Electronic tag 'unfashionable' for teenage offender. [Archive]

Sierra

10-11-2005, 21:56

Oh dear.

She's worried about her appearance because the electronic "scarlet letter" they want her to wear is "bulky" and "unfashionable"?!! I think that's the LEAST of her problems.

She should have thought about that before she beat the cr*p out of another girl. What do you bet this entire thing was over some guy?

:) Sierra

samc

10-11-2005, 22:00

Don't they do one in Burberry ?

JoeP

10-11-2005, 22:03

Originally posted by evildrneil
PAH! dress them in shellsuits with a regulation bleached mullet so we know who to avoid - more effective than a tag and it sounds like a more effective deterrent than prison!

But if the young villain is a chavette, you'd be dressing her in teh style to which she would one day become acustomed.

Perhaps tweed jackets with leather elbow pads, matching long skirt and an Anne Widdicombe pudding bowl haircut? :)

Seriously, this seems absolutely bizarre. A punishment that is modified because it affects part of the normal lifestyle of the criminal. All punishments have that effect. It's like the business where some drivers aren't banned from driving after speeding because they need their car for their job.

Well, duh!

Perhaps that would be the point of the punishment? Abuse a privelege of society and have it removed, then suffer teh extended consequences?

We are SO soft on these people, it's ridiculous.

Joe

samc

10-11-2005, 22:05

It does sadden me on how as a society we are so scared in punishing people for the wrongs they have done.

Hoping the trend bucks and we get really tough.

Strix

11-11-2005, 00:06

If she has to stay indoors, who's going to see it? :confused:

Splodge_CRB

11-11-2005, 01:06

Me....I'd like to see electronic chokers on the little darlings

The further they get from the house the tighter the collar gets...:twisted:

*That's if you can stop the judges swiping them for their own personal use :o

Don_Kiddick

11-11-2005, 05:29

they should be handcuffed to one of their parents for the entire time the band should be on.

That way at least, for once, the parent will have some kind of responsibilty and the chav will learn true humilliation.

matsalleh

11-11-2005, 07:24

Is she setting a precedent here?
Sorry M'lud prison is a bit inconvenient at the moment as I am going to Bermuda for 6 weeks holiday.
Yes I can see that a lengthy trial for fraud and embezzlement would be stressful,just pop in to the local nick when you get back.

Ann*

11-11-2005, 08:03

I'm not condoning what was said at the bail hearing, but what doesn't seem to have been mentioned is whether it was reasonable for the police to be knocking on this person's door at 2.35 in the morning, just because she was supposed to answer the door to the police at any time....I know I wouldn't answer the door to anyone at that time of the morning, unless they had actually arranged to visit at that time....anybody can say they are the police through a locked door:suspect:

evildrneil

11-11-2005, 08:10

Originally posted by Ann_x
I'm not condoning what was said at the bail hearing, but what doesn't seem to have been mentioned is whether it was reasonable for the police to be knocking on this person's door at 2.35 in the morning, just because she was supposed to answer the door to the police at any time....I know I wouldn't answer the door to anyone at that time of the morning, unless they had actually arranged to visit at that time....anybody can say they are the police through a locked door:suspect:

That rather depends on the context. I find it unlikely that the police were making a social call at 2.35AM. It seems rather more likely that something had happened to pique their profsional interest e.g. the person in question has been spotted on the streets 'allegedly engaged in another altercation'!?

spyro2000

11-11-2005, 08:14

Originally posted by evildrneil
That rather depends on the context. I find it unlikely that the police were making a social call at 2.35AM. It seems rather more likely that something had happened to pique their profsional interest e.g. the person in question has been spotted on the streets 'allegedly engaged in another altercation'!?

Wether she was spotted on the streets or not, would it not though be common sense to let her off for not answering her door at half 2 in the morning unless they had proof of her being out at that time?

evildrneil

11-11-2005, 08:17

Originally posted by spyro2000
Wether she was spotted on the streets or not, would it not though be common sense to let her off for not answering her door at half 2 in the morning unless they had proof of her being out at that time?

Again depends on the context (which we don't know and I'm wildly speculating) if they drove past someoen who looked like her then yes if someon rolled into hospital with serious wounds and IDed her as the assailent then no!

Berberis

11-11-2005, 08:24

Originally posted by Ann_x
I'm not condoning what was said at the bail hearing, but what doesn't seem to have been mentioned is whether it was reasonable for the police to be knocking on this person's door at 2.35 in the morning, just because she was supposed to answer the door to the police at any time....I know I wouldn't answer the door to anyone at that time of the morning, unless they had actually arranged to visit at that time....anybody can say they are the police through a locked door:suspect:

Well if you where worried about people knocking on your door at that time, who would you call? The police and they would have quickly cleared it up!

There is no excuse really and this judge should be removed from making judgements like this in the future he's obviously completely inept!

Berberis

11-11-2005, 08:26

Originally posted by spyro2000
Wether she was spotted on the streets or not, would it not though be common sense to let her off for not answering her door at half 2 in the morning unless they had proof of her being out at that time?

