am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote]"With more than 300,000 cases reported each year, it is possible that individual decisions are, on occasion, not taken in accordance with policy and this is why the impact of the reforms is being closely monitored and reviewed by area procurators-fiscal."[/quote]
What they do not mention is that these 300,000 crimes are caused by a relatively small number of criminals the vast majority of whom are repeat offenders and that 20% are carried out by people on bail for other offences.
The “system” is happy to deal with the majority of these which are simple uncomplicated low-level criminal behaviour and a ready source of “legal aid” work.
The action that is desperately needed is to remove from this statistic those who are charged with drug-use offences and non-payment of fines for same and to concentrate resources on the relatively small number of sociopaths that society has a right to be protected from.
"With more than 300,000 cases reported each year, it is possible that individual decisions are, on occasion, not taken in accordance with policy and this is why the impact of the reforms is being closely monitored and reviewed by area procurators-fiscal."
What they do not mention is that these 300,000 crimes are caused by a relatively small number of criminals the vast majority of whom are repeat offenders and that 20% are carried out by people on bail for other offences.
The “system” is happy to deal with the majority of these which are simple uncomplicated low-level criminal behaviour and a ready source of “legal aid” work.
The action that is desperately needed is to remove from this statistic those who are charged with drug-use offences and non-payment of fines for same and to concentrate resources on the relatively small number of sociopaths that society has a right to be protected from.
Posted by: Tony88, Glasgow on 8:37am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]juankerr[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Alkie[/bold] wrote: I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person. Tell me how that is just. [/quote] because the person with the gun clearly had premeditation if tried for murder. Otherwise it would be manslaughter if shot by accident. [bold]Now sod off.[/bold] [/quote] People who deliberately get into a vehicle to drive when they are intoxicated (by drink or drugs) and kill some poor sod should have the book thrown at them. Now you sod off.
juankerr wrote:
Alkie wrote: I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person. Tell me how that is just.
because the person with the gun clearly had premeditation if tried for murder. Otherwise it would be manslaughter if shot by accident. Now sod off.
People who deliberately get into a vehicle to drive when they are intoxicated (by drink or drugs) and kill some poor sod should have the book thrown at them. Now you sod off.
Posted by: Tony88, Glasgow on 8:42am Mon 23 Jun 08
Justice is a sick joke in this country. Just what exactly constitutes 'low level crime?' If you have your home invaded by some low life scum or are mugged by some sicko who has never done a day's work in his/her life, that is not level as far as you, the individual, are concerned. It's time to take things into our own hands, because the political pygmies in Government are not going to protect us.
Justice is a sick joke in this country. Just what exactly constitutes 'low level crime?' If you have your home invaded by some low life scum or are mugged by some sicko who has never done a day's work in his/her life, that is not level as far as you, the individual, are concerned. It's time to take things into our own hands, because the political pygmies in Government are not going to protect us.
Posted by: Duns Scotus, Berwick on 8:57am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]juankerr[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Alkie[/bold] wrote: I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person. Tell me how that is just. [/quote] because the person with the gun clearly had premeditation if tried for murder. Otherwise it would be manslaughter if shot by accident. [bold]Now sod off.[/bold] [/quote] Manslaughter is an English legal term.
Culpable homicide is the Scottish term.
juankerr wrote:
Alkie wrote: I do know that a murder in which the weapon is a car driven by a drink driver is not punished as severely as a murder in which the weapon is a gun shot by a sober person. Tell me how that is just.
because the person with the gun clearly had premeditation if tried for murder. Otherwise it would be manslaughter if shot by accident. Now sod off.
Manslaughter is an English legal term.
Culpable homicide is the Scottish term.
Posted by: pete, Bearsden on 9:13am Mon 23 Jun 08
This so-called Scottish "Government" is a complete joke.
This so-called Scottish "Government" is a complete joke.
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshire on 9:25am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]pete[/bold] wrote:
This so-called Scottish "Government" is a complete joke.[/quote] What!
How dare you attack Slimeball Salmond, Clown McAskill and Nasty Nicola. The Cyber-Nats will descend on you a barrack you with their venom. Try and drive you oot of THEIR website.
pete wrote:
This so-called Scottish "Government" is a complete joke.
What!
How dare you attack Slimeball Salmond, Clown McAskill and Nasty Nicola. The Cyber-Nats will descend on you a barrack you with their venom. Try and drive you oot of THEIR website.
