6 ms·

Additional details: "guilty to two robberies and two common assaults, while asking that a further four robberies, one attempted robbery and one assault occasio

Additional details: "guilty to two robberies and two common assaults, while asking that a further four robberies, one attempted robbery and one assault occasioning actual bodily harm be taken into consideration." Also: "2020 - Luke Ings appeared over videolink from HMP Long Lartin at Worcester Crown Court yesterday where he denied four counts of administering a poisonous or noxious substance with intent. The 31-year-old was arraigned by the clerk, denying four counts of administering 'human excreta' unlawfully and maliciously with intent to injure" No mention about this in the article, looks like a very biased source.

chris_wot 2y ago
So let's get this straight. The guy got into a fight in a Macdonalds 19 years ago. Noone died. He has autism. He got an indefinite prison sentence, which was seen to be so unjust it got abolished. So he is still in jail indefinitely for his original crime. The crime you mention doesn't allow him to be kept in jail indefinitely, not for the original offense. I think it's pretty clearly manifestly unjust.
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  > Noone died. Sentences are based on intent, not outcomes. Fighting can result in life lasting injuries.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    Did it result in life lasting injuries?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  So let's get this straight. You see the post stating that he committed seven robberies and three assaults, i.e. was persistently victimizing people, and you choose to completely ignore that. He isn't in prison to punish him for one specific crime, he's in prison to keep him from victimizing people, because his history of crime makes it likely that he will keep doing that.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    That's not consistent with any form of Western justice. If he has a pyschological or psychiatric problem, then he needs to be cared for by the state. That is not the purpose of prisons.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It’s not unjust. People with these records of several crimes almost always go on to victimize others. Why should law abiding society have to take on that risk?
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    Because the basis of Western democractic justice systems are that we punish people for the crime they have committed, not the crimes we think they will commit. If we apply this standard for punishment, then anyone (including yourself) could be placed in jail. And then people like you could then say with conviction that you were likely to be a bad person and you deserved it.
komali2 2y ago
An indefinite prison sentence is unethical - the article is quoting people calling for a review of all indefinite prison sentences. Presumably Mr Ings hurling feces at someone or whatever it is he did would be taken into consideration. Idk about you but I think a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone don't deserve decades long prison sentences.
- Spivak 2y ago
  We're also talking about the difference between 17 and 35 years old. That alone I think would be grounds for parole, he's a completely different person twice over in that amount of time.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    A 17 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. Obviously physically harming others is not acceptable. If they don’t know that at 17, they’ll never know it I bet.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      I mean this genuinely, if you believe this shouldn't we just execute anyone guilty of a violent offense? If someone can't be redeemed and they'll never not be a danger to the public what do you gain locking them up forever?
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        I don’t think we gain anything from locking them up forever to be honest. But I am not saying they “can’t” be redeemed - simply that the chance is low and all the time and expense we lose to investing in those individuals (even if only by jailing them) seems like a massive waste when it could go to someone else who hasn’t broken he law. I realize this stance is cruel in a way, but I am simply weighing the trade offs between the different ways we could deal with criminals, and I think it is better for the rest of society to be highly intolerant of violent crimes. For me, violent offense includes any act involving physical violence - including most property crimes. People put their life into obtaining their property - taking it away is the same as taking years of their life away.
girvo 2y ago
...so he should be in prison forever?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
  No, only until it's likely that he won't continue committing crimes. It's a balance between his right to freedom and the rights of everyone else to not be made victim of his crimes. I think after a certain number of crimes, it's appropriate to weigh the latter over the former. Edit: And I think the threshold should be less than ten violent crimes
  - hackit2 2y ago
    It is a gross abuse of the state to hold a person past their sentence. The whole point of criminal law is presumption of innocence. If that wasn't the case you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the state that you didn't commit the crime they're charging you with. This is exactly what is happening here.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      He’s not innocent. He is a repeat offender. And he will almost certainly victimize another innocent person. This isn’t about “beyond a reasonable doubt” - we are well past that. It’s about sentencing based on historical record, to keep the public safe. Think of it as being similar to a sentence that is longer but with the possibility of early release. This just has a default of earlier release, if there is evidence that there wouldn’t be danger to others.
      - hackit2 2y ago
        He is not innocent for the crime he committed (encroaching on someone else's entitles, and freedoms), how-ever you cannot (assume) or induct that he will commit a crime which you have no evidence that a crime has been committed (presumption of innocence). Yes the offender has history of repeated offences but those offense would be weighed accordingly if he offended again for another crime and would be sentence accordingly.
crooked-v 2y ago
That last part sounds to me, reading between the lines, like the guy who's been stuck in prison for 18 years past his sentence and has been rug-pulled at least once on the subject of being released on probation had a breakdown and smeared poop on something, which the administration then treated as a deadly assault. Of course, the whole situation may as well be designed to literally drive people crazy, so nobody should be surprised when things like that happen.

chris_wot 2y ago

So let's get this straight. The guy got into a fight in a Macdonalds 19 years ago. Noone died. He has autism. He got an indefinite prison sentence, which was seen to be so unjust it got abolished. So he is still in jail indefinitely for his original crime. The crime you mention doesn't allow him to be kept in jail indefinitely, not for the original offense. I think it's pretty clearly manifestly unjust.

