Jail Time

[Hymie]

These two recent stories interested me, one in which a security guard stole £1.2m from his employer in 1993 and was jailed for 5 years.

In the second, a footballer was jailed for 8 months for a £2,000 fraud.

If I was the footballer I would be particularly aggrieved that my jail tariff works out at £3,000/year of jail time, whereas the security guard’s jail time works out at £240,000/year of jail time (if inflation is taken into account – it’s probably nearer £400,000/year).

Personally, if I reported a £2,000 bank fraud to my local police – I would expect to be lucky if they gave me a crime number. I just wonder who the footballer defrauded so that the police felt it necessary to get involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39849458
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40021308

[Old_Geezer]

Understandable, but one can not have a linear relationship to amount stolen. Trying to find the "correct" length of time for all thefts would become a nightmare, with either (or maybe both) smaller crimes being ignored, or/and larger thefts resulting in umpteen lifetimes in gaol at the taxpayers' expense. Once has to lump things together and get an approximately appropriate punishment.

[Peter Pedant]

this is a tariffing question and I am sure that BC ( Chris ) will be along with the modern answer
otherwise read Principles of Sentencing by D H Thomas
the set book on this when I was at uni

off the top of my pretty head
there was negigence and ignored opportunity on behalf of the employer of the security guard

and yeah I thought there was a hurdle of around £10 000 before you got jailed ( and much higher for money laundering) unless there were other circumstances such as doing it before, or defrauding vulnerable or threats.

I mean the truth is - we never are given the full facts.

[ I mean the case I was juryman in never got reported - but I cant tell you why because the judge will send around the police to shoot me as a terrorist or something - hey what is that bang at the ...........

[EDDIE51]

Then security guard betrayed a position of trust so the sentence reflects that. Remember a sentence of over 4 years is never 'spent'
So the guard will have that on his record for the rest of his life.Also the automatic release at the 1/2 way point in the sentence does not apply to sentences over 4 years.
The footballer will be automatically released at the 1/2 way point in his sentence , 4 months, also he will be eligible for 'Home detention curfew' or 'Tag' for the last 4 months of his sentence. So in reality he will only serve 4 months. Also his conviction will automatically become 'spent' after a few years giving him a 'clean sheet' to start again with no criminal record.

[New Judge]

"Also the automatic release at the 1/2 way point in the sentence does not apply to sentences over 4 years. "

Yes it does, Eddie. Release at halfway is automatic for all "determinate" sentences. (Determinate sentences those that say "x months" or "y years", not those that are "Life" or "indeterminate for public safety"). In addition those sentenced to more than three months but less than four years are also eligible for even earlier release (up to a maximum of 90 days) under "Home Detention Curfew".

You are correct that all sentences over four years are never "spent".

[nailit]

The idea that sentences are ever 'spent' is laughable. They will ALWAYS show up on DBS checks.

[EDDIE51]

nalit, they will show up in an 'enhanced disclosure' but not in a standard one.
Thanks for the clarification NJ I was sure that 4 years was a type of 'cut off' point

[Hymie]

As further evidence of the gross injustice the footballer has suffered at the hands of British justice; I would be willing to bet that the £2,000 fraud amount was recovered – whereas based on the security guard’s tale, very little if anything would have been recovered by his former employer.

[New Judge]

"The idea that sentences are ever 'spent' is laughable. They will ALWAYS show up on DBS checks."

It is not at all laughable, nailit.

When applying for a job or a position which is not exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders' Act (ROA) the applicant is not required to disclose spent convictions. Furthermore, employers recruiting for such jobs (which are not exempt from the ROA) cannot make an application to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) for the applicant's criminal history. So whilst it is true that spent convictions will always show up on a DBS check, unless the applicant is applying for a position which is exempt from the ROA, he does not have to disclose his convictions and the employer will not be able to see his record.