Posted by: GML, right here on 9:28am Mon 23 Jun 08
pete from Bearsden
I fear you are trying to make a party political point on an issue which transcends short-term party politics. The Tories introduced the current prisoner early release arrangements, and the reforms discussed above, dating from March, were proposed if not implemented by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration. The SNP, now in power, frequently raises 'community-based alternatives to prison'. So which party would you hold responsible for the current situation?
The situation is that, despite the fact that Scotland jails a higher percentage of its population than almost any other European country, we still have a high level of repeat and relatively low-level offending, and the jails are bursting at the seams. We can build more jails, but a better plan surely has to be to reduce the level of offending.
A very large amount of offending is carried out be teenagers and young men. ([italic]I have a friend who, after working in the PFs office in Greenock for a couple of years, became utterly terrified of teenage boys and had to give up her job. True story.)[/italic] Cutting back on the ease which these people can get drunk is not going to cure everything, but is one sensible idea in the circumstances. What do you think?
pete from Bearsden
I fear you are trying to make a party political point on an issue which transcends short-term party politics. The Tories introduced the current prisoner early release arrangements, and the reforms discussed above, dating from March, were proposed if not implemented by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration. The SNP, now in power, frequently raises 'community-based alternatives to prison'. So which party would you hold responsible for the current situation?
The situation is that, despite the fact that Scotland jails a higher percentage of its population than almost any other European country, we still have a high level of repeat and relatively low-level offending, and the jails are bursting at the seams. We can build more jails, but a better plan surely has to be to reduce the level of offending.
A very large amount of offending is carried out be teenagers and young men. (
I have a friend who, after working in the PFs office in Greenock for a couple of years, became utterly terrified of teenage boys and had to give up her job. True story.) Cutting back on the ease which these people can get drunk is not going to cure everything, but is one sensible idea in the circumstances. What do you think?
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshire on 9:29am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]pete[/bold] wrote:
This so-called Scottish "Government" is a complete joke.[/quote] [bold]WHAT![/bold]
How dare you attack this joke government. The Cyber Nats will descend on you and try to drive you out of THEIR website.
Anyone who criticises Slimeball Salmond, Clown McAskill and Nasty Nicola will be attacked incessantly until they are cleansed.
pete wrote:
This so-called Scottish "Government" is a complete joke.
WHAT!
How dare you attack this joke government. The Cyber Nats will descend on you and try to drive you out of THEIR website.
Anyone who criticises Slimeball Salmond, Clown McAskill and Nasty Nicola will be attacked incessantly until they are cleansed.
Posted by: Hungry Joe, Scotland on 9:40am Mon 23 Jun 08
I have read this article carefully looking for substance but it must be said there is very little. However, it does give the impression that the Scottish Government is in some way at fault (Pete, above, has clearly received this impression), whereas, careful reading shows no evidence at all of this. It does make me wonder if the regular SNP conrtibutors have a point about the Scottish media.
I have read this article carefully looking for substance but it must be said there is very little. However, it does give the impression that the Scottish Government is in some way at fault (Pete, above, has clearly received this impression), whereas, careful reading shows no evidence at all of this. It does make me wonder if the regular SNP conrtibutors have a point about the Scottish media.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 9:57am Mon 23 Jun 08
Is it me?
I've read this twice and I still don't understand it!
Is it me?
I've read this twice and I still don't understand it!
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 10:10am Mon 23 Jun 08
...............and what about the victims?
Funny isn't it?
If someone breaks into my house and I crack them over the head with a bat (let snot forget I have 2 kids and a wife sleeping upstairs) I'll probably get a heavier sentence than these repeat offenders.
...............and what about the victims?
Funny isn't it?
If someone breaks into my house and I crack them over the head with a bat (let snot forget I have 2 kids and a wife sleeping upstairs) I'll probably get a heavier sentence than these repeat offenders.
Posted by: Peter Thomson, SNP for me! on 11:20am Mon 23 Jun 08
Occasionally Rab you have a point but this is not one of those times.
Under the previous arrangement where the criminal, Ned, violent offender was caught the police made the decision whether to 'let them off with a warning' which in the 60's would have been a fall down the cell steps but in these days was a joke. A number of offenders never went to court because the court system could not cope so under the law on 'wrongous imprisonment' law which requires the right to a rapid trial for an accused, minor to medium offenders again were charged and ended up with a police warning.
