Cronky Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Just been discussing this with my wife. We both agree that a fifteen year sentence for this is highly appropriate. When we lived across a local crack dealer got an ASBO which only prevented him dealing in certain places. We got sick of attempted break in's and other drug related crime. Leniency does not work nor would legalisation. The great worry here in the Isle of Man would be a heroin epidemic. More tough sentences please and let's keep the Isle of Man as clean as is possible these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 A local man just got 15 years jail for importing a kilo of cocaine, in the UK he would have got around half that sentenceThe punishment should fit the crime and this kind of inconsistent sentencing just shouts Banana Republic You're just giving PK more ammo for the manx hate. This sentance isn't wide of the UK. Here's the story as reported by the manx papers: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Drugs-man-g...ears.4607192.jp He imported 80 grands worth of cocaine and was dealing it and living off the proceeds. Take a recent UK equivs: Importing cocaine, 14 years. http://www.build.co.uk/national_news.asp?newsid=83420 Newbury was given life wasn't he, not 20 years? Edit: Gah, I agree with Cronky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 You'd get less for rape.You'd get less for manslaughter (that is, killing someone but you didn't really mean it). You'd possibly get less for murder. You'd certainly get less for kicking the shit out of some poor innocent bloke on the prom at the weekend after a few beers. You'd get less for hospitalising your partner through physical violence. You'd get less for abusing a child. You'd get less for knocking over and killing someone whilst driving drunk. But hey ho at least the MESSAGE is getting out! Have you got any specific examples here? So then, great result, the taxpayer lashes out hundrends of thousands of pounds to put this bloke away for fifteen years (and I say again, you'd get less than that for dragging a random woman down an alley for a laugh and raping her), and the net result is?Absolutely fuck all. Simply not true. I'd quite like to be able to email a guy in liverpool, have him mail a few grands worth of cocaine to me and I flog it on the prom for a 500% markup, but that darn 15 years is putting me off. It works. Some folks do it responsibly, some folks fuck it up - the drug in question doesn't really matter. Fifteen years for absolutely fuck all in my humble opinion. Would you say the same if he was flogging the stuff to your kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 ai Droid, hush I hate having to agree with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LQQ Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Here are a few examples. The GBH ones tend to be the worst - ie punishment not fitting the crime. There are others you could find where people have been given extreme sentences for the same crimes: which in a way is what this thread is about. Manslaughter http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/s...ast/7600498.stm http://www.surrey.police.uk/news_item.asp?artid=1804 http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200...slaughter.shtml Rape http://www.surrey.police.uk/news_item.asp?artid=6046 http://www.surrey.police.uk/news_item.asp?artid=3698 http://cms.met.police.uk/met/boroughs/gree...ing_little_girl GBH http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ter/7481587.stm http://cms.met.police.uk/met/layout/set/pr...nths_for_gbh__1 http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Gang-Sent...cers_15335.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 You'd get less for rape.You'd get less for manslaughter (that is, killing someone but you didn't really mean it). You'd possibly get less for murder. You'd certainly get less for kicking the shit out of some poor innocent bloke on the prom at the weekend after a few beers. You'd get less for hospitalising your partner through physical violence. You'd get less for abusing a child. You'd get less for knocking over and killing someone whilst driving drunk. But hey ho at least the MESSAGE is getting out! Have you got any specific examples here? So then, great result, the taxpayer lashes out hundrends of thousands of pounds to put this bloke away for fifteen years (and I say again, you'd get less than that for dragging a random woman down an alley for a laugh and raping her), and the net result is?Absolutely fuck all. Simply not true. I'd quite like to be able to email a guy in liverpool, have him mail a few grands worth of cocaine to me and I flog it on the prom for a 500% markup, but that darn 15 years is putting me off. It works. Some folks do it responsibly, some folks fuck it up - the drug in question doesn't really matter. Fifteen years for absolutely fuck all in my humble opinion. Would you say the same if he was flogging the stuff to your kids? Unfortunately, due to our local news websites having awful or non-existent search engines, it'll take me a while to come up with local examples (I'll have a crack on the BBC website later), although I have looked into this area before and I can assure you that sentences of (substantially) less than 15 years have been handed down for the offences I listed (except perhaps murder), in the meantime we have good examples from the UK that LQQ has just kindly listed and Manx sentencing tends to be somewhat in line with UK sentencing. It doesn't take long to search the BBC website - rape, for example, a crime which I feel is singularly evil, is almost