Police cautions 'to be scrapped' in England and Wales

The government is planning to scrap the use of police cautions - where those who commit minor offences are given a formal warning - in England and Wales. Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said victims should not feel that criminals are "walking away scot-free".
Under the new system, offenders would make good damage they have done or pay compensation for less serious crimes.

Those who commit more serious offences would face court if they fail to comply with conditions set out by police. The system is to be trialled for a year in the Staffordshire, West Yorkshire and Leicestershire police force areas. If successful it will be introduced across England and Wales. The government says the new scheme - which will also give victims a say in how the offender is dealt with - will be both tougher and more simple.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29859758

This is the bit I have a problem with....




"Those who commit more serious offences would face court if they fail to comply with conditions set out by police."



Those who commit more serious crime should always face court.


What is this 'conditions set out by police' bit all about and why should serious offenders be able to avoid court and proper justice?

I think you are reading into the words "more serious" wrongly as the upper limit of more serious to the worst kind of crimes Tommy. When I think this means just crimes that would be classed as more serious that the lowest levels. I think this means lower to middle level crimes, say for example selling drugs. Though I cannot say for sure until we see some classification, though I doubt any top level serious crime would not go to trial.

I actually though think this is a better method that sees some justification for the victims.

It's all too ambiguous.


We all know cautions have been well overused and misused on quite serious crimes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22335575



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2729348/90-rapists-escaped-caution-four-years-Critics-attack-culture-lets-criminals-escape-slap-wrist.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323723/Metropolitan-Police-cautions-quarter-ALL-crimes-including-rapes-drug-trafficking-robbery.html



I fear this propsal will just mean that more of the serious crimes avoid courts and proper sentencing.



A crime is a crime and all should face proper prosecutions.

Again you are taking the words out of context based on no idea what are the boundaries.
Some crimes are a waste of time to commit people to trial and jail, with most of all avoiding the expense of.

That's where fixed penalty notices can be useful, anything more serious should always go to court.

They can, but lets wait and see shall we?

What crimes do you think are not serious enough to have to go to court?

Tommy Monk wrote:What crimes do you think are not serious enough to have to go to court?

You are getting into interpretation zone, as we are bound to differ on what does, bt am sure though the most serious crimes we will agree on.
So it would be pointless to say.
Here though at least something is being done for the victims, of which I completely back.

Laters.

Come on dodge, you favour some crimes not being punished with fixed penalty notice or court imposed sentences so tell us which crimes you think should not warrant either of those things...?

I really have no interest to be honest, sorry tab boring to debate over negligible differences on lower crimes on what action should be taken on them.

Well the thing is, cautions were only supposed to be used for very minor crimes and only for first offences, but what we have seen is them being used for much more serious offences and again and again for repeat offenders (as shown in my links above) who completely avoided proper prosecutions, court and sentences.


Now this new proposal is peeking to further advance and normalise the practice of criminals being able to avoid proper prosecution, court and sentencing for a whole range of crimes.


Any crime that warrants an arrest is serious enough to be properly prosecuted in my view.


To me this proposal is more soft on crime.

Tommy Monk wrote:Well the thing is, cautions were only supposed to be used for very minor crimes and only for first offences, but what we have seen is them being used for much more serious offences and again and again for repeat offenders (as shown in my links above) who completely avoided proper prosecutions, court and sentences.


Now this new proposal is peeking to further advance and normalise the practice of criminals being able to avoid proper prosecution, court and sentencing for a whole range of crimes.


Any crime that warrants an arrest is serious enough to be properly prosecuted in my view.


To me this proposal is more soft on crime.

How can it be possible to be softer, when as already now people still get away with going to trial and yet now the victims will be compensated?
That is a plus, not a negative on the present situation.

Going to trial will often lead to victims being compensated with fancies being awarded.


What this proposal does is just remove the sentencing for the crimes.

Tommy Monk wrote:Going to trial will often lead to victims being compensated with fancies being awarded.


What this proposal does is just remove the sentencing  for the crimes.

You are confusing the points, one on where crimes do or do not go to trial which already happens, to where now victims will be compensated. It does not remove anything, that is just your assumption it does or will.

No it is rating the way for a multitude of crimes and criminals to avoid proper prosecution, court and sentencing.

Again that already happens based on giving out cautions, why are you finding that so hard to understand?
You miss the point each time, that the victims will get at least some benefit and justification, of which this is a plus they never had before.
Has that point sunk in yet?

No you are missing the point that cautions were only supposed to be used for very minor crimes and then only if first offence.


Multitudes of more serious crimes and repeat offenders were never, intended to evade proper prosecution, court and sentencing.



