Originally Posted by Knoxville
He didn't hold a gun to anyones head, never raped, murdered or assaulted anyone and any items/cash stolen will have been covered by insurance. This is I grant you an incredibly extreme case but I agree with G4Z, given the over populated nature of our prisons I think it's high time we started looking at doing things a little differently.
I know the number of crimes he's committed is extremely high but he plead guilty to every one, then asked for 645 more to be taken into account (I bet that saved the police a few bob as well) is it really worth spending £200k keeping that lad locked up for the next five years just because the number of crimes he committed is extremely high? Maybe, maybe not, but it's worth a gamble i my opinion.
Have you ever been burgled, mugged or had property damaged/stolen? I can tell you, it's not a pleasant experience and gun used or not, it's a violation of one of our core human rights.
I find myself torn, I agree with your point(s) but I also feel that those who commit such crimes deserve to serve a fitting punishment. Putting the chap up in a house (monitored or not) away from his original area with his missus is not what I consider to be a fitting punishment.
Let's hope the guy proves to be the epitome of reformation, I'd dread to think what he may get up to next.
Originally Posted by thief's friend a friend, who asked not to be named, said: 'He is cock-a-hoop about this