Of course the same paper during Labour in Scotland days in charge said 'squat diddly' about this. In an attempt to resolve this the new system was brought in but because it is a 'deal' between the accused and the fiscal and not heard by a sovereign court of the people there can be no 'criminal charge'. The data on the case is held for the maximum period allowed under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and is admissible in evidence in court if there is a new offence within the same period. So whereas before these 'good folk' were walking 'Scot free' and not appearing on any criminal statistics at least now some summary justice is happening.
This bill was introduced by the previous executive and is as near as Scots Law will allow the instant justice seen in the 24 hour courts in the US. Its not perfect but much better than before. If the Fiscals are using the new powers to ease their work load inappropriately that is an issue for the independent judiciary and the Lord Advocate.
PS: it is clearly a co-incidence that the MSP for Airdrie is one Karen Whitfield (Labour) - anyone know if she is a lawyer and has she made a formal complaint to Elish about this?
Occasionally Rab you have a point but this is not one of those times.
Under the previous arrangement where the criminal, Ned, violent offender was caught the police made the decision whether to 'let them off with a warning' which in the 60's would have been a fall down the cell steps but in these days was a joke. A number of offenders never went to court because the court system could not cope so under the law on 'wrongous imprisonment' law which requires the right to a rapid trial for an accused, minor to medium offenders again were charged and ended up with a police warning.
Of course the same paper during Labour in Scotland days in charge said 'squat diddly' about this. In an attempt to resolve this the new system was brought in but because it is a 'deal' between the accused and the fiscal and not heard by a sovereign court of the people there can be no 'criminal charge'. The data on the case is held for the maximum period allowed under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and is admissible in evidence in court if there is a new offence within the same period. So whereas before these 'good folk' were walking 'Scot free' and not appearing on any criminal statistics at least now some summary justice is happening.
This bill was introduced by the previous executive and is as near as Scots Law will allow the instant justice seen in the 24 hour courts in the US. Its not perfect but much better than before. If the Fiscals are using the new powers to ease their work load inappropriately that is an issue for the independent judiciary and the Lord Advocate.
PS: it is clearly a co-incidence that the MSP for Airdrie is one Karen Whitfield (Labour) - anyone know if she is a lawyer and has she made a formal complaint to Elish about this?
Posted by: Peter Thomson, SNP for me! on 11:31am Mon 23 Jun 08
Just a thought - could Wendy not cut a deal with the Fiscal over her criminal breeches of PPER and just take the fine? We'd still all know she was guilty but at least in the case of this political Ned there would be a small sense of justice being done!
Just a thought - could Wendy not cut a deal with the Fiscal over her criminal breeches of PPER and just take the fine? We'd still all know she was guilty but at least in the case of this political Ned there would be a small sense of justice being done!
Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 11:32am Mon 23 Jun 08
Another [bold]TARTAN TORY[/bold] gaff.
Can't McAskill not find another way to get money to pay for all the Nats promises, mostly empty ones, alas?
Bet Diminutve behind deal, smirking away as usual !
Another
TARTAN TORY gaff.
Can't McAskill not find another way to get money to pay for all the Nats promises, mostly empty ones, alas?
Bet Diminutve behind deal, smirking away as usual !
Posted by: Exiled Aussie, Banff on 11:34am Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Peter Thomson[/bold] wrote:
Just a thought - could Wendy not cut a deal with the Fiscal over her criminal breeches of PPER and just take the fine? We'd still all know she was guilty but at least in the case of this political Ned there would be a small sense of justice being done! [/quote] How much lower can even the [bold]TARTAN TORIES[/bold] sink ????
Peter Thomson wrote:
Just a thought - could Wendy not cut a deal with the Fiscal over her criminal breeches of PPER and just take the fine? We'd still all know she was guilty but at least in the case of this political Ned there would be a small sense of justice being done!
How much lower can even the
TARTAN TORIES sink ????
Posted by: Peter Thomson, SNP for me! on 11:57am Mon 23 Jun 08
Hi Exiled McKromptin. See the warders at the Bannockburn bunker have let you out today. You cut a deal with the fiscal too or was it just with Simon Pia?
Read the Editorial on this pal, it makes very sensible and balanced reading(for a change), not in the slightest mouth foaming, unlike your good self. Now say after me:
[bold]Tory's are right of centre, NU Labour is right of centre, Nu Labour are the Tartan Tories[/bold] , the SNP (when last I looked at their manifesto) are left of centre as their implemented policies on prescriptions and the like evidences.
PS Rab the Ranter makes you look like a total nutter....
Hi Exiled McKromptin. See the warders at the Bannockburn bunker have let you out today. You cut a deal with the fiscal too or was it just with Simon Pia?
