I understand what you're saying, but posting an event asking people to riot while there are riots going on was just stupid. Even it was just a joke, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and in this case the law is against them.

I also agree the sentence is ridiculous and I hope they do get it reduced, especially since most people taking part in the riot are getting under 2 years and this 17 year old just got 120 hours of community service and a 12 month facebook ban. That sounds more reasonable to me, the difference between being a minor and a adult is quite large.

IceCream Wrote:

travis Wrote:I doubt this will be overturned, here is the relevant law: Part 2 of the Serious Crimes Act. They may get a reduced sentence on appeal, or perhaps not. The law is there to protect everyone, including the people who live in the village they tried to get people to trash.

They probably pleaded guilty on the advice of their barrister to get a more lenient sentence, because they knew it was a hopeless case to win. If a jury had convicted them they probably would've received a longer sentence.

oh, damn... who made that legislation?!? that could cover almost anything that anyone has ever done if they want to twist it that way...

well, there you go. That's the difference between law and morality shown, again.

@IceCream, take the time and actually read Serious Crime Act 2007 in the link provided.

@Travis, thank you for the information.

did you actually have a point to make? if so, please make it.

Of course i read it, otherwise i wouldn't have commented. What counts as "being capable" isn't defined properly, that's the issue. The only note on it is that it includes threatening or otherwise putting pressure on people, but it's not limited to that.

So what definition of "being capable" are they actually using, if none of the people invited to said riot actually turned up...?

Look at it this way... suppose i had a facebook account, and set up an event saying "let's go do some rioting!!!!! We can get a new pair of trainers and everything!!!" and sent it to my friends. Now, i know that none of my friends are gonna be doing any rioting, so it's obviously going to be a joke. (actually, this is pretty similar to a joke i made on the phone to one of my friends the other day... of course, with a phone you can hear my tone of voice, but even online i wouldn't expect any of my friends to take it the wrong way). Indeed, none of my friends show up to the "riot" they were invited to.

Now, how do you prove the difference between this case and the one that got 4 years? A character assesment of someone's friends (under the "information" provision)? Or do i get 4 years too? It's really difficult to prove using that legislation. That's the point...

I just looked it up, they pleaded guilty under section 44 and 46 of the Serious Crimes Act, and could have received a maximum of 10 years. I see there's another 19 year old who made a similar joke that only had to write a letter of apology.

For these 2 guys, I think they're screwed because the pleaded guilty. When you do that I don't think a higher court can quash the conviction or order a retrial, unless it was something like a forced confession. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm probably completely wrong, but whichever way it turns out, they are currently not in a very good position.

yeah, they can't quash the conviction, only change the sentence... but the sentences are so uneven, it seems unlikely that it won't be lowered.

but yeah, they're pretty screwed... it is possible that they said something stupid in the police interview which meant they had to plead guilty though.

Just read this: What is the impact of a criminal record?. They're basically screwed for life even if their sentence is reduced to 1 day, criminal conviction for life. Does seem unfair.

yeah, i know... i'm painfully aware of it

@IceCream that was my mistake.

Is it correct to believe that both individuals did show up to their respective "protests?"

There was a previous question "At what point should law enforcement officers engage in stopping a violent behavior?"

I don't know what are the tests for "being capable." However, if someone could provide the ruling we can determine what it is under British law.

However this is what I have found "competence capable of distinguishing right from wrong."

With the "Criminal Attempts Act 1981" the law isn't on their side. This cause should be a clear indication that you should pay to get a lawyer who would represent you.

There is a distinguish that you made. You "that none of my friends are gonna be doing any rioting." Unless shown otherwise, it seems that they would have followed through on their crime.

One individual actually showed up to the event, where he was promptly arrests. So, he was obviously capable. The second individual seems to have been caught by the fact that his actions was after the riots had started. He two was capable to distinguish right from wrong, as show by him take down his page. It would have been better for him to have issued an apology, or indicated it was a joke.

