How about sentences that deter this kind of theft, instead?
Don't buy that phone! It ATTRACTS CRIMINALS, UK.gov will tell people
Home Secretary Theresa May announced this morning that the government plans to publish a mobile phone theft index to help Brits make informed decisions about what handsets to buy, based on which is the least likely to be nicked by wrongdoers. The cabinet minister revealed the proposal in a speech sploshed with pre-General …
COMMENTS
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 12:16 GMT Anonymous Coward
sentencing comes late on in the game
Before you get sentenced, you gotta get nicked, and then found guilty. If you know the odds of that are small...
One of West Midlands Police's main preoccupations in recent months seems to have been the difficult task of closing down hydroponics shops and securing "justice" for the owners and staff.
Meanwhile the usual alcohol-fueled violence and destruction largely continues unabated.
Evidence-based policing policy. Theresa May has probably heard of it, but the alcohol business donates lots of money to her party...
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 12:35 GMT RyokuMas
Re: sentencing comes late on in the game
"Before you get sentenced, you gotta get nicked, and then found guilty. If you know the odds of that are small..."
Aha! I knew there had to be a use for those "take photos/record audio at any time without consent" facebook app permissions had to be useful for something!
... I'll get me coat.
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 15:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: sentencing comes late on in the game
And, in the US, the oxycontin makers. Somebody has done a study and guess what, a surprising number of academics who are prepared to testify against marijuana legalisation are involved in research into prescription painkillers.
Brewers and makers of heroin substitutes. Just the people who you would think have our best interests at heart when it comes to preventing people using stuff that grows in ordinary greenhouses and requires little post-processing.
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 19:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: sentencing comes late on in the game
Thing is it costs £40,000 a year to keep someone locked up. They don't care about cuts or they would take notice of that. Price of a new phone and whatever pure drugs the person wants still leaves a £39,000 saving. Tell them they have 3 months to get a job or they cannot have the drugs any more they will all be in work. (And loads of money will be saved which is supposedly what they care about).
Plus it an obvious thing more cuts = more crime anyway. What they have done has achieved nothing so far.
-
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 14:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
"It only works if the risk of getting caught is high. Police are so swamped they don't have the time to follow up every phone, bicycle or laptop theft."
Chicken and egg.
If the chance of getting caught was the same, but the sentence was, say, 100 years no parole (EXAMPLE FFS), then the weighing up of immediate gain vs the worst outcome would surely have an effect?
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 14:53 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
Yes it would mean a rise in armed robberies.
The original Great Train Robbers got 30years - to "send a message to these sort of people"
The message was, you might as well go in with a shot gun, since robbing some cash and killing a copper carried the same sentence.
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 15:59 GMT Alan Brown
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
"The message was, you might as well go in with a shot gun, since robbing some cash and killing a copper carried the same sentence."
They pretty much did. The train driver never really recovered form his injuries - and that's why the sentences were so harsh, not the money.
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 16:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
The train driver died of leukemia several years later, at the typical age for somebody in that job at that time with that background. If you are going to hand out life sentences then the people who sold him the cigarettes he smoked.
The sentences were because it was a robbery of government money - the driver was hardly mentioned at the time.
-
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 16:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
Unfortunately evidence based crime policy (the stuff that is so unpopular with lawmakers because, Daily Mail) shows that criminals come from the following groups:
The not very bright
Drug addicts
The very impulsive
Grandiose narcissists who think they are cleverer and more important than anybody else
Psychopaths who think everybody else is a stupid sheep who only exists to be exploited.
You will readily work out that most of these people are poor at evaluating risk.
The US belief in the death penalty has strangely not reduced the murder rate to zero. You might want to think about why.
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 16:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
That is a fair point.
But....
actually we need some real figures here.
Say the total who mug (and extort the PIN in the Met's recent drive) and steal a phone are X.
The breakdown of X will contain those who are in your list, but the question is, how many?
Whereas you are right that the murder rate is not zero in the US in spite of the Death Penalty, (which personally I am against - I am NOT mandating for people who steal phones, NOR am I mandating 100 years no PAROLE - that was just an absurd example to get an idea across). However, what would the murder rate be, in the US, if the sentence was 10 years. Would it be more or less? What about 5 years?
I am mortified to even be considered a Daily Mailite, my point being that if I was to go out and delibrately take a phone from somebodies open handbag, and I was subsequently caught and convicted, what would my sentence be if
A. No convictions previously
B. known but no convictions.
C. 100th time.
If the sentence at A was the same as C, would the occurence of C reduce considerably?
Stealing is considered by society is set out as morally wrong. If we had NO sanctions, then we would expect the rate to go up. If you had life imprisonment for petty theft, it would go down, though as previously mentioned it is unlikely to go to zero. SO - are the current sentencing for stealing a phone optimum for the middle ground, ie putting chance theft off? Is it the same as stealing a car? The same as stealing a Million quid? (Taking the manner aside for now, ie Armed robbery) If not, there must be a list, either written or unwritten, that states that if your item stolen is less than 10K, then we will not put the same resources in if it was a Million quid, when all other factors are equal. If this is the case, then WHY is it the case?
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 21:49 GMT Terry 6
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
"The not very bright
Drug addicts
The very impulsive
Grandiose narcissists who think they are cleverer and more important than anybody else
Psychopaths who think everybody else is a stupid sheep who only exists to be exploited.
You will readily work out that most of these people are poor at evaluating risk."
Just add an expensive education at, preferably, Eton....