Read the Editorial on this pal, it makes very sensible and balanced reading(for a change), not in the slightest mouth foaming, unlike your good self. Now say after me:
Tory's are right of centre, NU Labour is right of centre, Nu Labour are the Tartan Tories , the SNP (when last I looked at their manifesto) are left of centre as their implemented policies on prescriptions and the like evidences.
PS Rab the Ranter makes you look like a total nutter....
Posted by: Ronald, Glasgow on 12:14pm Mon 23 Jun 08
Er.... Mr Thomson, think that you might be a little bit wide of the mark
Tory's are indeed right of centre, THE NEW LABOUR PROJECT is to the right of the Tory's. - a veritable crypto-facist rable !! Extreme
far-right racist, warmongering, Flag-waving filth !!
So Mr Thomson, don't be soft on the those NEW-LABOUR criminals,
or on the cause of those NEW-LABOUR criminals. You know it makes sense.
And isn't it a "delight" to see the return of those NEW - LABOUR nutters on these pages. Have they been in hiding recently? Wonder if it was tears and tantrums when these sad, mad, plonkers read yesterdays press hammering the crooked Wee U Bendy Wendy ?
It must be shear hell supporting the filthy, unethical , cretinous
mob that is todays NEW-LABOUR Party.
Er.... Mr Thomson, think that you might be a little bit wide of the mark
Tory's are indeed right of centre, THE NEW LABOUR PROJECT is to the right of the Tory's. - a veritable crypto-facist rable !! Extreme
far-right racist, warmongering, Flag-waving filth !!
So Mr Thomson, don't be soft on the those NEW-LABOUR criminals,
or on the cause of those NEW-LABOUR criminals. You know it makes sense.
And isn't it a "delight" to see the return of those NEW - LABOUR nutters on these pages. Have they been in hiding recently? Wonder if it was tears and tantrums when these sad, mad, plonkers read yesterdays press hammering the crooked Wee U Bendy Wendy ?
It must be shear hell supporting the filthy, unethical , cretinous
mob that is todays NEW-LABOUR Party.
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 12:21pm Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Alkie[/bold] wrote:
Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be. Is drink driving a serious crime? I know it should be. No different in my opinion than brandishing a pistol at people and then shooting it up in the air in a crowded market. Is a crime committed while under the influence of alcohol considered as serious as if it were committed when the person was not drunk? That is, is alcohol ever allowed to be an excuse for a crime? Unfortunately, it is a legal excuse when you kill someone with a car when you are drunk. What's the maximum sentence for murder while drink driving? What's the maximum sentence for murder with a gun? Instead of making punishments softer for crimes involving alcohol, punishments should be harsher. No alcohol related criminal should ever get off with only a fine.[/quote] Alkie,
I preferred it when you were Wullie from Aberdeen.
You were more interesting then.
Alkie wrote:
Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be. Is drink driving a serious crime? I know it should be. No different in my opinion than brandishing a pistol at people and then shooting it up in the air in a crowded market. Is a crime committed while under the influence of alcohol considered as serious as if it were committed when the person was not drunk? That is, is alcohol ever allowed to be an excuse for a crime? Unfortunately, it is a legal excuse when you kill someone with a car when you are drunk. What's the maximum sentence for murder while drink driving? What's the maximum sentence for murder with a gun? Instead of making punishments softer for crimes involving alcohol, punishments should be harsher. No alcohol related criminal should ever get off with only a fine.
Alkie,
I preferred it when you were Wullie from Aberdeen.
You were more interesting then.
Posted by: Bella on 12:27pm Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]GML[/bold] wrote:
pete from Bearsden I fear you are trying to make a party political point on an issue which transcends short-term party politics. The Tories introduced the current prisoner early release arrangements, and the reforms discussed above, dating from March, were proposed if not implemented by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration. The SNP, now in power, frequently raises 'community-based alternatives to prison'. So which party would you hold responsible for the current situation? The situation is that, despite the fact that Scotland jails a higher percentage of its population than almost any other European country, we still have a high level of repeat and relatively low-level offending, and the jails are bursting at the seams. We can build more jails, but a better plan surely has to be to reduce the level of offending. A very large amount of offending is carried out be teenagers and young men. ([italic]I have a friend who, after working in the PFs office in Greenock for a couple of years, became utterly terrified of teenage boys and had to give up her job. True story.)[/italic] Cutting back on the ease which these people can get drunk is not going to cure everything, but is one sensible idea in the circumstances. What do you think?[/quote] This is MacAskill's policy. This was not meant to happen under announcements made by him earlier in the year and late last year. He needs to explain himself. Nationalists must be the first to admit this. If you cant your as bad as Labour when it comes to defending just about anything.