There is no disagreement that the sentences are harsh. However, they could have been harsher.

Reading an article, I just remembered something. The legal system doesn't reward incompetence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17...-justified

To answer your question. Yes, that individual should be charged. Whether it is banning you from Facebook, fining them, or sending you to prison. Let me explain the reason.

With the riots on going in London, the police are trying to restore order. To make people feel safe in their home, neighborhoods and businesses. Business, private property, and public property are being damaged. Businesses, and individuals are being robbed. Under that climate some decides to make a "joke."

However, here is the problem. The prosecutors will try to convince the magistrate that the individual was capable, and that that individual knew it was wrong. The prosecutor will present the evidence of the "deleted" Facebook page. The prosecutor as has the hard evidence that other riots have broken out. Now, it is your lawyers job to convince the magistrate that it was only a sick joke, and their was no real intention.

It isn't the slowest, or the dumb that get caught, just those that the police get "lucky" with.

travis Wrote:Just read this: What is the impact of a criminal record?. They're basically screwed for life even if their sentence is reduced to 1 day, criminal conviction for life. Does seem unfair.

@travis and IceCream no pardon's?

Omoishinji Wrote:

travis Wrote:Just read this: What is the impact of a criminal record?. They're basically screwed for life even if their sentence is reduced to 1 day, criminal conviction for life. Does seem unfair.

@travis and IceCream no pardon's?

You mean for the sentence? In theory yes, they could be pardoned. In practise though, it doesn't seem likely. I think for these guys the best they can hope for now is a shorter sentence.

nope, not once you pleaded guilty, and no wiping your criminal record either. It's there for life, and for all of society to judge you on. You can forget ever having a career that helps people in any way, for a start. It doesn't even matter really about what sentence you received. People reject you from even voluntary jobs, even if you got a discharge (not even a punishment, community service or fine... the lowest sentence you can possibly receive)!!

This is another problem with such varying sentences... on your criminal record, what you actually did isn't written, just the name of your crime and the sentence. So, supposing it says something like "aggravated theft", prison 6 months, best of luck trying to explain to your prospective employer in 5 years time that you stole a £3.50 bottle of water.... who's actually gonna believe you?!?

I recently emailed my MP about this, to ask if they could change that. (i asked for the possibility to really wipe criminal records from public view once they're spent, because of such widespread CR checks nowadays. Obviously, crimes that were really serious or involve paedophilia or extreme violence aren't on). I guess that was bad timing lol. If anyone lives in Britain and wants to ask for the same thing, please write to your MP!!! http://www.writetothem.com/

****
Omoishinji, that kind of "capability" is a seperate one under law... it's usually used in cases of severe mental illness. Similarly, taking the joke down on facebook isn't so much an admission of guilt as it is the recognition that the police are taking it seriously. Anyway, in all likelihood it wasn't a joke. It's just that the law should really make a provision for the differences, while that seems to be a catch all thing.

And yeah, it's going to depend on the police who bring you in. tbh, a lot of police aren't the brightest buttons in the box. And lawyers only care for your money. Like i said, i would NEVER hire one, i'd much rather represent myself. The only people i've ever met in the whole system with at least half a brain in their head was one crown court judge, and the person who interviews you to find out the circumstances before sentencing, and helps to determine a proper sentence.

I think you would be surprised how many people have criminal records and still manage to get good jobs. It is something that crops up fairly regularly in my line of work, and I have come across all kinds of people with all kinds of convictions who still managed to get highly paid jobs.

Becoming self-employed, or otherwise starting your own business somehow, is also a popular option.

It is certainly something that can come back to haunt them, but I think saying they are screwed for life is a bit of an exaggeration.

It's not only work, it's housing, education, insurance, travel and mandatory exclusion from certain volunteer/government jobs. A conviction at age 20 is going to have a massive effect on their lives. Yes getting a good job with a conviction is possible, but it's the exception not the norm.

supposing your dream was a career in logistics or HR, you might be ok once your conviction's spent, as it's not likely to be looked at again.