never punished as harshly as Clinton got for selling a bit of charlie to people who prefer to get high as opposed to getting pissed. (And whichever way you want to look at it, a kilo ain't that much.) Sentencing is not, and never will be, a deterrent to crime, some countries carry the death penalty for drug dealing and guess what? People still deal drugs. I'm not saying crime shouldn't carry a punishment, but when it comes to drug offences, it's my contention that common sense and the notion that the punishment should fit the crime, both fly out of the window. A combination of desperation, addiction, greed, stupidity, coercion - whatever you fancy really, there never has been and never will be a shortage of either drug users or drug dealers, we could fill the new prison up twice over, and new recruits would always be waiting to join the druggie ranks at all levels of the supply and use chain. The amount Clinton was put away for isn't really that much (and the £80K value is using 'police' prices, not actual prices which are somewhat lower), it might put a temporary dent into the local supply chain (which simply means quality goes down and prices go up, which perversely, actually increases the risk of harm) but that's about it, 'cause there's just too much money in drugs, and too many down-and-outs needing a quick fix of cash and drugs, to step up to the plate and have a go themselves, whether the sentence is 15 minutes or 15 years. As for the 'selling stuff to my kids' line, I'm no more or less worried about coke dealers than I am about Tesco or Shoprite or the corner shop, all of which are prolific alcohol and tobacco dealers, and those two drugs are flagged up as more harmful to both individuals and society than, for example - ecstasy, which is an evil class A drug. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 This article has some interesting things to say about the relative harm done by different drugs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Isn't the sentence somehow in line with the potential damage that amount of white could do? Or the amount of damage that individual could do by continuing to deal? Either way - can't stand drugs - if the judge thinks 15 years is right, then 15 years it is - tuff titties, zero sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The great mistake the judiciary make when they pass these sentences is that they don't realise that if people think they won't get caught, the sentence is immaterial. People still used to steal sheep when the penalty was death. On balance I think it would be best to legalise all drugs. That would bring in a load of revenue, massively reduce crime, cut policing and prison costs, improve purity, improve the health of addicts (they'd have money to spend on food - malnutrition being the main downside for most serious addicts because they have no money left to spend on food). There'd be more money available for treatment and drugs would lose their glamour. There'd be considerable social costs, but arguably much less than now. S Once over, I would have disagreed intensely over what you said Sebrof, but when you think about it, it makes reasonable sense. The island will always have its druggies, some paying within their budget and having little affect on other people, whilst the ones who cause the problems are those that create a multitude of victims in their wake, so that they can get their next fix, come rain, hail or shine. These are the ones thats the problem and as mentioned previously, remove one dealer and another takes their place The jail isn't big enough to deal with the amount of drug takers about the place and maybe it's time to look at a different solution? If the drugs were legalised to the point that only registered drug users could get them at a specific time and place, then would drug dealers be needed? If they were not illegal for the registered users, would they commit crimes to feed their habit and would they need to do so? If the positive thing out of this is to reduce crime and therefore victims, then would it not be feasible to attempt this after proper consultation with all the necessary agencies and professions? Also, by providing users with the proper healthcare and treatment, including food and some type of lodgings if needed (old prison?), would it not be possible for the users to come off drugs? Lots of questions that need lots of answers and I wonder if anyone in certain circles has brought this difficult topic up in this way? At the end of the day (yes it's night), something has to be done and although the Police do a decent job with the limited resources they've got, wouldn't it be better for all concerned, to have a specialised registered drug unit? ------------------------------------------------------------------ If you disagree with what I've said, then thats fine, you're entitled to your viewpoint, but I'm also willing to listen to your suggestions as well I'd imagine the message I wrote above would send dealers into shock, because it's their way of attempting to get rich quick if they're successful and over here, there's no chance of that. IMO, It's the dealers that needs to be taken out of the equation and catching them stops the supply temporarily, but there always seems some other dealer to take their place. That's why I would like to see a specialised registered drug unit. Basically, the dealers would be out of a job as there wouldn't be the required supply or need and they would have to move elsewhere. Those dependant on drugs would be able to get the required treatment and given support encouragement to come off drugs. The new prison is 