GML wrote:
pete from Bearsden I fear you are trying to make a party political point on an issue which transcends short-term party politics. The Tories introduced the current prisoner early release arrangements, and the reforms discussed above, dating from March, were proposed if not implemented by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration. The SNP, now in power, frequently raises 'community-based alternatives to prison'. So which party would you hold responsible for the current situation? The situation is that, despite the fact that Scotland jails a higher percentage of its population than almost any other European country, we still have a high level of repeat and relatively low-level offending, and the jails are bursting at the seams. We can build more jails, but a better plan surely has to be to reduce the level of offending. A very large amount of offending is carried out be teenagers and young men. (I have a friend who, after working in the PFs office in Greenock for a couple of years, became utterly terrified of teenage boys and had to give up her job. True story.) Cutting back on the ease which these people can get drunk is not going to cure everything, but is one sensible idea in the circumstances. What do you think?
This is MacAskill's policy. This was not meant to happen under announcements made by him earlier in the year and late last year. He needs to explain himself. Nationalists must be the first to admit this. If you cant your as bad as Labour when it comes to defending just about anything.
Posted by: nostress, grangemouth on 12:41pm Mon 23 Jun 08
A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "Summary justice reform is about improving the delivery of justice for victims and witnesses. [bold]There has been no change in how domestic abuse is prosecuted[/bold] ; Crown Office Procurators-Fiscal Service operates a clear policy that the appropriate action for domestic abuse which involves assault is to prosecute in court.
"With more than 300,000 cases reported each year, it is possible that individual decisions are, [bold]on occasion[/bold] , not taken in accordance with policy and this is why [bold]the impact of the reforms is being closely monitored and reviewed by area procurators-fiscal[/bold] ."
There now...calm down unionist troll(s) - your fever-pitched hysterical ranting against the SNP just for the sake of it is becoming so very predictable and boring...pity we had to wade through this rather muddled article until we got to the meat of it in the last two paragraphs
A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "Summary justice reform is about improving the delivery of justice for victims and witnesses.
There has been no change in how domestic abuse is prosecuted ; Crown Office Procurators-Fiscal Service operates a clear policy that the appropriate action for domestic abuse which involves assault is to prosecute in court.
"With more than 300,000 cases reported each year, it is possible that individual decisions are,
on occasion , not taken in accordance with policy and this is why
the impact of the reforms is being closely monitored and reviewed by area procurators-fiscal ."
There now...calm down unionist troll(s) - your fever-pitched hysterical ranting against the SNP just for the sake of it is becoming so very predictable and boring...pity we had to wade through this rather muddled article until we got to the meat of it in the last two paragraphs
Posted by: Grassyback, Dumbarton on 12:46pm Mon 23 Jun 08
What I fail to understand from modern day law is this early release carry-on. Why is a person given; for example; a 12 year sentence and then let out after 3 years. What he didn't commit a crime in those 9 years so gets let out on good behaviour. He's in prison for a crime that deserved 12 years; therefor he gets 12 years. Get rid of the early release, you commited the crime and you will **** well pay for it. So what if the prisons are crowded, build another one, I'd rather these folks were behind bars than out in our streets; isn't that why we have law and order after all? And anyone who comes back with the word 'Reform' can just shut up.
What I fail to understand from modern day law is this early release carry-on. Why is a person given; for example; a 12 year sentence and then let out after 3 years. What he didn't commit a crime in those 9 years so gets let out on good behaviour. He's in prison for a crime that deserved 12 years; therefor he gets 12 years. Get rid of the early release, you commited the crime and you will **** well pay for it. So what if the prisons are crowded, build another one, I'd rather these folks were behind bars than out in our streets; isn't that why we have law and order after all? And anyone who comes back with the word 'Reform' can just shut up.
Posted by: Peter Thomson, SNP for me! on 12:58pm Mon 23 Jun 08
Nostress - I see on another thread that in England the Conservatives are on 44% of the vote share 23 points ahead of Labour. Nice one Doug but Labour on 21% vote share in England and Wales sounds much better to my ears. So with the SNP on 47% of the vote share in Scotland you do not need to be much of a political analyst to see where Labour is going!
44% of those polled wanted Gordon gone now and a general election and, worse, only 37% of Labour supporters think Gordon is the guy to lead them into the next election and Wendy says, bring it on!
