Strabane young mother gets 3 months for stealing 10quid pair of jeans

robbie7730 wrote: »

Was it in her genes so:rolleyes:

Ah you missed a pun there.

EDIT: lets face it, it's usually scum that shoplift and thieve. Why should I shed a tear for her?

MagicSean

common sense brigade wrote: »

she should have pleaded guilty and she would not have been jailed. she clearly annoyed the judge. i feel sorry for her three year old.

i feel sorry for the kid anyway with such a **** role model for a parent. What chance does a kid like that have?

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Ah you missed a pun there.

EDIT: lets face it, it's usually scum that shoplift and thieve. Why should I shed a tear for her?

I did`t miss it, but was thinking should i put it as jeans, changed mind then:D

orourkeda

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No one is suggesting that. These kind of crimes should be dealt with through fines or community service.

It is that the punishment does not fit the crime is the problem.

Compare it to these to cases - guy with a kilo of cannabis gets suspended sentence

Man causes 700quid worth of damage and gets probation

Now I didnt read the whole article but it seems that we do not know the persons full background. Perhaps she's been in trouble with the law before and a sentence like this would not appear that harsh at all in that circumstance.

But the problem is the sentencing.

The notorious example that a lot of people use is the sentencing for manslaughter. I'me very much open to correction here but the sentencing for this crime ranges from a suspended sentence to life. It's at the most serious end of the scale and can carry practically any sentence that takes a judges fancy.

aDeener

Yunnie wrote: »

it will cost up to £20,000 of the taxpayers money to keep her in jail for 3 months, NI,s justice system is a joke

using this 'logic', if you could call it that, would mean that unless the value of the theft outweighed the cost of the trial and imprisonment it would not be worth it? so if she stole €10k worth of goods, this is still a joke? good enough for her

orourkeda

Tazz T wrote: »

'Lee've her alone.

In fairness, she had ample opportunity to plead guilty. If she didn't want a sentence she should have taken the plea.

The concern should be what happens the child. Even if she hadn't stolen the jeans, I would have thought most mothers would plead guilty to avoid a jail sentence that would separate them from their child.

But why plead innocent to acrime you didnt commit.

This would have implications too. A criminal record comes with its own problems.

Bottle_of_Smoke

k_mac wrote: »

So at what price should stealing become illegal? After how many previous convictions should a person be finally sent to jail?

Don't be so melodramatic.

It is obviously already illegal. Though as you are well aware we don't always send people to prison for minor crimes because there are more suitable punishments available.

First time minor offense a fine or community service would have made a lot more sense

aDeener wrote: »

using this 'logic', if you could call it that, would mean that unless the value of the theft outweighed the cost of the trial and imprisonment it would not be worth it? so if she stole €10k worth of goods, this is still a joke? good enough for her

Thats a good point, probably save more tax payers money in future as well if it deters her from doing it again.

jimmycrackcorm

The judge said she had been given several opportunities to plead guilty.

That's why she got the sentence. She obviously had no regret.

newmug

I cant understand all the bleeding hearts? How is 3 months harsh? She broke the law and stole something. Yes STOLE. She is a THIEF. She should have gotten a year at least. Its thieves like her we can all do without in society:mad:

orourkeda wrote: »

But why plead innocent to a crime you didnt commit.

I think most would plead innocent to crimes they didnt commit:D

Remmy

Meh it's theft she got a reduced sentence.

robbie7730 wrote: »

I think most would plead innocent to crimes they didnt commit:D

Like the A Team.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

**** her, it's small time stuff like that often makes peoples lives a nightmare

Ah yes, I live in fear every waking moment because of 27 year old mothers robbing jeans.

Sometimes reading AH on these cases is reminiscent of flicking through the court reports of the 18th century, such is the level of outrage, vindictiveness, and hysterical hyperbole. The woman stole a pair of jeans. According to the reports it was a first time offence. Community service or a fine would have sufficed.

Einhard wrote: »

Ah yes, I live in fear every waking moment because of 27 year old mothers robbing jeans.

Sometimes reading AH on these cases is reminiscent of flicking through the court reports of the 18th century, such is the level of outrage, vindictiveness, and hysterical hyperbole. The woman stole a pair of jeans. According to the reports it was a first time offence. Community service or a fine would have sufficed.

All serious criminals start off with a first time offence.

prinz

Einhard wrote: »

Community service or a fine would have sufficed.