ActorNightly 2y ago
> Noone died. Sentences are based on intent, not outcomes. Fighting can result in life lasting injuries.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  Did it result in life lasting injuries?
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
So let's get this straight. You see the post stating that he committed seven robberies and three assaults, i.e. was persistently victimizing people, and you choose to completely ignore that. He isn't in prison to punish him for one specific crime, he's in prison to keep him from victimizing people, because his history of crime makes it likely that he will keep doing that.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  That's not consistent with any form of Western justice. If he has a pyschological or psychiatric problem, then he needs to be cared for by the state. That is not the purpose of prisons.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It’s not unjust. People with these records of several crimes almost always go on to victimize others. Why should law abiding society have to take on that risk?
- chris_wot 2y ago
  Because the basis of Western democractic justice systems are that we punish people for the crime they have committed, not the crimes we think they will commit. If we apply this standard for punishment, then anyone (including yourself) could be placed in jail. And then people like you could then say with conviction that you were likely to be a bad person and you deserved it.

komali2 2y ago

An indefinite prison sentence is unethical - the article is quoting people calling for a review of all indefinite prison sentences. Presumably Mr Ings hurling feces at someone or whatever it is he did would be taken into consideration. Idk about you but I think a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone don't deserve decades long prison sentences.

Spivak 2y ago
We're also talking about the difference between 17 and 35 years old. That alone I think would be grounds for parole, he's a completely different person twice over in that amount of time.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  A 17 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. Obviously physically harming others is not acceptable. If they don’t know that at 17, they’ll never know it I bet.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I mean this genuinely, if you believe this shouldn't we just execute anyone guilty of a violent offense? If someone can't be redeemed and they'll never not be a danger to the public what do you gain locking them up forever?
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      I don’t think we gain anything from locking them up forever to be honest. But I am not saying they “can’t” be redeemed - simply that the chance is low and all the time and expense we lose to investing in those individuals (even if only by jailing them) seems like a massive waste when it could go to someone else who hasn’t broken he law. I realize this stance is cruel in a way, but I am simply weighing the trade offs between the different ways we could deal with criminals, and I think it is better for the rest of society to be highly intolerant of violent crimes. For me, violent offense includes any act involving physical violence - including most property crimes. People put their life into obtaining their property - taking it away is the same as taking years of their life away.

girvo 2y ago

...so he should be in prison forever?

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
No, only until it's likely that he won't continue committing crimes. It's a balance between his right to freedom and the rights of everyone else to not be made victim of his crimes. I think after a certain number of crimes, it's appropriate to weigh the latter over the former. Edit: And I think the threshold should be less than ten violent crimes
- hackit2 2y ago
  It is a gross abuse of the state to hold a person past their sentence. The whole point of criminal law is presumption of innocence. If that wasn't the case you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the state that you didn't commit the crime they're charging you with. This is exactly what is happening here.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    He’s not innocent. He is a repeat offender. And he will almost certainly victimize another innocent person. This isn’t about “beyond a reasonable doubt” - we are well past that. It’s about sentencing based on historical record, to keep the public safe. Think of it as being similar to a sentence that is longer but with the possibility of early release. This just has a default of earlier release, if there is evidence that there wouldn’t be danger to others.
    - hackit2 2y ago
      He is not innocent for the crime he committed (encroaching on someone else's entitles, and freedoms), how-ever you cannot (assume) or induct that he will commit a crime which you have no evidence that a crime has been committed (presumption of innocence). Yes the offender has history of repeated offences but those offense would be weighed accordingly if he offended again for another crime and would be sentence accordingly.

crooked-v 2y ago

That last part sounds to me, reading between the lines, like the guy who's been stuck in prison for 18 years past his sentence and has been rug-pulled at least once on the subject of being released on probation had a breakdown and smeared poop on something, which the administration then treated as a deadly assault. Of course, the whole situation may as well be designed to literally drive people crazy, so nobody should be surprised when things like that happen.