Echo investigation: Almost 80 per cent of county's crime unsolved

Bournemouth Echo: Detective Chief Superintendent Colin Stanger Detective Chief Superintendent Colin Stanger

ALMOST 80 per cent of crime in Dorset is unsolved and there are fears this could rise due to cuts in police numbers.

Information obtained by the Echo shows 78 per cent of crimes reported to Dorset Police last year were ‘undetected’, meaning no one was charged or prosecuted.

Last year 3,527 of 9,137 violent crimes and 155 of 603 sexual offences were solved.

Police also detected 272 of 1,899 dwelling burglaries and 240 of 4,336 of vehicle crimes, a rate of just 5.5 per cent.

Chairman of Dorset Police Federation Clive Chamberlain warned that this could fall due to the recent cuts to the service.

Mr Chamberlain voiced his fears on the day the Home Secretary faced calls to resign as she was told she had lost the trust of the police.

Theresa May was heckled and booed as she told officers that they should stop pretending the police were being picked on.

Several officers called for her to resign, while others shouted that she was corrupt, after she told rank-and-file officers they should see through changes to their pay and conditions for the good of the country.

The comments came after Mrs May spent almost two hours listening to officers’ concerns and answering questions at the annual Police Federation conference in Bournemouth.

Mr Chamberlain said: “When we talk about cuts we’re looking at 108 fewer officers than last year and 176 fewer police staff and that is going to make a difference, because the only thing you get for less is less.

“We’ve always said that crime levels will rise but actually the figure that does get forgotten is how successful we are in catching people and detecting crime.

“With fewer officers and staff we are almost being set up to fail.

“It’s really quite worrying because if we’re not solving crimes then offenders are free to commit further crimes.

“This is something that people should be really concerned about, it’s a really worrying trend and I believe that it will only get worse.”

He added: “Peoples’ confidence in the police will be shaken if offenders are not caught – they have the right for their crimes to be investigated and these figures will knock public trust.

“Our first job is to prevent crime and our next duty is to detect crime, so if detection is going down then that’s worrying regardless of if crime levels are going up or down.

“I’m very sad to see this happening because it’s easy to talk in terms of statistics but behind the numbers are people who have had their lives ruined by a crime as victims.

“Having someone in your house or damaging your possessions can affect the victim for a long time and frightens them. At the end of the day it’s the victims who lose out.”

The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, also shows the rate of undetected crime has gone up slightly since 2010.

In 2011 there were a total of 45,148 recorded crimes, 9,753 of which led to a charge, summons, caution, formal warning, youth reprimand or the offence being taken into consideration.

The rate in Dorset is also higher than the national average of undetected crime, which is 75 per cent.

Detective Chief Superintendent Colin Stanger, head of crime and criminal justice command, said: “The Force has made significant changes to the way it investigates crime throughout the county in the past year to improve the service it gives to victims of crime.

“Whilst the Force had a detection rate of 22 per cent last year overall, the benefits of the changes made are now being realised, with significant increases in the last five months of the number of crimes detected – a trend which continues through to this year’s performance with a three per cent increase, and is now near to the national average.”

He also said that the overall level of crime was down in Dorset for the 14th consecutive year and that a number of low-level crimes were dealt with out of the courts and not included in the detection rate figures.

He added: “The force continues to improve the service it provides to victims of crime, and does not see that future budget cuts will result in less crimes detected.”

'Police never came back to us'

Lauren Terry and Adam Foster, of Chapelhay Street, Weymouth, said they never heard back from the police after the family’s Skoda car was written-off in a spate of car vandalism in March.

Mother-of-two Lauren said: “The police never got back in touch about it.

“I just think considering quite a few cars were damaged that night more could have been done.

“It’s annoying that we haven’t heard anything else about it, it just seems to have been dropped.

“Someone’s done this and they’ve got away with it, it makes me so angry to think about it.

“Why should they get away with it – they’re still out there.

“You just think: why haven’t they been reprimanded – it’s unacceptable. It would have been nice to have been kept updated, even if they called just to say that they hadn’t caught anyone.”

She added: “I think the cuts are definitely going to make this worse, they’re not going to be able to do anything about it.

“If they cut back they won’t have officers out on the streets and the rate will go up.”

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:11pm Thu 17 May 12

cj07589 says...

