Not in a linking mood but if you look at sentencing in English courts overall, it seems that as if crimes against property gets harsher sentences than crimes against the person.
So i ask the question ...
Answers on a postcard please :-)
2006-10-23 01:43:17 · 15 answers · asked by Part Time Cynic 7 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
It does seem that way. It's a hangover from when property and in particular land was more important than the lives of the serfs who worked it. Also if you look at the law under which assaults etc are usually prosecuted, the Offences Against the Person Act, it was passed in 1869, I think. Long overdue for repeal and reform if you ask me.
2006-10-23 01:50:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seems to be that that way - but then the justice system in the UK is a sham completely. I still find it ludicrous that a man who is no more than a jumped up greengrocer or similar in his real job is allowed to sit on a bench and pass judgements on a few days each month. There is no fairness in sentences - it often depends on what judge is on that day and what mood he is in. If his wife let him have it last night you get community service - if she's held out on him for weeks you'll get 10 years and all for the same crime !!!!!!
2006-10-23 09:03:54 · answer #2 · answered by starlet108 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No - try and evade Income Tax , Council Tax , Parking/Speeding Fines and then see what the Government thinks is the worst crime. Kill someone and be out in 4 years - Rob a Train etc and be pursued to the grave and beyond.
2006-10-27 08:48:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt if your hypothesis is right, but if it is, it may have something to do with crimes against property being due to professional criminals, who are repeat offenders. That might not be so in the case of crimes against the person, which are often random. In such cases the offenders can possibly be rehabilitated.
2006-10-23 10:08:04 · answer #4 · answered by Malcolm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is part of a wider issue and the fact that our whole legal system is generally in shambles with priorities in terms of crime and punishment completely out of sync to what the majority of society would like to see.
All too often we are seeing time and money being wasted on petty and immaterial issues whilst serious crimes are going under-punished.
The whole thing needs to be overhauled and reformed with the judges being judged on their performance.
2006-10-23 08:57:36 · answer #5 · answered by Chris G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I am looking at it slightly different.Robin Hood robbed the rich to give to the poor!so it is said,some councils where a fast buck can be made will give developers an "aye" vote knowing they are going to get rich anyway & that should anything happen to their nest eggs their insurance will ensure they get paid so yes,in reply to your question however there are a lot of twists & turns here?
2006-10-23 09:03:09 · answer #6 · answered by edison 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no not at all but to estate agents it is.
I suspect that in atleast a decade the amount of homelessness will rise to atleast 65% due to the increase of priced properties and rent.
2006-10-23 08:55:33 · answer #7 · answered by gemsi44 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as people (especially the British) continue to mortgage their lives in order to own homes, and continually deride people who rent their homes, this will be the case.
2006-10-23 08:50:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortuantely, yes. And woe betide anybody who steals from the government.
2006-10-23 10:56:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on whose property and whose life. And how much one can afford for a lawyer.
2006-10-23 09:07:03 · answer #10 · answered by beast 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