Ray Davies mugged, shot in New Orleans

My thought exactly, Joe.

vicious circle init.

regards,

michael

You very rarely see 65 year old muggers.

They will probably be half dead when they are released and will just shuffle around somewhwere.

The fact that they lack assetts is of no significance.

Like I said.......I am unconcerned about them.

Regards

Mick

I'd like to hear Ray's views on this,

Harry

quote:

---

OK, but what if the criminal's resultant indebtedness or poverty (from having to pay his own way) leads to, ummm, robberies, muggings and hold-ups?

---

Additionally, the resultant indebtedness and probably reduced level of education would lead to an increased reliance on benefits etc. Not good for the old tax bill.

ag

Mr. Davies' unfortunate incident in New Orleans is unfortunately not too surprising as the Big Easy is consistently in the top 3 to 5 of America's most heavily crimed cities. Taking that into account he should in the future also avoid Detroit, Gary, Miami and maybe Houston as well.

This thread has nothing to do with music but it does seem to attract more postings and viewings than is usual in this forum.

There are many people who take Mick's view for good reason (please excuse me Mick for talking about you like you're not here). The law and the judicial system is inadequate in the UK, which leads to frustration and ultimatly knee-jerk reactions to crime, and in extreme cases, the threat of vigalante groups emerging. Reaction to getting your car stolen or your house burgled? - probably won't even get a visit from the cops, they will just give you a crime number over the phone. If the criminal is caught? - community service or something else inadequate. Wasn't there a case of a car thief killing a child recently after a long history of nicking cars and driving like a lunatic? More than 20 previous cases apparently. What the fuck was he doing being allowed to take another car and killing a child for Christ's sake?
It may not be addressing the real root of the problem and it may not be a grown up view, but who can blame those that feel that they have to look after themselves because the law will not do it for them. Eventually the public will take matters into their own hands.
Not my view personally, but I respect where Mick is coming from.

Tom,

The fact that this thread has evoked such a response is precisely because Ray Davies has been such a dominant musical influence for many of us over the years. It's relevant for this thread but could probably just as easily fit nicely in some Padded Cell. Duh! Also, it'd be interesting to find out what he had had for dinner, Tom. Dontcha think?

Rich

[This message was edited by Rich Jerskey on TUESDAY 06 January 2004 at 11:26.]

If he was wearing that bloody awful Union Flag/Jack jacket, then he probably deserved it . The same applies to anyone wearing Christmas novelty socks IMHO. Simpsons especially.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
First off, in 2001, 89% of those convicted of Robbery (i.e theft with violence or the threat of violence) recieved a custodial sentence. Matthew

---

Note the words "Of those convicted of Robbery". There is the problem - they tend not to get caught.

Regards

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and Happy

Original by Rasher:

quote:

---

The law and the judicial system is inadequate in the UK, which leads to frustration and ultimatly knee-jerk reactions to crime, and in extreme cases

---

The legislation and sentences under the Theft Act and the Firearms Act have been here since 1968 (ish). If the courts had imposed such sentences for robbery and Firearms offences since then I'll dare bet there would be a differant attitude than there is now.

The funny thing about this is that if the mugger had run poor old Ray over, driving a car, instead of shooting him then the mugger would be sent down no worries! No community service etc for traffic offences...

Mike Lacey said "There is the problem - they tend not to get caught"

Completely agree. Research routinely shows that increased sentencing has little or no deterrant effect but increasing detection and conviction rates does.

"If the courts had imposed such sentences for robbery and Firearms offences since then I'll dare bet there would be a differant attitude than there is now"

But they have! Sentencing for such offences, which are very broad, has always been pretty tough and violent robbery almost always gets you a custodial sentence.

This stuff about violent armed robbers being let off with community service is a complete red herring and blatantly untrue.

Unlike Mick's proposed Vortex of Crime which would lead to prisons full of child murderers and a generation of benefit dependent, OAP, prison hardened, old lags running rampage around our towns and cities.

Matthew

We can go on forever with this. However, to sum up, my attitude is :-

1. Muggers and the like are worthless scum. I have no concern for their welfare. I have no interest in reforming the unreformable.

2. The main objective is to keep them off the streets for as long as possible. Therefore anyone over 17 years who mugs or uses a gun as an act of violence should get 20 actual years as a minimum.

Consideration should be given to keeping them in custody until their 65th birthday.

3. To finance all of this, sieze their goods and property etc. Also have work gangs where they are forced to do community work. If they refuse to work, starve them until they change their mind. They should have no human rights at all, they forfiet that when they use a gun.

4. The prisons should be concrete jungles that are cheap to run and keep them away from us. I would expect a high proportion of them to die inside.

In essence, my concern is with the victims only.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Not my view personally, but I respect where Mick is coming from.

---

OK...maybe I was a little hasty...

Mick,

The obvious flaw -- if we ignore morals and ethics for the moment and think purely from a Utilitarian viewpoint -- is that your proposed punishment is so draconian that there is no disinsentive for a mugger not to murder the victim. If you are already facing 20 years and a big bill if you get caught you might as well dispose of the main witness while you are at it.

"In essence, my concern is with the victims only"

Increasing the likelihood of them being murdered notwithstanding.

Matthew

quote:

---

But they have! Sentencing for such offences, which are very broad, has always been pretty tough and violent robbery almost always gets you a custodial sentence.

---

Only where the evidence is strong enough to convict. I suggest that if people who actually saw what happened re robbery cases came forwards as witnesses, and recieved what they felt was suitable protection from the offender re witness intimidation etc then the rates of detection/conviction would go up.

I feel like this about most stuff tho - people moan about lack of convictions and then don't come forwards to help convict the offender, in some cases because of the fear of reprisals...

eccept in quite a few communities grassing up the neighbours is seen as a far worse crime for which the whole community exacts retribution against the grass. On the whole people see nothing, weren't there at the time and don't want anything to do with "the old bill" etc.

Personnally I blame the parents.

So Ray Davis was a muiscian was he? Any good?

OK, so if we can't catch them, and we can't come up with a legal deterrent, what do we do?

I propose that it be made compulsory for *everyone* to carry a gun.

That should sort the men from the boys.

Alan

"Mummuy, mummy, wanna sweetie"
"no dear, later"
"Wanna sweetie, wannit now"
"Just wait"
"Later"
"Now"
"No"

Bang

Anyway why turn the civilsied (me) into guntoting animals (Mick Parry). Thank God Crieff is just far enough away from Edinburgh

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

The only gentlemanly way of resolving this argument is a duel at dawn.

I would like to add to what Matthew has said by repeating something which should be obvious: if we try to punish criminals who commit relatively non-serious crimes with draconian sentences, all we succeed in doing is turning them into more serious criminals.
If someone knows they are going to get 20 years minimum by pushing over a person and nicking their wallet/bag, then they will be more likely to use violence to resist arrest.
This used to be known as the 'I may as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb' approach to crime. Before capital punishment was abolished some murderers went on to kill again because they knew they'd be executed anyway if they got caught for the first one.
All that would happen if all muggers received 20 years would be more of them tooling up with guns and armed combat with the police on the streets.
Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

<snip>

Anyway why turn the civilsied (me) into guntoting animals (Mick Parry). Thank God Crieff is just far enough away from Edinburgh

---

And what exactly is wrong with Edinburgh?

Regards
Steve

Apparently a gun toting Alan Scott

You said "is that your proposed punishment is so draconian that there is no disinsentive for a mugger not to murder the victim."

The answer to that is simple. If they are convicted of murder....you hang them.

Now I suppose you object to that as well.

Regards

Mick