They would have had she plead guilty. These things are usually offered first before the trial if the person will plead guilty and save the taxpayers the cost of a trial. She refused. Otherwise all you'd have is every scummer up for every little offence pleading not guilty to everything and wasting court time and taxpayer money to walk away and have a laugh at the system at the end. You plead guilty for a reduced sentence. No doubt the same people will be delighted when thousands of euros/pounds are spent on week long trials for every case of shoplifting in he country.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Like the A Team.

if you can find them:)

Duggy747

k_mac wrote: »

So at what price should stealing become illegal? After how many previous convictions should a person be finally sent to jail?

My post you quoted was a joke, no need to go over the top.

robbie7730 wrote: »

All serious criminals start off with a first time offence.

People should be punished for crimes the commit, not for potential crimes they may commit in years to come.

prinz wrote: »

They would have had she plead guilty. These things are usually offered first before the trial if the person will plead guilty and save the taxpayers the cost of a trial. She refused. Otherwise all you'd have is every scummer up for every little offence pleading not guilty to everything and wasting court time and taxpayer money to walk away and have a laugh at the system at the end. You plead guilty for a reduced sentence.

Yeah, I see the logic in that, but I still think 3 months is far too harsh for a first offence. Also, it wasn't so much the sentence I was objecting to, but predictable response from the hang em flog em brigade.

speedboatchase

Let me guess... because the jeans were £10, that makes it alright then, does it? Good grief

Einhard wrote: »

People should be punished for crimes the commit, not for potential crimes they commit in years to come.

She is being punished for the crime she commited, not for future crimes, and hopefully it will end her potential for committing crimes in the future.

Einhard wrote: »

Ah yes, I live in fear every waking moment because of 27 year old mothers robbing jeans.

Sometimes reading AH on these cases is reminiscent of flicking through the court reports of the 18th century, such is the level of outrage, vindictiveness, and hysterical hyperbole. The woman stole a pair of jeans. According to the reports it was a first time offence. Community service or a fine would have sufficed.

Small newsagent with small profit margin in my quiet town lost considerable sums each year through shoplifting. But like, it'd only be a 50 cent bar here and there... it's not like it all adds up.....

Bottle_of_Smoke

speedboatchase wrote: »

Let me guess... because the jeans were £10, that makes it alright then, does it? Good grief

will you read the thread ffs. people are pissed off about the sentencing. As already pointed out even her brother said what she did was wrong and should be punished.

speedboatchase wrote: »

Let me guess... because the jeans were £10, that makes it alright then, does it? Good grief

Let me guess...comprehension abilities aren't your strongest point? Good grief!

Nobody is arguing that it is ok, that she is an innocent victim, or that she doesn't deserve to be punished, but rather that the punishment doesn't reflect the crime. Were we to go by your logic, then someone stealing something worth £1 would deserve a 10 day prison sentence, someone stealing 50p a five day incarceration. And when people objected, we'd have others like you who;d come along with asanine comments along the likes of "Let me guess...because the [ ] were £1, that makes it alright then does it? Good grief"

RichieC

Has anyone used the word Gombeen yet? just want to make sure it's used.

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Small newsagent with small profit margin in my quiet town lost considerable sums each year through shoplifting. But like, it'd only be a 50 cent bar here and there... it's not like it all adds up.....

So why not slap a 3 month prison sentence on the schoolkid who steals a Yorkie? I mean, it might act as a deterrent to others? The role of the justice system in prosecuting offenders is to punish them for crimes they have committed, not crimes they might commit in the future, or to deter others from committing the same crimes. That's the system that was in operation until the 18th century, and those who advocated hanging for small time larceny argued along the same lines as those defending the sentence here- it'll deter others etc.

Chardee MacDennis

Yunnie wrote: »

it will cost up to £20,000 of the taxpayers money to keep her in jail for 3 months, NI,s justice system is a joke

soto warrant a three month sentence you would have to have stolen more than €20,000 worth of stuff? seems like a stupid system you;ve created there...

Einhard wrote: »

So why not slap a 3 month prison sentence on the schoolkid who steals a Yorkie? I mean, it might act as a deterrent to others? The role of the justice system in prosecuting offenders is to punish them for crimes they have committed, not crimes they might commit in the future, or to deter others from committing the same crimes. That's the system that was in operation until the 18th century, and those who advocated hanging for small time larceny argued along the same lines as those defending the sentence here- it'll deter others etc.

Look, she won't be in for 3 months, you and I both know she'll be out in a couple of weeks and I think the point to note was that she was given an 'out' and chose against it and it backfired.

Complete conjecture but I wouldn't want to bet against it being first time she stole something either.