The Unjust Justice System
Government full of criminals legalises crime
Disclaimer: this is not legal advice. Speak with a legal professional about your case.
As it notes, the ‘Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme’ isn’t for lenient sentences (wouldn’t want to give victims a false hope and sense of justice), but unduly lenient sentences, where a judge is super-extra lenient:
The fact such a scheme even needs to exist at all in a country known for having already lenient sentences back in 2009 speaks volumes. In 2021, a meagre 106 sentences were increased under this scheme, showing the extent of the problem of unduly lenient sentences. Victory? Alas, no.
In contrast, over 1,800 offenders who have ‘indefinite detention’ — a particularly difficult punishment to earn — will find their ‘indefinite detention’ period terminated.
And this isn’t the kind of ‘indefinite detention period’ you’re thinking of, where they languish in jail indefinitely… alas, no, they’re out on release during this so-called “indefinite detention”:
Instead, it is the ‘indefinite threat of recall to jail’. George Orwell’s Weasel Words never did so much work!
Technically speaking, we’re all under the indefinite threat of jail if we break the law.
Essentially, this is just fancy speak for ‘they’ve officially set over 1,800 prisoners free’, as opposed to them being already unofficially already free.
If this doesn’t disgust you, then the idea that prison sentences in certain brackets are already halved by default ought.
The Sentencing Council — which advises judges on sentencing — mentions that determinate (fixed length) jail sentences are the most common and propose the following:
Contrast the columns: ‘Period in custody before release’ is half that of ‘Sentence imposed by court’. So 6 months jail is actually 3 months, 10 months is 5, and so on. ‘Licence’ simply means ‘let out on licence’ (I.E. no longer in jail).
Even the pedophile-enabling BBC asked the question “Why do prisoners serve only half their sentence?”, coming up with such inspirational lines as, “does a prison sentence always mean prison?” “not necessarily”…
…“For about 90% of such sentences, an automatic release is granted half-way through the sentence”…
…and this particularly ill-zinger: “about one in 10 people convicted in court receives a prison sentence”:
So, even when a court declares they are sending someone for 4 years or less ‘to jail’, they basically mean half that.
What about those above 4 years? Well, they get released after 2/3rds of their sentence.
In 2021 around 64,000 offenders got determinate sentences.
If someone faces 2 years or less in jail and they’re convicted by a Magistrates’ Court, chances are they will get what is called a suspended sentence.
This is where they don’t even go to jail to begin with, and the government uselessly threatens to jail them (again) if they don’t follow the law. Because it obviously worked the first time.
In 2021, around 44,000 offenders received suspended sentences. Then there’s this golden punishment…
Banning Drivers Who Already Can’t Drive
More avid watchers of UK police shows — particularly ones oriented to intercepting bad drivers — will often find this meaningless drivel penalty doled out like candy.
Often police on the show will pull over a driver, find he has no licence, no insurance, and then later on the show will announce that they received a driving ban and a fine. The fine is typically less than what a driver would pay yearly on insurance.
‘Hello hello, you’re already driving illegally, now you’re banned’ — we guess they’re extra, super-duper banned?
Finding evidence of this absurd embarassment is hard, but not impossible. One law firm has this table, of which we quote one excerpt out of many absurdities:
Before you think the fine has anything meaningful, remember, the insurance for new young drivers is usually £1,700 per year, if not more.
The maximum fine typically isn’t issued, and £500 is a more common average. Less than the cost of insurance!
Hilariously, they apply the ban if the person tries to comply with the law, by banning them if they pass their driving test. ‘Thanks for complying citizen, here’s your ban’.
Why would a crook want to pass a driving test?
Why would a person want to reform their ways if you’re going to still make it illegal for them to drive even if they improve their driving and pass?
The penalty points are meaningless; they’re only applied if you have a licence! Which isn’t a thing if you’re driving illegally!
Here: have penalty points on the licence you don’t have, to go with the ban on driving you weren’t already allowed to do, on top of this fine which is less than car insurance, tax and MOT combined.