As evildrneil says, put it in context. What if she keeps being seen causing problems and her family keep covering for her? What if the police are genuinely worried for her safety?

owdlad

11-11-2005, 08:28

Originally posted by serapis
Well if you where worried about people knocking on your door at that time, who would you call? The police and they would have quickly cleared it up!

There is no excuse really and this judge should be removed from making judgements like this in the future he's obviously completely inept!

Well said serapsis, there's no flaming wonder that these kids walk around crowing about how they escaped with an asbo when we have clowns like that at the head of our justice system. :rant:

spyro2000

11-11-2005, 08:31

Originally posted by serapis
As evildrneil says, put it in context. What if she keeps being seen causing problems and her family keep covering for her? What if the police are genuinely worried for her safety?

Yes but what if shes ISNT out causing trouble, and if she is, then why arent the police out quick enough once they receive these calls to say they have seen her?

Im telling you, if some idiot knocked my door at half 2 in the morning I wouldnt answer because I would be in a coma. It happens all the time with parcel deliveries in the morning, I wake up to find that Ive missed a delivery and get a card to go collect it.

chickmonk

11-11-2005, 09:10

Originally posted by JoeP

Seriously, this seems absolutely bizarre. A punishment that is modified because it affects part of the normal lifestyle of the criminal. All punishments have that effect. It's like the business where some drivers aren't banned from driving after speeding because they need their car for their job.

Well, duh!

Perhaps that would be the point of the punishment? Abuse a privelege of society and have it removed, then suffer teh extended consequences?

We are SO soft on these people, it's ridiculous.

Joe

The electronic tag isn't a punishment, because she is on bail and therefore unconvicted. It is probably for this reason that her bail conditions have had to be modified due to her complaint.

It is common practice for police to call round at 2am. The police have lists of people on curfews and when not busy (i.e. at 2am) will use this time to check on curfews.

It is also common practice for people on curfews to use the 'I was asleep' , 'didn't hear the doorbell' excuse, so the Courts generally uphold the breach if these excuses are given.

It is the responsibility of those on curfew, for bail purposes or for Court orders to be available to the police at ANT TIME during their curfew time.

Chicken Monkey x

spyro2000

11-11-2005, 09:36

Originally posted by chickmonk
The electronic tag isn't a punishment, because she is on bail and therefore unconvicted. It is probably for this reason that her bail conditions have had to be modified due to her complaint.

It is common practice for police to call round at 2am. The police have lists of people on curfews and when not busy (i.e. at 2am) will use this time to check on curfews.

It is also common practice for people on curfews to use the 'I was asleep' , 'didn't hear the doorbell' excuse, so the Courts generally uphold the breach if these excuses are given.

It is the responsibility of those on curfew, for bail purposes or for Court orders to be available to the police at ANT TIME during their curfew time.

Chicken Monkey x

Thats a fair commen, but should the police not have to provide evidence of loud door knocking perhaps on tape to show the courts, because what if they actually were sleeping. Its no good saying that loads of people use that excuse so we may aswell find them guilty, there still needs to be evidence.

JonJParr

11-11-2005, 09:42

I was once in Blackpool and saw a young couple [decked out in Burberry caps, tracksuit bottoms and sovereign rings] both wearing their HD tags with pride as they strutted down the street with their pitbull terrier in tow.

JoeP, I agree this decision by the court beggars belief. The intention is not to embarass the crimin um.. I mean person but to track her movements and prevent her from getting into anymore bother. If this prevents her from wearing skirts then so be it.

Yet another example of why a 'human rights' culture directly conflicts with maintaining law and order.

chickmonk

11-11-2005, 09:43

No, the police don't have to provide evidence like that. Their statements of witness are enough.

Sometimes they have a 'mini trial' where the accused and any witnesses (for example family or household members) can be sworn in and testify that the defendant was at home. The magistrate will then make a judgement as to whether the breach is proved.

It usually takes a very convincing argument to contradict the police's statemnets, probably because the courts are so used to people trying to make excuses.

I agree with you that it is harsh. Some people sleeping at the back of the house who don't have doorbells, may not hear the door. I have known people stay up until 3 in the morning just to make sure that they don't get breached by the police.

Chicken Monkey

katy1981

11-11-2005, 09:44

omg!! i thought the idea was break the law pay the price well i dont think it was that bad ffs!!! its only on for a few months honestly what a great way to get out of payin for what youve done wrong! i wonder how many more people will turn around and say this now one has?

chickmonk

11-11-2005, 09:47

Originally posted by katy1981
omg!! i thought the idea was break the law pay the price well i dont think it was that bad ffs!!! its only on for a few months honestly what a great way to get out of payin for what youve done wrong! i wonder how many more people will turn around and say this now one has?

I agree, but it hasn't yet been proven that this girl HAS done something wrong. The rules for people on bail are different to the rules for those who are being punished by way of electronic tag.