Ending police cautions

Is ending police cautions in exchange for a punishment no matter what a good idea, or bad idea

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    5
Giving victims a say in the punishment could be interesting and offenders repairing damage is an excellent idea.
 
It is good that criminals make reparation to the victims for the things they have done, but it's not good to remove the discretionary power of police to issue a formal warning without taking things further. So I'd see it as a change, rather than improvement.
 
OK, I'm thoroughly confused about this 'reform'

The current government introduced new rules for simple cautions in April 2013, which were supposed to address the inappropriate use of police cautions

This was followed up by further revised guidance in November 2013, specifying classes of offences for which is it inappropriate to issue a simple caution.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/cautioning_and_diversion/#a02

Conditional Cautions have been available since 2003, which may include reparative, rehabilitative and financial penalties (i.e. fines) as conditions. Failure to comply with those conditions means the offender will be prosecuted for the original offence.

The same set of amendments to the CJA 2003, introduced in October 2013, require consultation with victims before application of a caution of either type.

It appears that both will be replaced by Community Resolutions, which are already available to the police, but with similar effect.

So, the 'reforms' are (quoting the BBC story)

Under the new system, offenders would repair any damage they have done or pay compensation for less serious crimes.
Click to expand...

Already available to the police

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

Already the law

The government says the scheme - which will also give victims a say in how the offender is dealt with
Click to expand...

Already the law

Quite how this would apply in this case from July this year, for example, I am not quite sure

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...for-sexting-explicit-selfie-to-boyfriend.html

A schoolgirl has received a police caution after texting an explicit photograph of herself to her boyfriend, it has emerged.

The teenager sent the image via her phone, but after the couple had a row, he forwarded it to his friends.

Police were called in because she was under the age of 18 and therefore both were committing an offence of distributing an indecent image of a child.

Both received a caution but police are now warning other teenagers they could end up on the sex offenders register if they send explicit pictures of themselves via text messages or social media.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that a simple caution was the only appropriate response in these circumstances, which will not be available to police any more.

As for the other claims for the reform

police said:
Chief Constable Lynne Owens, national policing lead on out-of-court disposals, said the reforms should reduce bureaucracy and help increase public understanding.

She said: "The pilots seek to test a new approach which gives officers and staff the discretion to deal with cases appropriately.
Click to expand...

I don't see how anything in the reported proposals will reduce bureaucracy. Indeed, it seems that it can only increase it, unless the police paperwork is simply shifted on to the CPS.

It seems that the purpose of he proposal is to reduce the discretion available to police, by mandating community resolutions in place of simple cautions. If it does not reduce their discretion, then how is it going to ensure a greater adherence to Home Office guidelines?

Sadiq Kahn's comments as Labour Shadow Justice Secretary seem mostly to be political point scoring on issues that were also true at any time since the CJA 2003 (and before) or are not actually

"On their watch, cautions have been dished out wrongly for serious sexual and violent crimes like rape.

"Slap-on-the-wrist community resolutions meant for minor crimes have instead been used by the police thousands of times for violent offences.
Click to expand...

Possibly already dealt with by the April and November 2013 guidelines reforms already enacted? Who knows? Where is the evidence that those have not had any effect. Has there been any time to evaluate their effects.

Prior to that, police were acting (and continue to act) within the framework of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, introduced by Labour, so I don't know why he is complaining.

"And the public are no longer protected from the most serious criminals after the government watered down sentencing rules for the most dangerous and violent criminals.
Click to expand...

Discussion of sentencing guidelines is wholly irrelevant when no prosecution takes place.
 
Oh, and after the recent dressings down that the MoJ have had from the courts on their behaviour, Chris Grayling has little credibility left on anything at the MoJ
 
Musicman said:
Already the law
Click to expand...

Etc.

Announcing changes to the law that happened over a year ago as new seems entirely in keeping with Grayling's announcement of two year sentences for internet trolls that was prominently reported in the press a week or so ago; yet the same measure had been previously announced by him in March and had been part of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill going through Parliament since July.

It's just grandstanding to the press IMO.
 
Last edited:
Completely agree with Musicman. Just another gimmick to get headlines.

"On their watch, cautions have been dished out wrongly for serious sexual and violent crimes like rape."