-
Thursday 4th September 2014 11:05 GMT Deimos
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
The not very bright
Drug addicts
The very impulsive
Grandiose narcissists who think they are cleverer and more important than anybody else
Psychopaths who think everybody else is a stupid sheep who only exists to be exploited.
You will readily work out that most of these people are poor at evaluating risk.
You had me until you got to narcissists and Psychopaths, you mean managers and BOFH's ?
While managers are lousy at evaluating risk, BOFH's are master at calculating Risk - then making sure the resultant risk comes true for the manager.
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 17:36 GMT Greg J Preece
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
If the chance of getting caught was the same, but the sentence was, say, 100 years no parole (EXAMPLE FFS), then the weighing up of immediate gain vs the worst outcome would surely have an effect?
Do you have a single example of where higher sentencing actually deterred crime? In the US, merely possessing a drug can give you a mandatory 5 year jail term, and there are parts of the country that will literally kill you stone dead for certain crimes - do those crimes happen any less frequently? Nope.
-
Thursday 15th January 2015 12:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: And meanwhile in the real world
As the swirl of comments have noted, the magnitude of sentencing does not appear to have much impact on the commission of crime. Therefore it seems to me that the thought process of people about to embark of a crime must consider other criteria before deciding which way to go.
The first and most obvious thought must be "Will I get caught?" If the thought process returns less than 50% likelihood of apprehension, then it would be worth a go.
The second thought would be "Is the risk of a substantial sentence I MIGHT get, a viable trade off for the material gain I WILL get if I take the risk?".
And finally, "I don't give a shit!".
Looking at these three decision break points, I'd say that given (a) low chance of detection, (b) chance of minimal sentence, and (c) not caring (for a multitude of differing reasons) about the consequences, the chances of a person committing a crime stands at 66% IF that person has a disposition towards committing crimes OR 33% for a basically honest person.
Recommendation: Build more prisons to cope with increase in population and expand police resources to cope with population expansion. You know it makes sense.
We are NEVER going to eradicate crime regardless of the sentencing policy because of the simple overriding thought " It won't happen to me". trumps everything.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 18:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Phones will be stolen no matter what
Some will be sold on or used, less desirable phones will be chucked in the canal.
I can just see it now,
"Give me the phone or I'll stab you"
"Here, here take it, it's only a phone.."
"Are you takin the piss outta me? Are you takin the piss, a f*ckin Win phone sh*t Nokia?"
"It's very good please take it..."
"F*ck you! here take this.." Handing he victim a roll of notes.
"But there's £500, but.."
"Shut it, no one but no one should put up with one of those, it's criminal, go and buy yerself an iPhone, you poor deprived bast*rd"
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 19:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Phones will be stolen no matter what
Nice thought.
Someone coming along to rid me of a fast, large-screen phone with a superb camera and a two day battery life so I can replace it with something like the wife's iPhone 5S (you know, small screen and a battery that barely gets her through the afternoon, but costs twice as much).
Still, who needs reality when you've got branding>
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 12:01 GMT AndrueC
Theresa May announced this morning that the government plans to publish a mobile phone theft index
What, like those efficiency tables?
A <===== Least likely to be stolen.
B <==== Probably won't be stolen.
C <=== Careful now.
D <== It'll be nicked within a few days.
E <= It'll be nicked before you leave the shop.
F < And they'll have yer arm off as well.
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 12:07 GMT Pen-y-gors
Old technology?
"The most obvious and pressing example is the criminal opportunities provided by new technology."
What about old technology - trrrrrsts can wander round with a sock filled with wet sand that will be completely invisible to modern metal detectors. Or they can stab people with an undetectable icicle (thank you Father Brown - I think) or hit us with a frozen shoulder of pork (well, perhaps not the un-Islamic trrrrsts - leg of lamb?) - what is our so-called 'Home' secretary doing to protect us against old-tech trrrrrsts and crims in our homes?
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 12:15 GMT Amorous Cowherder
How about spending taxes on educating morons on being careful rather than giving ministers and lackeys the fun of pouring over useless insurance stats and playing with valuable handsets?
The number of idiots with bags wide open ( especially you ladies on the tube! ) showing all their tech goodies and wallets/purses, people staring blankly into space while holding their latest iPhone with just two fingers and the idiots who leave their phones on tables in public places while they lean over to another table to get something. Put it in your pocket! If you need to wait for a call, crank up the volume or vibrate for the next hour or two. Some ringtones are loud and obnoxious enough to wake the dead, you don't need to be fondling your phone 24 hours a day on the off chance of a call.
No not everyone is a scumbag, but it's better to be safe than sorry.
( Don't get me started on the idiots to take their cash from ATMs and just wander away waving it about for 30 seconds before putting it in their pocket! )
-
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 15:39 GMT JaitcH
Never heard of OnStar?
That can perform several remote functions including tracking a vehicle and even slowing it down and bringing it to a stop.
I guess ACPO wants their own custom version.
Car rental companies and Repo(ssession) men also have remote stop features although they tend to use cell systems.
-
Wednesday 3rd September 2014 12:18 GMT Wheaty73
Prepare for the Government to be sued...
So when Manufacturer A. starts seeing its sales take a nosedive because this mad government is telling people not to buy their phones, they won't be a teeny bit cross?
Or Manufacturer B. going "oi, Manufacturer A's phones will get you mugged, buy ours!"...
Or perhaps people just won't give a toss, like everything else this farce of a government does for our protection, it will just be ignored.