Protesting - and sentencing

[Serial_Apologist]

....I'd have thought that was a good reason to break the law....

Noting that Trump believes God was onside when the bullet only touched his ear, are we therefore to assume Almighty Intervention whenever would-be goal strikers hit the bar?

[smittims]

Hmmm... well, I did say it was a divisive subject. I'm relieved to see the discussion has remained civilised.

Sorry, S-A, I don't quite understand your second question in your #8. I wouldn't approve of Suffragettes breaking the law. I don't think women got the vote through the Suffragettes' actions, but as a result of the recognition of the value of women's contribution to the Great War.

[Dave2002]

What specifically is it about their offence that we need to punish?'

Prison sentences aren't - or shouldn't be IMO - only about punishment.

There are several aspects - punishment, protection of the individuals, protection of society and supposedly deterence.

I was surprised by the recent figures given out about the number of people in prison - around 80k. I thought it would be more.

As a proportion of the total UK adult population I worked that out to be around 1 in 500 people - approx 0.2 per cent.

It also seems to be recognised that prisons can function as a kind of university for crime.

Some people who go to prison may come out having a acquired more bad behaviours while inside, or they - or their families - may be threatened if they don't commit further crimes when released.

I believe about 50% of prisoners are in prison for drug related behaviour.

Other factors are intelligence, ability to communicate - including reading.

The lock 'em up and forget about them for the duration of each sentence approach does not seem to be a good one.

Where there are worrying concerns is in the kind of "offences" committed by the Stop Oil people. These are similar to plotting terrorist acts in some ways, but plotting is not the same as carrying out an act. There have been many crime writers who have written books on "how to commit the perfect murder" etc., so should we lock up crime writers for even thinking about such things?

In the film Minority Report there is supposedly an approach of pre-emptively dealing with people who "may" be about to commit crimes. Yes - taking precautions against conspirators who may decide to work together to act against society is probably necessary sometimes, and indeed locking up people who want to undermine society may be a sensible thing to do in some cases - but how does one decide - and how long should such people be incarcerated for?

There may be other ways to address this kind of problem. Thinking about how to deal with issues like that is possibly better than reaching for the populist solution "lock 'em up".

However, with perhaps only 1 in 500 people having issues severe enough to justify prison sentences at any time, then maybe building new prisons would actually be affordable, but would only make sense if they weren't simply seen as punitive or as a supposed deterrent.

[Pulcinella]

Dave

Is your first sentence what you meant to write? Seems contradictory. I think you might have meant aren't.

Prison sentences are - or shouldn't be IMO - only about punishment.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Just Stop Oil or their forerunners had already chained themselves to overhead gantries causing the M25 in both directions to be closed for considerable periods. Unfortunately their strategies have provided the justification for draconian legislative changes with regard to what remains of the right to protest.

To make a charge of conspiracy proven must take a lot of gathering of sufficient proof - and for myself, I wouldn't be inclined to conclude their intended action wouldn't be brought about. The damage to the lives of thousands of people going about their lawful business has served to alienate the protest movement from a large sector of the public, and as far as I am concerned, this conspiracy justified a custodial sentence. I'll be interested to hear the judgement on the appeal against the sentence (which must surely follow).

[smittims]

Yes, two (at least!) interesting points there.

I thoight I'd be shot down if I suggested a similarilty between protestors and terrorists. Protestors don't actively kill people, but in both cases they (presumably) hope that their actions will influence governments to do what they want. But I think they must be naive to imagine this is going to happen. It's more likely, I should think that they will lose sympathy from the people they want to influence. I think the protestors are right to urge governments to take more action , but their disruptive activities have prevented any possibility of my supporting them in any way.

[Dave2002]

Dave

Is your first sentence what you meant to write? Seems contradictory. I think you might have meant aren't.

Prison sentences are - or shouldn't be IMO - only about punishment.

Thanks for pointing this out. msg 18 now amended.

[Dave2002]

Yes, two (at least!) interesting points there.