Like that statistic will get any better with the cuts that are being proposed. Prison sentences should be doubled then the criminals might think twice before committing the crime. If it was me I'd reintroduce the death penalty for murderers and rapists and deport all the thousands of foreign criminals automatically.....th
ey should have never been let into the country in the first place. Also the Criminal Uman rights must be scrapped ASAP in favour of a innocent law abiding citizens rights that serves and protects the interests of good citizens from criminals and a lack of central investment in policing.
Like that statistic will get any better with the cuts that are being proposed. Prison sentences should be doubled then the criminals might think twice before committing the crime. If it was me I'd reintroduce the death penalty for murderers and rapists and deport all the thousands of foreign criminals automatically.....th ey should have never been let into the country in the first place. Also the Criminal Uman rights must be scrapped ASAP in favour of a innocent law abiding citizens rights that serves and protects the interests of good citizens from criminals and a lack of central investment in policing. cj07589

1:21pm Thu 17 May 12

Lizzy Bennett says...

Someone has just today been released after serving 7 yrs for a murder he didnt commit- under your rules an innocent man would have hanged.
What if that man had been YOU!!!
Someone has just today been released after serving 7 yrs for a murder he didnt commit- under your rules an innocent man would have hanged. What if that man had been YOU!!! Lizzy Bennett

1:37pm Thu 17 May 12

bandit1 says...

Its a shame they don't put the same effort in solving crimes of actual victims - you know, theft, rape, murder, assault. I guess enforcement of those crimes cost money instead of making money from motorists, real criminals are dangerous, while hassling drivers is safe and easy
Its a shame they don't put the same effort in solving crimes of actual victims - you know, theft, rape, murder, assault. I guess enforcement of those crimes cost money instead of making money from motorists, real criminals are dangerous, while hassling drivers is safe and easy bandit1

1:47pm Thu 17 May 12

FooWoo says...

I did get the impression that unless crime happens right next to the police there is no real chance of it getting solved. That proves it above. Please just get out there and hassle criminals and do detective work properly with the numbers you have. Even if there are less of them you would expect them to figure it out a bit more than just 5.5 percent. They may as well not be there for that amount of success. Maybe we should be expecting 0.5% success for next year. Makes you wonder if the reforms should go ahead. Especially when you see SOME police who definately could not run to save their lives let alone the criminals that they should be able to chase. I agree with minimum fitness levels and I agree with some of the other things.
I would expect the figure to be much more like a minimum of 50% detection rate for the amount I am paying.
I did get the impression that unless crime happens right next to the police there is no real chance of it getting solved. That proves it above. Please just get out there and hassle criminals and do detective work properly with the numbers you have. Even if there are less of them you would expect them to figure it out a bit more than just 5.5 percent. They may as well not be there for that amount of success. Maybe we should be expecting 0.5% success for next year. Makes you wonder if the reforms should go ahead. Especially when you see SOME police who definately could not run to save their lives let alone the criminals that they should be able to chase. I agree with minimum fitness levels and I agree with some of the other things. I would expect the figure to be much more like a minimum of 50% detection rate for the amount I am paying. FooWoo

2:50pm Thu 17 May 12

cj07589 says...

Lizzy Bennett wrote:
Someone has just today been released after serving 7 yrs for a murder he didnt commit- under your rules an innocent man would have hanged.
What if that man had been YOU!!!
Dear Lizzy I’m confused by your post what is your point? The current justice system format already has a robust appeal process in place to deal with the exact erroneous point you raised. The crux of it is, if the penalty/punishment was commensurate to the seriousness of the crime committed then it would be only fair and reasonable to expect less investigative work would be required by our ever diminishing police. As an example, I live 15 or so miles away from the closest police station so extra cuts to the police will mean reduced police coverage and response times its is insulting to think I pay money every month and will have to wait hours for the police to turn up.
I have no doubt that criminals the being low life criminals they are will certainly look to take full advantage of the situation, hence a real and viable alternative is to increase the size of the 'stick’ aka punishment to deter the crime from being committed in the first instance. God forbid what all your do-gooder liberal lefty friends would say!...... what about the criminals rights to rob, plunder and steal at their leisure whilst your out working hard for a living, least forgetting their rights to have a unhindered family life at our expense! It’s a simple idea really stop treating the "Symptoms" with a sticking plaster and start focusing on curing the "Disease" through preventive measures through tougher punishment. After all if criminals were held in prison for longer there would be fewer criminals on our streets to perpetrate the crimes. It’s only an idea but reducing the quantity of front line police officers is a very short sighted proposal and insulting to the law abiding public. The very first positions to receive the axe should be the nauseasating and political correct traveler/Gypsy liaison officers as they represent a heinous waste of precise community resources imposed on us by the corrupt and unaccountable EUSSR.
[quote][p][bold]Lizzy Bennett[/bold] wrote: Someone has just today been released after serving 7 yrs for a murder he didnt commit- under your rules an innocent man would have hanged. What if that man had been YOU!!![/p][/quote]Dear Lizzy I’m confused by your post what is your point? The current justice system format already has a robust appeal process in place to deal with the exact erroneous point you raised. The crux of it is, if the penalty/punishment was commensurate to the seriousness of the crime committed then it would be only fair and reasonable to expect less investigative work would be required by our ever diminishing police. As an example, I live 15 or so miles away from the closest police station so extra cuts to the police will mean reduced police coverage and response times its is insulting to think I pay money every month and will have to wait hours for the police to turn up. I have no doubt that criminals the being low life criminals they are will certainly look to take full advantage of the situation, hence a real and viable alternative is to increase the size of the 'stick’ aka punishment to deter the crime from being committed in the first instance. God forbid what all your do-gooder liberal lefty friends would say!...... what about the criminals rights to rob, plunder and steal at their leisure whilst your out working hard for a living, least forgetting their rights to have a unhindered family life at our expense! It’s a simple idea really stop treating the "Symptoms" with a sticking plaster and start focusing on curing the "Disease" through preventive measures through tougher punishment. After all if criminals were held in prison for longer there would be fewer criminals on our streets to perpetrate the crimes. It’s only an idea but reducing the quantity of front line police officers is a very short sighted proposal and insulting to the law abiding public. The very first positions to receive the axe should be the nauseasating and political correct traveler/Gypsy liaison officers as they represent a heinous waste of precise community resources imposed on us by the corrupt and unaccountable EUSSR. cj07589