While doing the latter under cautions was clearly wrong, this new proposal actually allows for and enables a multitude of crimes and criminals to evade proper prosecution, court and sentencing.

I think that any crime that warrants an assert also warrents proper prosecution, court and sentencing.

Tommy Monk wrote:No you are missing the point that cautions were only supposed to be used for very minor crimes and then only if first offence.


Multitudes of more serious crimes and repeat offenders were never, intended to evade proper prosecution, court and sentencing.



While doing the latter under cautions was clearly wrong, this new proposal actually allows for and enables a multitude of crimes and criminals to evade proper prosecution, court and sentencing.

Guessing by the poor answer you still fail to grasp the point, oh well I guess the old saying is true, you cannot teach old dogs new tricks, they are so in their ways they refuse to listen to reason, logic and rational view points.

Start by opening your mind to what you block yourself from seeing.
Again what you are arguing about already happens.
Think context.

Already happens but shouldn't dodge, that is the point, cautions were never intended to be used in this way.



Do you think it was right to use cautions in the ways shown in links above?

Tommy Monk wrote:Already happens but shouldn't dodge, that is the point, cautions were never intended to be used in this way.



Do you think it was right to use cautions in the ways shown in links above?

But that is a different argument, why you cannot see, that at least now all the victims will receive some compensation, of which they never all had before.

You want to argue over cautions that is up to you, my point was on the benefit here of this introduction of this new policy, of which it does benefit the victim.

So criminals will continue to be able to evade prosecution , court and sentencing....


As they have done under the misuse of cautions but this time it will be official policy that they are able to.....




And you support this so you must also support all the cautions given out to criminals in the links above???

Tommy Monk wrote:So criminals will continue to be able to evade prosecution , court and sentencing....
As they have done under the misuse of cautions but this time it will be official policy that they are able to.....
And you support this so you must also support all the cautions given out to criminals in the links above???

Still being an ignoramus, as you are arguing off the wrong point, in connection to this new policy.
How can there be official policy, when most of these crimes are based upon the interpretation of what the officer involved interprets, as they already do on a crime?

I will I guess have to teach you basics in debates, because you are looking so poor at the moment Matti.
You go wrong when you detract and make claims off me, showing your whole argument lacks credibility, you think by making a daft and absurd claim I have never said, I will fall for your distraction. All that proves is your inability to debate.

Not being stupid at all, cautions have been dished out all too often to criminals for quite serious crimes and to repeat offenders which was never their invented purpose.


I don't want this to happen or the same continuing to happen but under a different scheme.



This proposal is basically just a continuation of what has been going wrong already.



What crimes are to be covered by this and what are these special conditions that police are to be allowed to set?



Basically I think anything like dropping litter,could be dealt with by caution, anything more serious should be fixed penalty fine or if more serious then prosecution and court and sentencing is appropriate.

Tommy Monk wrote:Not being stupid at all, cautions have been dished out all too often to criminals for quite serious crimes and to repeat offenders which was never their invented purpose.
Still arguing off the wrong point why you are an ignorant fuckwit
I don't want this to happen or the same continuing to happen but under a different scheme.
Nobody does, but that does not change your view point is off an interpretation of an officer
This proposal is basically just a continuation of what has been going wrong already.
No the proposal actually allows for the victims to receive some compensation.
What crimes are to be covered by this and what are these special conditions that police are to be allowed to set?
Again you are being a real thick fuckwit, the crimes will still be dependent on the officer, how they view them, doh.
Basically I think anything like dropping litter,could be dealt with by caution, anything more serious should be fixed penalty fine or if more serious then prosecution and court and sentencing is appropriate.

That is because you think in tunnel vision nd forget to factor in what arresting officer says, does or think.

Marks out of ten for a reply.

3

Police are there to arrest criminals, it is up to judges and magistrates to award punishments.




Again, what crimes and what conditions are to be covered by these proposals.



I don't think that just requiring criminals to say sorry and cough up a little bit of compensation is punishment enough and not for individual police to decide depending on how they feel at the time.

Well, to be a buttinsky, skimming this it does seem like the police need to issue fewer cautions. I completely disagree with a caution when real damage or harm has been done.

Usually over here, your only chance of getting a caution ("warning" is the usual term used here) if you've behaved dangerously but didn't do any significant harm or damage. Examples would be speeding, or people getting into a fight where nobody was seriously hurt.

Read the links I posted earlier.


'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime'

I'm not too up on this but from what I see this is just tinkering with the system that is in place just now.

Restorative Justice and Community Disposals but with the 'cautions' being dumped.

See here....

http://www.gmpcc.org.uk/tools-and-resources/out-of-court-disposals-and-community-resolutions/