But there's a huge list of jobs for which at the very least you're going to be checked every single time you apply for a job. You're not going to be working as a teacher, doctor, social worker, care worker, diplomat, lawyer, police officer, nursery school assistant, lunch time supervisor at a school, psychiatrist, tutor, any kind of voluntary work helping people or children, the list goes on and on, unless you get lucky and someone gives you a chance. And even if they do, you're probably going to wonder if anyone else ever will. Even accountancy or translation work sometimes requires criminal record checks...

And that's if you had the right qualification to begin with, because courses for these professions often have a CR check as a prerequisite before you start... if you were young when convicted, the chances are they aren't going to let you on the course at all, because of the possibility that you might end up with no job anyway.

You can also forget teaching somewhere like Taiwan or Korea, as they require criminal record checks too nowadays. Get any working holiday visa for countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America, and even just travelling there ask you about your criminal history, and you're supposed to declare it. They then make the decision. I'm sure you've heard of multiple celebrities that were deported on entry from Japan too because their criminal records were known to the authorities... so basically, you can lie and live in fear of being found out (and discracing any sponsors), or give up on travelling.

Not only that, but it can affect you in various ways in later life. Suppose you later find out you can't have kids, and want to adopt... the chances of you being able to are practically 0.

The list is endless. When you put it in the perspective of someone who, in a moment of madness stole a bottle of water, it's quite a punishment, don't ya think? And that's without the prison sentence on top of that...

@IceCream, that is strangely advised not to do. The prosecutors goal is to convince the magistrate that the accused is guilty. There are two goals in the defense. To get the charges dismissed, or get a lesser sentence. There is no reason to plead guilty to any crime, unless it is for a lesser sentence (and hope that the magistrate is kind).

There is a difference between "a joke" and "is a joke." One of the test is if the person posting the message intended it as a serious solicitation for assistance. "Being a joke" a person would assume that others would take as "a joke," even though that wasn't their initial intention. However, it seems to be at the whim of the investigators. The important fact is that there are legal tests to determine whether there is a "clear and present danger" in the message.

The second individual "was a joke" and should have insisted that it was a very tasteless "joke." However, the legal system doesn't reward incompetence.

With Japan it has to do with drug possession, terrorism, among others.

Study hard at school, stay out of trouble, and learn Japanese.

but there aren't such legal tests, that's the point...

and solicitors often advise people to plead guilty. It makes their job much easier, of course...

And often, they're going to be right... because, by the letter of the law you're guilty, and therefore you will be found guilty, whether or not the man down the street and his one eyed dog could see you didn't really do anything so bad.

Good advice, but what happens if you study hard all the way through school, have a moment of madness & get into trouble, and learn Japanese?
... oh well, better luck next life

As a barrister once said, "this is law, it's got nothing to do with the morality of the situation".

@IceCream, Sorry again.

When I am referring to legal test, that is something that is written in a ruling that a court has made. This isn't something that is legislated by the government, but what the court used to determine come to the ruling. I am more aware of various legal test that exist in American, that in other countries.

Some kind of legal precedent that sets the standard to help guild the ruling.

Government do right laws with for instance determine how much illicit drugs in a persons possession would be consider a crime that requires incarceration.

Just as long as you get married, that would be the only right thing. (However, that wasn't what I meant in my original comment though).

There are some absurd laws, some of them were with just lies, others have thankfully removed from the books.

Somewhat related: Cutting social media no answer to flash mobs

nest0r Wrote:Somewhat related: Cutting social media no answer to flash mobs

I saw a video of this happening in a Las Vegas convenience store a few days ago. Working late shift at a convenience store in Las Vegas is as dangerous as being in a war zone as it is.

The only explanation to this must be thrill seeking as what can be gained by stealing bottled water and Snickers bars? The type of person who would commit this type of crime for fun will inevitably get caught doing something else stupid soon enough.