I thoight I'd be shot down if I suggested a similarilty between protestors and terrorists. Protestors don't actively kill people, but in both cases they (presumably) hope that their actions will influence governments to do what they want. But I think they must be naive to imagine this is going to happen. It's more likely, I should think that they will lose sympathy from the people they want to influence. I think the protestors are right to urge governments to take more action , but their disruptive activities have prevented any possibility of my supporting them in any way.

So in 1913 you wouldn't have supported Votes for Women, then.

How dare Emily Davison disrupt a race event.

[smittims]

I don't know whether I'd have supported 'Votes for Women' in 1913; I'd have to have been there , knowing what people knew then and not what they've learned since. But I wouldn't have supported illegal actions. Remember that many people at the time who believed women should be allowed the vote nevertheless disagreed with illegal actions. They were known as 'suffragists' (rather than 'suffragettes') and the many men who supported them , including Hubert Parry and William Rossetti for instance, were known as 'feminists'.

The trouble with allowing people to break the law because they believe their cause its good, is , how do you decide? Someone might decide they have a moral right to wreck your house or kill your daughter. I know that in many cases the law is an ass, as it has to apply the same for everyone , but the alternative is anarchy .

[eighthobstruction]

Yes, two (at least!) interesting points there.

I thoight I'd be shot down if I suggested a similarilty between protestors and terrorists. Protestors don't actively kill people, but in both cases they (presumably) hope that their actions will influence governments to do what they want. But I think they must be naive to imagine this is going to happen. It's more likely, I should think that they will lose sympathy from the people they want to influence. I think the protestors are right to urge governments to take more action , but their disruptive activities have prevented any possibility of my supporting them in any way.

....they don't want your support (if it means sitting in a chair doing nothing)....."naive"....Hmmmm....One can believe in Justice (which is different from the Law), and realise that there is only some justice some of the time....Justice is often beyond the law not obtainable....I am not a climate protester (or even a mini-terrorist, minor terrorist , nearer a protester than a terrorist, or a protester 6 days a week and a terrorist on Fridays).....there is a similarity between terrorists and soldiers.....there is a similarity beween sailors and lifeboat men....In what manner would you have supported them had they complied with your 'rules for activities'....a letter. money, a wave....

[smittims]

I've valued your posts , eigthobstruction, but I'm afraid I can't grasp what you're saying there.

[eighthobstruction]

....Ok thanks....I'm trying to have a quiet day, so I'll bow out of explaining (or trying to)....

[Sir Velo]

Clearly these are exemplary sentences pour decourager les autres. I expect at some point in the not too distant future, when the furore has died down, the protestors will be quietly released long before their nominal prison terms have expired. It is, however, ironic that those who are causing the most destruction to the planet are rewarded beyond the dreams of avarice by our society while those who seek to protect the future of humanity are sent to gaol. . As Alistair Cooke once (almost) remarked if you owe a company a hundred dollars they will send you to prison, if you owe them a million they will make you chairman of the board.

[eighthobstruction]

....it is the usual method....if the authorities cannot charge an individual with an alledged crime (or even find a crime)....they will bring out the Conspiracy charge - which has very heavy sentence possibilities.... and can be tried with very small amounts of evidence (don't know the exact circumstances here in this recent case)....if they want you they will get you - that is the way of the law....

[Serial_Apologist]

....it is the usual method....if the authorities cannot charge an individual with an alledged crime (or even find a crime)....they will bring out the Conspiracy charge - which has very heavy sentence possibilities.... and can be tried with very small amounts of evidence (don't know the exact circumstances here in this recent case)....if they want you they will get you - that is the way of the law....

And if the planning of some "illegal" action is known through police intelligence sources, I would have thought the plotters would be lauded for helping by consequence of failing to conceal their intentions. The plot was thwarted - where's the crime? The overwhelming probability that the suspects would in any case have been under prior observation should put paid to any argument that puts costs to the state into its reckoning of crime.