Just been watching the News about a burglar who ''apparently'' has written a letter of ''Not Apology''. http://news.sky.com/home/strange-news/article/16116679
I did not say they were not, I am pointing out the fact that a burglar of all people would sit down and write a letter seems rather unburglar like. secondly you would think that a burglar would have a computer to write a letter if he was dying to do so. what type of burglar would write a handwritten letter and send it for evidence? when was the last time you handwritten a letter? the only people who sit down and write a letter to express a feeling are usually people with time on their hands and a passion for writing. a burglar does not strike of having none of these qualities. Just my opinion.
Did you read the article? He had to write it as part of a non-custodial rehabilitation sentence. It wasn't that he was dying to write it, it was that he was made to write it. As it is, he's a twat blaming his crimes on his victims. And now this is going to be the front for a "throw everyone in jail!" campaign over the Christmas period, which will be simply joyous for those of us who think things aren't quite so black and white as the tabloids would like.
Yes he was MADE to write it which is still out of character. the point is that for anyone to be forced to write a letter as part of a rehabilitation program, is obvioulsy insanity . The fact he was told to write something and then allow him to blame the people he robbed, makes this whole rehabilitation move a laughing stock. This is what you call adding insult to the wound. what did anyone expect the accused to do? feel sorry and in a letter? I don't think so.
... What? I think you mean "adding insult to injury". It needs the alliteration, otherwise it doesn't sound right. 1. A person being forced to do something by the law is not out-of-character for anyone. 2. It's not insanity. The idea is that the person is to feel remorse and view their victims as humans, rather than targets. The problem arises in the execution of this plan because some people are dicks. 3. It doesn't make the rehabilitation "move a laughing". It just means they failed on one attempt, and next time they'll try better. That's the point of any system; to make it function better. 4. Why do you call him the "accused"? That implies that they only SAY he did it. The fact is that he DID do it. So he's not "the accused". He's guilty. Quite frankly, I feel sorry for the guy. He's illiterate, which is a growing problem in the world, and Sky News is mocking him because of it. He may have mocked those people, and, yes, after stealing from them, but he pointed out that they had two fundamental flaws, what with the curtains and the window. Sky News isn't trying to help this person. They're taking the piss out of someone who's probably too under-qualified to get a "real" job.
Actually, I think she's just mixed her metaphors: rubbing salt in the wound, and adding insult to injury.
The letter did not reach the homeowners. The police appropriated it as a way of demonstrating the mind of a burglar to the public, helping to prevent crime. The offender - not the accused, as he's been convicted - has since been re-sentenced. Writing the letter formed part of the rehabilitation scheme imposed upon him by the courts. The idea behind it was is to make the offender think about what he's done, therefore setting him on the straight and narrow. Bear in mind, this is a sixteen year old kid, possibly with a troubled background and little education. This is the court system imposing a punishment but also trying to prevent this kid coming before them again. The scheme has a very good success rate, it just happens that this offender has flouted the system fairly spectacularly.
the letter did reach the homeowners it was all over the News. Was it this justified? The News took it on their stride to advertise it on their behalf . Where did that leave the homeowners? To punihs someone by ways of writing is not a good idea. If this concept of' let's ''face you to your demons'' and 'let's get you apologosing to those you harmed' is very weak in essence. It gives the message to others who intend to harm or steal from others to go on writing to their vicitims as a mean to tormenting them. It is not good idea to advertise thsi kind of stuff especially a letter that did the exact opposite of what it was meant to do so in my eyes this kind of reahabilitation idea has failed and what's more it has put the homeowners under an embarrassing and stressful situation. The media is totally in the wrong to have been allowed to go public with a letter written by a sixteen years old and whose contents was anyhting but remorsefull. I think this a joke.
What do you know of the English justice system? Because that whole comment smacks of right-wing reactionary commentaries from editors determined to damn a system about which they know nothing on the grounds of one individual showing a lack of compliance. How would you have sentenced a sixteen-year-old burglar?
I would not a sentence a sixteen year old because a 16year old is a kid. We as adults already hold the power to punish a child because they are not our age. I would certainly not demand that a child a write a letter of apology unguided in this way. If anyone is to apologise to anyone the done thing is to do it face to face and verbally. In a normal situation you would not expect your noisy neighbour to send you a letter of apology because they have been disruptibve. You would expect them to show up and apologise. To force a child to write a letter as a consequence of their misbeahviour is a total joke and misdemeaning to the child the victims the justice sytem. That is what you do at school and guess what we all know it does not work. It makes a mockery of the whole discipline sytem. I believe in protecting both victims and those who harm. This letter business has done just the opposite it is humiliating for everybody for the reasons I stated above. I don't believe in 'Confrontation and Threats and this story has done just that. To force to write some thoughts does not mean come from the heart is treading on dogy grounds. What it teaches the child is resentment and teaches him to lie usind writing as tool to do so.
To Banzai: Thank you for correctingme although I do not see much of a difference between a wound and an injury hence the confusion.