Now since Labour = the Union in Scotland where does that leave Calman's Commission paid for by Scottish tax payers but appointed by Brownovitch with Wendy wanting an early referendum on independence. The thing is if she is content to wait until Calman reports it fits with the SNP program for bringing the referendum bill forward.
So instead, true to form, this paper tries some mud slinging on a Labour-libdem bill hoping it will stick on the SNP.
Nostress - I see on another thread that in England the Conservatives are on 44% of the vote share 23 points ahead of Labour. Nice one Doug but Labour on 21% vote share in England and Wales sounds much better to my ears. So with the SNP on 47% of the vote share in Scotland you do not need to be much of a political analyst to see where Labour is going!
44% of those polled wanted Gordon gone now and a general election and, worse, only 37% of Labour supporters think Gordon is the guy to lead them into the next election and Wendy says, bring it on!
Now since Labour = the Union in Scotland where does that leave Calman's Commission paid for by Scottish tax payers but appointed by Brownovitch with Wendy wanting an early referendum on independence. The thing is if she is content to wait until Calman reports it fits with the SNP program for bringing the referendum bill forward.
So instead, true to form, this paper tries some mud slinging on a Labour-libdem bill hoping it will stick on the SNP.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 1:03pm Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote][bold]Alkie[/bold] wrote:
Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be. Is drink driving a serious crime? I know it should be. No different in my opinion than brandishing a pistol at people and then shooting it up in the air in a crowded market. Is a crime committed while under the influence of alcohol considered as serious as if it were committed when the person was not drunk? That is, is alcohol ever allowed to be an excuse for a crime? Unfortunately, it is a legal excuse when you kill someone with a car when you are drunk. What's the maximum sentence for murder while drink driving? What's the maximum sentence for murder with a gun? Instead of making punishments softer for crimes involving alcohol, punishments should be harsher. No alcohol related criminal should ever get off with only a fine.[/quote] [quote]Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be.[/quote]
Alkie caught thinking, self-confessed too.
Hows the crusade against guns in the states going erse?
Alkie wrote:
Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be. Is drink driving a serious crime? I know it should be. No different in my opinion than brandishing a pistol at people and then shooting it up in the air in a crowded market. Is a crime committed while under the influence of alcohol considered as serious as if it were committed when the person was not drunk? That is, is alcohol ever allowed to be an excuse for a crime? Unfortunately, it is a legal excuse when you kill someone with a car when you are drunk. What's the maximum sentence for murder while drink driving? What's the maximum sentence for murder with a gun? Instead of making punishments softer for crimes involving alcohol, punishments should be harsher. No alcohol related criminal should ever get off with only a fine.
Is public intoxication a serious crime? I think it should be.
Alkie caught thinking, self-confessed too.
Hows the crusade against guns in the states going erse?
Posted by: Peter Thomson, SNP for me! on 1:15pm Mon 23 Jun 08
Grassyback - you make a very fair point especially given the number of crimes perpetrated by those given early release. The point is prison does not work, few if any inmates come out 'reformed' . The debate has to be why do you lock criminals up? The only answer is to take them out of circulation for a few months or years, that is give society a sense of safety. I remember as a kid the local Sergeant used to spread the word that such and such was out of Saughton so you better lock sheds and garages for a while until he was banged up again. There is a lot of research that shows there is a chunk of folk who commit crime to be locked up as they feel safer in prison, others just accept it as part of their 'working' conditions.
The problem Grassy is what do we do? Prison was invented because the legal beagles found hanging a 12 year old for stealing bread a bit distasteful and that folk in the street were getting a bit restless about it all. They were also having increasing problems from their colonies who were fed up getting stuck with criminals as the alternative to hanging. So the Victorians invented prison with the alternative of military service - usually with regiments in far away places.
Now you might like the idea of hanging a few of your local Neds from time to time, as a salutatory lesson, but I think we have moved on from there. So what is the answer?
Grassyback - you make a very fair point especially given the number of crimes perpetrated by those given early release. The point is prison does not work, few if any inmates come out 'reformed' . The debate has to be why do you lock criminals up? The only answer is to take them out of circulation for a few months or years, that is give society a sense of safety. I remember as a kid the local Sergeant used to spread the word that such and such was out of Saughton so you better lock sheds and garages for a while until he was banged up again. There is a lot of research that shows there is a chunk of folk who commit crime to be locked up as they feel safer in prison, others just accept it as part of their 'working' conditions.