Police Don’t Arrest Shoplifters, Ever
Only recently has this generated outcry (mysterious; it’s almost like it’s become out-of-control due to price hikes), however police have a policy of not arresting shoplifters if they steal at or below £200.
So of course, all shoplifters do is make repeat visits shoplifting below £200.
The police’s avoidance of arresting shoplifters has been a thing for at least two decades (even if it seems recent), despite the law basically ‘decriminalising’ it only being passed less than a decade ago.
This means it is only dealt with in a Magistrates’ Court (if it ever gets there).
Magistrates’ have far fewer punishment powers than a Crown Court; hence the Magistrates’ having suspended sentences. And very few jail sentences.
Costs Too Much To Do Too Little
Read: the shoplifter is very unlikely to go to jail, and the cost to the taxpayer of arresting, documenting, prosecuting, and fining them (for the meagre amount of which they can be fined, if they’re even convicted at all) will vastly exceed the cost of £200.
Police essentially don’t respond to such calls because as a cost-analysis it isn’t worth it, as the sentencing is too lenient, and does not factor in full costs.
Of course this falsely presumes the police would want to even if it did: a smarter cop would find some technicality or other law to charge the offender with. Isn’t the usual excuse for literally everything ‘breach of the peace’ and ‘resisting arrest’ for anyone they don’t like these days?
For the record, in 2006, less than £200 thefts would have been considered the majority of shoplifting cases, and as shoplifters became more shrewd to the limits, would have no doubt increased:
For the record, it isn’t clear if sentencing refers to £200 total (across all shoplifting efforts) or £200 per individual shoplift, however police seem to treat shoplifting as individual, not running totals, based on what retail staff have told The Daily Beagle.
Shoplifting in retail is rampant and organised, and in some cases has absolutely nothing to do with people starving:
Think it’s bad now? Recent legislation proposes just giving the theiving bastards a warning:
And the warning doesn’t apply just to shoplifting, either, but a “list” of summary offences:
This includes (but not limited to), physical assaults and criminal damage, as the criminal government legalises the criminals:
A warning for physical violence, selectively enforced by the police. Remember; they treat ‘hate speech’ as a jailable crime, but not theft, criminal damage and violence.
Life Sentence Isn’t For Life
Anyone learning UK law will find the ‘life sentence’ isn’t actually for life, shocking a great many people. The UK government will peddle totalitarian spiel that it is for ‘the rest of your life’ but notably lacking detail and rife with contradictions (such as being ‘released from prison’):
Scary! But in truth a ‘life sentence’ is closer to 25 years… on a bad day. One woman who murdered a man was sentenced to 23 years minimum. That man is forever dead. That woman will be out when she’s in her 50s.
They say 23 years ‘minimum’ in this case, but with ‘good behaviour’ one can ‘earn credits’ to reduce their sentence. Minimum also makes it sound like they may add more years; which they can do, but only if the State hates you. Just ask Julian Assange, who still hasn’t been convicted of a crime.
Publish documents that make the government look bad; get perpetually detained with no appeal. Murder someone and be out in 25 years.
Why 25 years? Ancedotes excusing this leniency are passed from lawyer to lawyer that in ‘ye olden times’ people weren’t expected to live as long and therefore 25 years would have put them into old age. In truth it’s a load of crock: in ‘ye olden times’ they gave the death penalty.
The reason it is 25 years is because of the European Court of Criminal Rights. Sorry, we meant European Court of Human Rights, who declare criminals’ rights mustn’t be violated, and must have an appeal hearing at 25 years.
Forget the dead victim who will never hear an appeal to return to life. Forget the genuinely in need of rights detained; rights are only for murderers (everyone committing petty crimes gets off scot free).
When you have mass murdering criminals in charge, they will make crime legal.
Do you feel safe yet, dear reader?
Related Articles To Read
I Counterfeited Money (Or that time Zazzle falsely accused me of committing a crime just to censor my work)
Found this informative? Bypass censorship and receive more for free!
Help improve The Daily Beagle’s reach?
What do you think, dear reader? Let us know in the comments.