Hold that thought, I have an argument to respond to it. I just happen to be off out. First, though, I do agree that a 16-year-old shouldn't face adult penalties, but he needs sentencing with a mix of retribution and rehabilitation in mind. He needs to realise that what he did isn't acceptable and needs to understand why. If we start punishing at 18 or 21 then we stand no chance of stopping a lot of offenders and making them turn their backs on a life of crime. The age of criminal responsibility is two years too low in this country, but at 16 he knows what he's doing, regardless of his background.
A hanging! ... No. Just no. Anyone who commits a crime must be made to see that what they did is wrong. A sixteen year old's sentence will not be as strict as an adults, and as often as possible should not include juvenile detention, but they should be sentenced, especially if they don't show remorse.
Hi, All I can say is that this was one dumb sixteen year old burgler - and no, I'm not talking about his obviously pitiful grasp of English. If he was given the task to do of apologising to his victims as part of his sentence, and then wrote that, the likelihood is he's just shot himself in the foot and will be doing more time or whatever because of it. I mean how dumb do you have to be to not even be able to lie about remorse to get a shorter sentence? My gosh, the standard of criminals has dropped these past few years! Cheers.
How is a child to show remorse? He does not know any better because the way things are going it is now turning kids into thieves. This sixteen year old as far as I am concerened does not care less. This kid's life is meaningless , he does not care hence his actions. You would think adults will know better then this. If you want to discipline a child do it verbally first that is my attitude. One needs to be taught how to speak properly before putting pen to paper. This is how things work, you learn to speak properly then you should think eloquentaly should follow Don't expect a child to express themselves peotically or nicely when all they can think or say is rude and swear words and steal. AS we know all well humans learn to listenthen think then speak then write in this order. It won't work any other way. Clean the kid'sregister and mental before you can ask or tell them to write anything.
armed robberies, rapes and murders are often committed by 16-year-olds [and even younger perps]... so, would you just let thieves, rapists and killers go free just because they're 'kids'?...
You're looking at this in the wrong way. As mammamaia said, a lot of crimes are committed by teenagers. As far as I'm concerned, and as far as most legal systems are concerned, you stop being a child at age 12. Obviously, in the place where this happened, juvenile criminals go through rehabilitation in the hope that they can, you know, be rehabilitated. I highly doubt that writing this letter was the only thing they made him do. He would have learned and be set to learn other things. With the advent of the letter, it would have been enough to show that rehabilitation would not be enough in his particular case, and they re-sentenced him. Seriously, think about what you're saying. Kids don't learn from being TOLD what to do, and neither do adolescents or even most adults. It takes a mature mind to be able to do that. As for "it won't work any other way," well that's bullshit, right there. Rehabilitation is actually successful in a lot of cases. It has to be. Rehabilitation programs wouldn't get funding if they weren't successful. They'd be closed if they weren't successful. On the other hand, this is an example of a kid who couldn't be rehabilitated that way, and would probably be a repeat offender. If he was sentenced by you, he'd be out there fucking other people over again and again and again. Congratulations. You should consider a career in politics.
The point is to stop young thieves going on to become career criminals. The age of criminal responsibility is ten (an age I disagree with, truth be told, but that's neither here nor there in this debate). From that age up, a person is responsible for his actions and can face criminal sanction. However, until they turn 18 offenders are entitled to anonymity for their crimes, in order to give them the best chance at turning themselves around. I'm also fairly certain that for most crimes no one under 18 has to declare their conviction for that offence should they be searching for a job. We're not talking about parental discipline any more. We're talking about the criminal law, something far greater. The law won't step in where a kid needs a telling off (not normally, anyway - the police might deliver a kid to his parents and explain a situation but it's unlikely to go to court unless it's something more serious). The full force of the courts will only come into play where nothing but legal sanction is required. In this case, we're not talking about a kid who's been knocking on doors and running away. We're talking about a burglar - someone who has entered another person's house without their consent and who has stolen around £1,000 of goods. Regardless of his age the law needs to act in order to impose the seriousness of this offence on the offender. That sentencing is aimed at rehabilitation from his offending reflects the offender's age, as above. The courts are trying to stop him coming before them again (an apparently hopeless aim in this offender's case, sadly) and they're setting requirements which will help him as well as punish him.
Hi, The law may be somewhat different here inNew Zealand, but the age at which a person can be tried as an adult used to be sixteen here, but got dropped to fourteen for certain serious crimes a few years back. Younger people can still be prosecuted as adults but it requires a judge's determiation after a hearing. The key question though is was the person cognitively able to understand that the act was right or wrong, legal or illegal. In any case this kid is sixteen, he is old enough to know that theft is wrong barring some mental condition, he should be prosecuted as an adult, but also given the chance for rehabilitation. If he's too stupid to take that chance then that's his problem. Cheers.
Ok. Can I ask you something because no one has been able to tell me what it is yet. what is the significance of this: Thank you.
Well, you see he said all the things I wanted to say, so I'm jokingly calling him a thief. The joke is apparent because it's crossed out. It's similar to sarcasm.
