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.

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.

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.

@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/1 … -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.

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.

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.

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...

Last edited by IceCream (2011 August 19, 4:48 am)

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".

Last edited by IceCream (2011 August 19, 5:10 am)

Somewhat related: Cutting social media no answer to flash mobs