I think it is disgraceful. We, the public, pay an increased price for everything we buy in the shops due to shoplifting.
It is THEFT. How long will it be before they say that burglars should not go to prison. That comes under the theft act too.
Our tolerance of criminals is becoming ridiculous. No doubt in a few years, murder will become acceptable.
Can the British Government PLEASE get a grip on the reality of life. Why do we have to put up with their absolute arrogance, ignorance and stupidity?
How dare they?
2006-08-27 06:51:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sally J 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Sounds about right for the British Government, don't send criminals to prison because they are not really that bad! Shoplifters have a nasty habit of moving on to burglary and then armed robbery, which is when a man protecting his family or livelihood is shot by the shoplifter the government failed to send to prison with the 9mm they failed to conviscate and destroy.
By not giving an individual punishment for his crime, he is not detered to think twice next time. A mars bar maybe 40p but criminals have a habit of escalating and soon it'll be the chief Justice's £10,000 plasma screen tv (make him regret HIS decision). Also makes normal people more convinced to take the law into their own hands.
2006-08-26 03:16:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Knight-wing 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that this is rubbish. I read about it in the papers and was pretty shocked, especially as small businesses can't afford the insurance which covers petty-theft and can't afford to mark-up their prices to cover the costs either.
What kind of deterrant does this offer? It's a joke - people will steal more knowing that they won't go to prison.
Basically, I think that the whole justice system in this country is laughable - people don't go to prison for killing someone if they are charged with "careless driving", a charge much easier to prove than "causing death by dangerous driving" - they just get a fine. Meanwhile, you can get 5 years for letting your connifers grow too high!
So ridiculous.
2006-08-26 03:11:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by sallybowles 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Never mind the rubbish about "Minor Crime" this is an invitation to go on shoplifting sprees . the whole attitude to crime and punishment in the U K is nothing less than a Sick Joke , whilst those responsible for the whole sorry mess just Piss about , and make excuses , then go home feeling "Self Satisfied" congratulating themselves on a good days work. what a bunch of Sorry Prats
2006-08-28 00:24:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
What I heard was that shoplifters that steal less than $25.00 will not be prosecuted, but that the stores will keep a record on them. So now that people know that they will not go to jail they will shoplift less expensive items....But don't fret about it sooner or later this will change. The stores will get tired of writing names on a log and call the police.
2006-08-26 03:13:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Boricua Born 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I like to think I'm a caring person but; I would accept if someone is stealing food because they are hungry I can't see the point of sending them to prison, they need help. If someone is stealing to feed a drug or alcohol addiction definitely they should go down for it but I would prefer an institution rather than prison where they were not criminalised but treated or weaned off their problem.
2006-08-26 14:40:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by bob kerr 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
No they did not say that, they said prison should be reserved for serious and persistent shoplifters, whilst other forms of punishment should be used for those who shoplift only once, which makes sense as this is a more minor crime.
2006-08-26 03:10:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by asylumseeker 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
For hundred of years , if you did something wrong you were punished
Now the Govt has got the stupid and naive idea that not sending people to prison and giving them a flat on the council to behave themselves will change them.
Rubbish .
Flast for good behaviour....coming to town near you
2006-08-27 07:38:13
·
answer #8
·
answered by James b 2
·
1⤊
0⤋