The problem Grassy is what do we do? Prison was invented because the legal beagles found hanging a 12 year old for stealing bread a bit distasteful and that folk in the street were getting a bit restless about it all. They were also having increasing problems from their colonies who were fed up getting stuck with criminals as the alternative to hanging. So the Victorians invented prison with the alternative of military service - usually with regiments in far away places.
Now you might like the idea of hanging a few of your local Neds from time to time, as a salutatory lesson, but I think we have moved on from there. So what is the answer?
Posted by: Saladin, Glasgow on 1:59pm Mon 23 Jun 08
Who are you trying to kid Nostress?
Try reading the The Focus column on page 11.
And there's nothing muddled about the article either coming hot on the heels of two letters from respected practitioners.
Look Nostress, if wife beating is a misdemenaour as far as you are concerned, and kiddie fiddling worthy of a small fine, then God help us all!
Who are you trying to kid Nostress?
Try reading the The Focus column on page 11.
And there's nothing muddled about the article either coming hot on the heels of two letters from respected practitioners.
Look Nostress, if wife beating is a misdemenaour as far as you are concerned, and kiddie fiddling worthy of a small fine, then God help us all!
Posted by: Nippy Sweetie on 2:42pm Mon 23 Jun 08
I know a couple of Criminal Lawyers and they say that the courts are deathly quiet.
The fiscals are clearing their decks, and this is the tip of the iceberg of violent and sexual offences that are being fiscal fined.
They are trying to save money and clear the backlog in the courts at the expense of our safety.
Crown Office policy comes from the Government, who do you think is responsible?? McAskill is deperately trying to shave money off the costs of the criminal justice system, fiscal fines save legal aid fees and the time fiscals spend in court.
Because Fiscal Fines leave no paper trail or Criminal Record against the fined individual there is no way for the public to know what cases are getting fined. And there is no record if they commit a crime again.
I know a couple of Criminal Lawyers and they say that the courts are deathly quiet.
The fiscals are clearing their decks, and this is the tip of the iceberg of violent and sexual offences that are being fiscal fined.
They are trying to save money and clear the backlog in the courts at the expense of our safety.
Crown Office policy comes from the Government, who do you think is responsible?? McAskill is deperately trying to shave money off the costs of the criminal justice system, fiscal fines save legal aid fees and the time fiscals spend in court.
Because Fiscal Fines leave no paper trail or Criminal Record against the fined individual there is no way for the public to know what cases are getting fined. And there is no record if they commit a crime again.
Posted by: Nippy Sweetie on 2:43pm Mon 23 Jun 08
I know a couple of Criminal Lawyers and they say that the courts are deathly quiet.
The fiscals are clearing their decks, and this is the tip of the iceberg of violent and sexual offences that are being fiscal fined.
They are trying to save money and clear the backlog in the courts at the expense of our safety.
Crown Office policy comes from the Government, who do you think is responsible?? McAskill is deperately trying to shave money off the costs of the criminal justice system, fiscal fines save legal aid fees and the time fiscals spend in court.
Because Fiscal Fines leave no paper trail or Criminal Record against the fined individual there is no way for the public to know what cases are getting fined. And there is no record if they commit a crime again.
I know a couple of Criminal Lawyers and they say that the courts are deathly quiet.
The fiscals are clearing their decks, and this is the tip of the iceberg of violent and sexual offences that are being fiscal fined.
They are trying to save money and clear the backlog in the courts at the expense of our safety.
Crown Office policy comes from the Government, who do you think is responsible?? McAskill is deperately trying to shave money off the costs of the criminal justice system, fiscal fines save legal aid fees and the time fiscals spend in court.
Because Fiscal Fines leave no paper trail or Criminal Record against the fined individual there is no way for the public to know what cases are getting fined. And there is no record if they commit a crime again.
Posted by: Nippy Sweetie, Edinburgh on 2:47pm Mon 23 Jun 08
[quote]This bill was introduced by the previous executive and is as near as Scots Law will allow the instant justice seen in the 24 hour courts in the US. Its not perfect but much better than before. If the Fiscals are using the new powers to ease their work load inappropriately that is an issue for the independent judiciary and the Lord Advocate.[/quote]
Surely the SNP can take the lead on this then? Are you saying they have nothing to do with crown office?
This bill was introduced by the previous executive and is as near as Scots Law will allow the instant justice seen in the 24 hour courts in the US. Its not perfect but much better than before. If the Fiscals are using the new powers to ease their work load inappropriately that is an issue for the independent judiciary and the Lord Advocate.