Complete tosh, Sadiq Khan needs to get his information from sources other than the Daily Mail and understand the rationale behind those seemingly outrageous cautions.
 
Offenders fixing damage. Yeah right, no way I let a useless git have a go at fixing the damage done. Take it at source from salary/benefits/etc and not over a 50 year period either.
 
dejongj said:
Offenders fixing damage. Yeah right, no way I let a useless git have a go at fixing the damage done. Take it at source from salary/benefits/etc and not over a 50 year period either.
Click to expand...

Utterly agree.
Have some oxygen wasting little scrote working on my property?
I'd rather fix it myself.
 
OK, I'm thoroughly confused about this 'reform'
Click to expand...

Confused? First shots in an election campaign where they will tout themselves as the party of law & order.

They brought in Cautions in the first place in the early 90's. It wasn't a great idea then, but it was never intended to be, it was solely to reduce the costs of Justice.

This is much the same, criminal pays for damage and in theory, everyone's happy. Trouble is that most of them wont be able to pay because they wont have any money after they have paid for their phone, sky TV, broadband, fags, cider, 16 kids by 14 different fathers/with 14 different mothers (delete as appropriate). I mean dole money only goes so far!

So then what happens? They will claim they are being treated unfairly and what little real credibility this plan has bites the dust.
 
Bernie174 said:
Confused? First shots in an election campaign where they will tout themselves as the party of law & order.

They brought in Cautions in the first place in the early 90's. It wasn't a great idea then, but it was never intended to be, it was solely to reduce the costs of Justice.

This is much the same, criminal pays for damage and in theory, everyone's happy. Trouble is that most of them wont be able to pay because they wont have any money after they have paid for their phone, sky TV, broadband, fags, cider, 16 kids by 14 different fathers/with 14 different mothers (delete as appropriate). I mean dole money only goes so far!

So then what happens? They will claim they are being treated unfairly and what little real credibility this plan has bites the dust.
Click to expand...

Means testing. Four of those things off the radar :LOL:
 
"Means test"

More bureaucracy! Thats just whats needed... Not!

A better idea, is we scrap the lot, if there's evidence you have committed a criminal offence, you get charged. That way we can bin the pointless and incompetent CPS, Police manged prosecution very well until they came along. That would half the paperwork needed for a prisoner. A Courth having all the evidence is the best place to determine guilt and sentence.
Introduce weekend custody, so, people keep their jobs (for those on benefits, loose 2.5/7ths of their dole), they spend the weekend in prison reflecting on what they could be doing, or perhaps take them out in work parties to clean up after the Friday and Saturday night carnage. I suspect that would have far more effect on people.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
"Means test"

More bureaucracy! Thats just whats needed... Not!

A better idea, is we scrap the lot, if there's evidence you have committed a criminal offence, you get charged. That way we can bin the pointless and incompetent CPS, Police manged prosecution very well until they came along. That would half the paperwork needed for a prisoner. A Courth having all the evidence is the best place to determine guilt and sentence.
Introduce weekend custody, so, people keep their jobs (for those on benefits, loose 2.5/7ths of their dole), they spend the weekend in prison reflecting on what they could be doing, or perhaps take them out in work parties to clean up after the Friday and Saturday night carnage. I suspect that would have far more effect on people.
Click to expand...
Oh dear oh dear oh dear...
That's twice now that Bernie has said something that makes complete sense to me, one of us must be slipping.

More seriously, there is also an unintended (I hope) consequence to police cautions in that a lot of people have said that they have accepted a caution for something they say that haven't done, just to make it go away - only to find later that they are now branded as a criminal.
 
I'm not sure if its the same now, but I certainly wouldn't caution someone on their own evidence alone. Usually I had overwhelming evidence other than that.
Again, it may have changed, but those who I had cautioned were more than aware of the consequences, however, the better place to determine guilt is a court.
Oh and just to add, most of the people I cautioned saw it as what it is in reality, a way of getting off.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
Oh dear oh dear oh dear...
That's twice now that Bernie has said something that makes complete sense to me, one of us must be slipping.

More seriously, there is also an unintended (I hope) consequence to police cautions in that a lot of people have said that they have accepted a caution for something they say that haven't done, just to make it go away - only to find later that they are now branded as a criminal.
Click to expand...

The sheet they have to read and sign has always made it very clear about having a criminal record as a consequence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top