Police warn of K&A break-ins

[ChimneyChain]

Oooh you are naughty, but I do like you...,

[sueb]

But then someone with a chaotic lifestyle might not be considering a crime but presented with an opportunity it might tip them over the edge. What's the word? entrapment. Is and should be illegal.

 

Would you put £20 on the street and then jump on someone who picked it up?

Did you go to the same convent school I did?

[Chris Pink]

Did you go to the same convent school I did?

 

only after dark

[KevMc]

"a chaotic lifestyle"

 

My life is pretty chaotic at times but I wouldn't be pushed over the edge by a tempting laptop. I would however pick up a £20 note and deliver to local nick next time I was passing

[Chris Pink]

Probably not in the sense it is used by agencies working in the field (or at least I hope not)

[KevMc]

Probably not in the sense it is used by agencies working in the field (or at least I hope not)

Probably a good reason not to use jargon on a wide based forum maybe... jargon should only be used when everyone understands what it means

[blackrose]

But then someone with a chaotic lifestyle might not be considering a crime but presented with an opportunity it might tip them over the edge. What's the word? entrapment. Is and should be illegal.

 

Would you put £20 on the street and then jump on someone who picked it up?

 

Well as much as that analogy works, it also doesn't. This sort of absolutist relative morality seldom does.

 

A £20 note fluttering in the street has obviously been dropped or mislaid and it's might be difficult to trace back to its owner. So although strictly speaking, picking it up and putting it in your pocket may not morally be be the right thing to do, it's a bit more understandable than kicking in someone's windows in order to gain access to their boat. Can you see the difference? The other difference is that you cannot know the intentions of someone who picks up a £20 pound note - there's a small chance that may have been intending to find out who it belonged to - whereas there is virtually no chance that intentions of someone who breaks into someone else's property are benign. Even if nothing is stolen, the very act of breaking locks, hasps, doors and windows in order to get in shows us that.

 

I'm not so sure that entrapment should be illegal. If the police used this method and caught these thieves and this spate of break-ins on the K&A suddenly stopped, I for one would say it was justified.

 

The other thing is, why do we necessarily assume the thieves are people with chaotic lifestyles? Perhaps they're just people who like stealing other people's property and selling it for money rather than working themselves? I think the term is "parasite". Personally I think a bit less sympathy for the criminals and a bit more for the victims is in order.

Edited March 21, 2013 by blackrose

[Guest]

Have a virtual greenie Mike, I've used both mine today.

 

Sensible and measured post IMHO.

[deletedaccount]

Which way did they get in to your boat? Are they carrying tools to break padlocks etc. or is a window smashed?

 

They popped the padlock off the back hatch, presumably with some sort of jemmy. Actually pulled the padlock mount off before the padlock broke.

[Berengaria]

Hang them high and cut their hands off.

 

Is is the same thing. Theft is theft whether it's three pens from work or a laptop from a car or pocketing £20 from the street. If you can't see the difference then I'm sorry for you.

 

If you bait a trap, whatever it is, you'll catch something.

 

 

You didn't say "pocketing" from the street, you said "picking it up" - if I'm to assume that "pocketing" means never intending to hand it in, then yes, although it's theft it's still a world away from breaking into someone's house to nick their telly.

 

This whole argument about 'well crime is crime there's no difference between nicking 5p and nicking £80,000,000' is such a waste of time. If what you said is true that 'theft is theft' then by your reckoning, someone who found and kept a £20 off the street would be just as bad as someone who stole someone's life savings. Prisons would be pretty full in your world eh? Or indeed, pretty empty going by your attitude

 

Please don't feel sorry for me, I think I have a pretty good grounding on what constitutes common-sense.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Berengaria

[Chris Pink]

if I'm to assume that "pocketing" means never intending to hand it in, then yes, although it's theft it's still a world away from breaking into someone's house to nick their telly.

 

 

I made no such comparison, my comparison was with valuables in an unlocked car.

 

I hold that people have some responsibility and that to put a laptop on the seat of a car is asking to get it knicked (would you disagree?) and by the same logic, trying to catch a thief like that is immoral.

