I won't argue that these sentences are disproportionate.
But is it what we need in response to this? I'd argue yes.
The spark for these "riots" was a gentleman who was killed during an arrest. Bad times, of course. Very bad times.
But it's important to understand that the details of /exactly/ what happened here are currently officially unknown. The official report has not been released.
On the back of this, groups of people all over the UK decided to go on organised shoplifting spree's. When asked by the media "Why" they said things like "To get back our taxes, innit." [SIC]
Perhaps a few, who are at the very least comfortable with criminal behaviour, need to be given these sorts of sentences - and then for the media to make it well known it's happened.
A deterrent. Unfortunate for those singled out for it, but perhaps one needed for the good of the whole society.
They looted charity shops for fucks sake. Parents supported the kids doing it.
Prison sentences, fines, comunity service, etc are already a deterrent to crime. These deterrents (and punishments) are considered proportionate to the crime by the judge/jury. I see no reason to single out rioting to be different, apart from emotional ones.
So because x pounds of punishment wasn't a deterrent, we are to believe that x times two pounds of punishment will be? Why not, instead, work toward inspiring people to strive to do good, rather than punishing them into fearing to do evil?
You are getting over excited. There are many opportunities to riot, that are not taken. This is no the "first tiny window of opportunity".
And once again, the police will cover up any wrong doing, close ranks, just as they did with Jean Charles de Mendez. This is not OK. This is not acceptable, for a police force to kill people, and hide. You can pretend that it has nothing to do with this, but all you will be doing is pretending to yourself to make yourself feel better.
I can see where you are coming from, but in the case of the two involved in this story, it's a bit deeper.
On ones own, it is unlikely the average man will head off to a mobile phone store, force the shutter open, smash the windows and head off inside to collect some iOS booty.
Collectively, a group of men are considerably more likely to do so.
Organising a group of people on Facebook to gather and go forth and cause problems in a town is therefore a very serious issue.
(In this case, nobody did gather, but what if they did? Millions of pounds worth of damage may have been caused - as it was in other towns.)
I won't argue that these sentences are disproportionate.
But is it what we need in response to this? I'd argue yes.
The spark for these "riots" was a gentleman who was killed during an arrest. Bad times, of course. Very bad times.
But it's important to understand that the details of /exactly/ what happened here are currently officially unknown. The official report has not been released.
On the back of this, groups of people all over the UK decided to go on organised shoplifting spree's. When asked by the media "Why" they said things like "To get back our taxes, innit." [SIC]
Perhaps a few, who are at the very least comfortable with criminal behaviour, need to be given these sorts of sentences - and then for the media to make it well known it's happened.
A deterrent. Unfortunate for those singled out for it, but perhaps one needed for the good of the whole society.
They looted charity shops for fucks sake. Parents supported the kids doing it.
Something had to be done. This was it.