'alleged' to not being big enough to deal with the influx of long time prisoners and if thats the case, it's only a matter of time before discussions begin on extending it. (Touchy subject apparently) The bottom line is this, I would certainly like to see less crime and therefore less victims of crime on the island, but something has to change. Drug dealers/suppliers would still be hammered by the courts whilst registered drug users to the unit would escape conviction if they met certain requirements by receiving their medication at the unit. If however, they have drugs elsewhere and not following certain 'rules', then they risk going to jail. Of course the old method of birching and giving them bread and water is always a favourite, but as Sebrof mentioned above, people would still risk the penalty of death to get what they want and maybe another solution and debate is required, so that 'I' could see it from 'all angles' and not just the pitiful few I've mentioned. I could be well wrong of course, as I'm not aware of all the facts and could spend hours googling and supporting the 'any case scenario', but it would be interesting to hear all sides on this and would support some indepth researching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 LQQ good lists. I'm struck that most of those crimes, while horrendous, only has single victims. The importation and dealing of drugs like cocaine has many victims. Perhaps that's part of the sentencing difference? Not an expert, so dunno. Many of these cases aren't straightforward. Should you get 15 years for punching a bus driver in the heat of the moment vs knowingly and calculatingly making a long term career out of crime and exploitation? They're very different aspects of breaking the law. I think either way that the argument is that those punishments are too lenient, not that this drugs one is too harsh. Sentencing is not, and never will be, a deterrent to crime, some countries carry the death penalty for drug dealing and guess what? People still deal drugs. I'm not saying crime shouldn't carry a punishment, but when it comes to drug offences, it's my contention that common sense and the notion that the punishment should fit the crime, both fly out of the window. This is barmy. Of course its a deterrent. Does it deter people completely? No, some people will always think its worth the risk, but you don't simply get rid of sentencing because of that. As for the 'selling stuff to my kids' line, I'm no more or less worried about coke dealers than I am about Tesco or Shoprite or the corner shop, all of which are prolific alcohol and tobacco dealers, and those two drugs are flagged up as more harmful to both individuals and society than, for example - ecstasy, which is an evil class A drug. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm You're barking mate. Your own link shows cocaine to be about twice as harmful as ecstasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 As for the 'selling stuff to my kids' line, I'm no more or less worried about coke dealers than I am about Tesco or Shoprite or the corner shop, all of which are prolific alcohol and tobacco dealers, and those two drugs are flagged up as more harmful to both individuals and society than, for example - ecstasy, which is an evil class A drug. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm You're barking mate. Your own link shows cocaine to be about twice as harmful as ecstasy. It also shows alcohol to be considerably more harmful than ecstacy, and not much less harmful than cocaine. Do you drink? And if you don't, would you ban it? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 It also shows alcohol to be considerably more harmful than ecstacy, and not much less harmful than cocaine. Do you drink? And if you don't, would you ban it? I agree there's a double standard, and yes I do drink occasionally. But alcohol is legal and cocaine isn't, just that very fact means that cocaine supply has it's victims that aren't just the people who chose to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shit3hawk Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 The new prison is 'alleged' to not being big enough to deal with the influx of long time prisoners and if thats the case, it's only a matter of time before discussions begin on extending it. (Touchy subject apparently). It would be easy to expand the capacity of the prison, I would expect there to be a costly an long drawn out consultation with tens of thousands spent to work out the most expensive solution, where as I would just remove the single bunks and put in the usual triple bunks and tell them to get on with it , i cant believe they spent all that money and only allowed single ocupancy I'm not suprised that many offenders are now refusing bail just so they can spend a few weeks in a fancy hotel with their mates for free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 It also shows alcohol to be considerably more harmful than ecstacy, and not much less harmful than cocaine. Do you drink? And if you don't, would you ban it? I agree there's a double standard, and yes I do drink occasionally. But alcohol is legal and cocaine isn't, just that very fact means that cocaine supply has it's victims that aren't just the people who chose to take it. So if the problems arise because cocaine is illegal, why not legalise it? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 ........... I'm not suprised that many offenders are now refusing bail just so they can spend a few weeks in a fancy hotel with their mates for free Evidence? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.