[billS]

I hold that people have some responsibility and that to put a laptop on the seat of a car is asking to get it knicked (would you disagree?) and by the same logic, trying to catch a thief like that is immoral.

 

I am struggling to follow your logic here. Surely someone who knowingly steals from a car - whether or not it is unlocked - is a thief and deserves to be caught. Why do you consider it immoral to catch them?

Edited March 21, 2013 by billS

[Guest]

I am struggling to follow your logic here. Surely someone who knowingly steals from a car - whether or not it is unlocked - is a thief and deserves to be caught. Why do you consider it immoral to catch them?

 

I think the argument goes something like -

 

'somebody who may not have a propensity to steal but has found themselves on their 'uppers' may be tempted into doing something they may not other wise have done'.

 

 

..

Edited March 21, 2013 by The Dog House

[billS]

I think the argument goes something like -

 

'somebody who may not have a propensity to steal but has found themselves on their 'uppers' may be tempted into doing something they may not other wise have done'.

 

 

..

 

That is why punishment is levied as a deterrent to others - not as revenge.

[Guest]

That is why punishment is levied as a deterrent to others - not as revenge.

 

Possibly - but if someone is desperate enough the threat of punishment combined with a perceived (or actual!) low risk of actually getting caught may pale into significance.

 

I actual think 'entrapment' has it's place in order to catch habitual career criminals, the problem is it inevitably will involve picking up somebody who may be stealing out of desperation.

 

The police are effectively dammed if they do or damned if they don't.

Edited March 21, 2013 by The Dog House

[billS]

Nevertheless, the mythical "desperate opportunist" is still a thief and their action is immoral. They are not an innocent bystander.

 

The severity of the subsequent punishment would be less than that of a habitual criminal - one would hope.......

[Guest]

Nevertheless, the mythical "desperate opportunist" is still a thief and their action is immoral. They are not an innocent bystander.

 

The severity of the subsequent punishment would be less than that of a habitual criminal - one would hope.......

 

But it can be argued that laying a trap knowing full well you may suck somebody into acquiring their first criminal conviction is equally immoral - particularly when that could send them on an ever downward spiral which results in them committing even more crimes.

 

Most of us thankfully will never be put in a such a position and will never have to test how we would respond when faced with the same situation, I'm not sure I could say with any real honesty which way I would jump if it was me.

[KevMc]

I made no such comparison, my comparison was with valuables in an unlocked car.

 

I hold that people have some responsibility and that to put a laptop on the seat of a car is asking to get it knicked (would you disagree?) and by the same logic, trying to catch a thief like that is immoral.

 

So if the police notice that someone's car has a laptop on view, in a known crime hotspot; then sit in a cafe on the other side of the road for their morning cuppa whereupon they notice some chap forcing the door open it's moral for them to arrest that unfortunate although he may just happen to be down on his luck; whereas if they leave a decoy car in the known hotspot and same unfortunate tries to liberate the laptop it's immoral.

 

Surely part of the old bill's job is crime prevention and if they can take a scrote off the street without joe public being inconvenienced then that is a fair cop guv ????

[Chris Pink]

 

 

Surely part of the old bill's job is crime prevention and if they can take a scrote off the street without joe public being inconvenienced then that is a fair cop guv ????

 

There's no arguing with such inbuilt shortsightedness as this.

 

So what do you want to do with all these people? Lock them up, cut their hands off?

 

Crime prevention is one thing, entrapment is another - can't you see that? crime prevention is don't leave your laptop on the seat, entrapment is leave it on the seat until someone dishonest - or just plain desperate - comes along.

 

I will give you the benefit that your complete lack of empathy comes from never having to confront such moral dilemma in your life as "do I steal that laptop from that stupid person or do I go hungry tonight?"

[JDR]

If you're hungry and skint go skip diving at the back of supermarkets, find a Sally Army or a soup kitchen. Most aqquisitive theft is not driven by hunger (for food at least).

[lexicon]

I may be missing something here but surely the supposed desperate ordinary person with no previous criminal experience would need a way to fence the laptop? I can see a desperate person being tempted by cash or a mobile or food but not a large item like a laptop or s telly.