Surely the SNP can take the lead on this then? Are you saying they have nothing to do with crown office?
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 4:00pm Mon 23 Jun 08
Bella 12.27, I think this story and the misuse of policy agreement between the Scottish government, (MacAskill), and the establishment, (crown), is a vexious one; trying not to work together.
Bella 12.27, I think this story and the misuse of policy agreement between the Scottish government, (MacAskill), and the establishment, (crown), is a vexious one; trying not to work together.
Posted by: pete, Bearsden on 4:00pm Mon 23 Jun 08
Awwww - bugger it - I'm confused. I don't trust any politician irrespective of party.
Awwww - bugger it - I'm confused. I don't trust any politician irrespective of party.
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 4:18pm Mon 23 Jun 08
sorry folks, I should have explained my conclusion.
It is well known that our Scottish government are trying to cut the numbers of low-level crim's going to prison. The reason being is that the previous administration and present Lord Advocate were seen to be too harsh by sending said low-level's to prison. Thus the prison population was rising faster than any other western democracy in the world; 12-15% increases year on year. That being said, an agreement between said government and crown produced a policy that would free up the court time and space from these low-level crimes such as minor assault, breach of the peace, shoplifting, etc. New policy was to divert low-level crim's away from precious court time and space, (keystone court time also), with fiscal fines. So far so good; seems a well though out policy. However, it seems to be that the establishment have hijacked this agreement and encouraged the crown office to add non- low-loevel crim's receive this justice also. It certainly seems all very conspiratoial, but it allows for further adjudication to be set against our Scottish government. Very political and very bliar-esq.
So, I don't think Mr MacAskill or our Scottish government should be held accountable for the misgivings, however, dark and demonic they are, of the crown's mis-handling of this situation. In-deed, have these crown mis-givings been accidental? No, I don' think so. Just more political posturing for the sake of the establishment and of-course, nu labour.
sorry folks, I should have explained my conclusion.
It is well known that our Scottish government are trying to cut the numbers of low-level crim's going to prison. The reason being is that the previous administration and present Lord Advocate were seen to be too harsh by sending said low-level's to prison. Thus the prison population was rising faster than any other western democracy in the world; 12-15% increases year on year. That being said, an agreement between said government and crown produced a policy that would free up the court time and space from these low-level crimes such as minor assault, breach of the peace, shoplifting, etc. New policy was to divert low-level crim's away from precious court time and space, (keystone court time also), with fiscal fines. So far so good; seems a well though out policy. However, it seems to be that the establishment have hijacked this agreement and encouraged the crown office to add non- low-loevel crim's receive this justice also. It certainly seems all very conspiratoial, but it allows for further adjudication to be set against our Scottish government. Very political and very bliar-esq.
So, I don't think Mr MacAskill or our Scottish government should be held accountable for the misgivings, however, dark and demonic they are, of the crown's mis-handling of this situation. In-deed, have these crown mis-givings been accidental? No, I don' think so. Just more political posturing for the sake of the establishment and of-course, nu labour.
Posted by: awh, Dumfries on 4:27pm Mon 23 Jun 08
I love the SNP posters on this site in their eyes the SNP can do no wrong. Which is lucky as for the second year they aren't doing anything at all.
The previous administrations strategy of locking people up seems to be working as crime has been falling. So what do they do let everyone out. Brilliant saves money for more sweeteners for the electorate. After the blaze of populist measures all they seem to want to do is bribe us with our own money (the LIT), let Aberdeen sink into bankruptcy and stop students drinking. Great just the sort of Scotland I want to live in! How many more broken promises and sub standard proposals will we see brought forward?
I love the SNP posters on this site in their eyes the SNP can do no wrong. Which is lucky as for the second year they aren't doing anything at all.
The previous administrations strategy of locking people up seems to be working as crime has been falling. So what do they do let everyone out. Brilliant saves money for more sweeteners for the electorate. After the blaze of populist measures all they seem to want to do is bribe us with our own money (the LIT), let Aberdeen sink into bankruptcy and stop students drinking. Great just the sort of Scotland I want to live in! How many more broken promises and sub standard proposals will we see brought forward?
Posted by: allymax, yuk on 4:28pm Mon 23 Jun 08
I also think that the story is skewed from a feminist perspective; not sure if there's a collaboration between oor elish and the author of this story. Lucie, can we please have some names, actual court circumstances and examples; thank you.
Herald, this is happening too often now; these kind of stories read like the secondary intelligence evidence that bliar stood up in the h
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (56)