[Chris Pink]

If you're hungry and skint go skip diving at the back of supermarkets, find a Sally Army or a soup kitchen. Most aqquisitive theft is not driven by hunger (for food at least).

 

I'm not but thank you for your advice.

 

That would be one of the supermarkets that doesn't die its food blue, or lock the bins, or some other method of ruining it so they can put it into landfill rather than allowing people to take it?

 

I may be missing something here but surely the supposed desperate ordinary person with no previous criminal experience would need a way to fence the laptop? I can see a desperate person being tempted by cash or a mobile or food but not a large item like a laptop or s telly.

 

Keep those cliches rolling.

 

 

Has anybody actually looked up "chaotic lifestyle"?

 

Oh and while you're at it you might want to do some research as to how many of those people are ex-forces and suffering from post-traumatic shock before wheeling out another tired stereotype.

 

Post #30 says it all really.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Rebotco]

So if the police notice that someone's car has a laptop on view, in a known crime hotspot; then sit in a cafe on the other side of the road for their morning cuppa whereupon they notice some chap forcing the door open it's moral for them to arrest that unfortunate although he may just happen to be down on his luck; whereas if they leave a decoy car in the known hotspot and same unfortunate tries to liberate the laptop it's immoral.

 

Surely part of the old bill's job is crime prevention and if they can take a scrote off the street without joe public being inconvenienced then that is a fair cop guv ????

 

 

Have to agree with Mr Pink on this one. I feel most uneasy at the principle of entrapment (a favourite pastime of the gutter press hacks, who have shown themselves as just criminals).

 

The primary function of Mr Plod is the detection of crime, not encouraging it by trickery.

 

And as for crime prevention, it seems quite wrong to actually promote it by this sort of deceit. Possibly causing someone at a vulnerable moment to start on the road to petty theft.

The prevention aspect should be to remove temptation, not add to it.

 

No, the whole ethos of the police has to be setting a good example, not encouraging a bad one. (I know there will always be a few rotten apples, but that's very different to a policy of promoting a crime just so they can catch someone doing it.)

 

As for labelling someone as a "scrote" who falls for a temptation deliberately placed by Mr Plod, that shows a complete lack of understanding of human nature. Society is not made up of "us" and "them" - it is a continuum where we are all present at different points at different times, and in different circumstances. If you were in a situation where your wife and family were starving to death, you too would steal if there was no other way to survive. I'm not saying that would be right, but that's what you would do, and so would I. Would you then be happy to be dismissed as a scrote, who should be got off the streets?

 

There are some for whom criminality is the only way of life they have ever known or been taught, and maybe for them the only practical way is to get them off the streets and attempt to repair the damage of their upbringing. That's not to excuse their behaviour, but for most of us a more healthy outlook is to realise that "there but for the grace of God, there go I", and recognise our own weaknesses. You do not shine any more brightly by blowing out someone else's candle!

[RickH]

I remember a TV program where they had an adult pretending they were an underaged girl in a chat room in the hope of attracting paedophiles and busting them , all caught on camera . The man would then turn up to the house expecting sex with an underage girl only to be confronted by TV cameras and consequently shamed on national TV . ( It was not a police sting ) . One individual turned up and swore blind that he was there to warn the girl of unsavouray characters and that he had no intention of having sex with the girl . Of course nobody believed him , but it was a reasonable defence , and probably would have stood up in court . Baiting a criminal has it's drawbacks and a good lawyer will 9 times out of 10 get an aquital , you might arrest them but it's all for nought if you can't prosecute successfully .

[lexicon]

Chris

Forgive me for asking but how much experience do you personally have of either if your examples?

If you had spent any time with people that are alcohol/substance dependant or suffered mental issues you would realise that suggesting they be prevented from entering the system is failing them. Without being removed from the circumstances they find themselves Im they will be left to suffer.

It would be far more useful to suggest ways the criminal justice system could help these individuals , through rehab and treatment programs than to simply say they shouldn't be sort out by the police