3:03pm Thu 17 May 12

Nomalice says...

So the threat of cuts and job losses has led to an improvement in performance.How surprising! A detection rate of 22 per cent is not good enough. To be pleased to be getting 'near' the National Average is unacceptable.For too long we have been told it is "getting better".How bad was it before?
So the threat of cuts and job losses has led to an improvement in performance.How surprising! A detection rate of 22 per cent is not good enough. To be pleased to be getting 'near' the National Average is unacceptable.For too long we have been told it is "getting better".How bad was it before? Nomalice

3:43pm Thu 17 May 12

cj07589 says...

Nomalice, Agree with you the detection rate is not acceptable. From personal experience coupled with disillusion at the general service unless I need a crime report number for insurance purposes etc I no longer bother reporting incidents of crime as I know in most instances they wont bother investigating. As an example we had a shrubs and trees ripped out of the ground in a mindless act of criminal damage on our housing estate have not bothered to report it as all I will get is lip service. I dont blame the Police persay but I do blame the Governement they continue to waste 11 Billion PA on Aid for other countries when we need that money spend here. Its a sorry old state of affairs when you've turned into a cynic knowing that nothing will ever change. It's a bit like voting .... id vote if i knew it would make a difference but it doesn't.
Nomalice, Agree with you the detection rate is not acceptable. From personal experience coupled with disillusion at the general service unless I need a crime report number for insurance purposes etc I no longer bother reporting incidents of crime as I know in most instances they wont bother investigating. As an example we had a shrubs and trees ripped out of the ground in a mindless act of criminal damage on our housing estate have not bothered to report it as all I will get is lip service. I dont blame the Police persay but I do blame the Governement they continue to waste 11 Billion PA on Aid for other countries when we need that money spend here. Its a sorry old state of affairs when you've turned into a cynic knowing that nothing will ever change. It's a bit like voting .... id vote if i knew it would make a difference but it doesn't. cj07589

3:45pm Thu 17 May 12

Dr Brendan Webster says...

bandit1 wrote:
Its a shame they don't put the same effort in solving crimes of actual victims - you know, theft, rape, murder, assault. I guess enforcement of those crimes cost money instead of making money from motorists, real criminals are dangerous, while hassling drivers is safe and easy
As far as I know, more people are killed every year by errant motorists than are killed by murder. Bad driving ruins lives.
[quote][p][bold]bandit1[/bold] wrote: Its a shame they don't put the same effort in solving crimes of actual victims - you know, theft, rape, murder, assault. I guess enforcement of those crimes cost money instead of making money from motorists, real criminals are dangerous, while hassling drivers is safe and easy[/p][/quote]As far as I know, more people are killed every year by errant motorists than are killed by murder. Bad driving ruins lives. Dr Brendan Webster

3:56pm Thu 17 May 12

kildare43 says...

When I was working we had to have our mid morning break at our desks, today I saw three fully uniformed Police officers sitting by the beach in the Hive Cafe at Burton Bradstock enjoying their coffee. At least have the decency to remove your jackets until breaktime is over. They only shifted when their Superior Officer came down. Then again, maybe this was an exercise for the Olympics.
When I was working we had to have our mid morning break at our desks, today I saw three fully uniformed Police officers sitting by the beach in the Hive Cafe at Burton Bradstock enjoying their coffee. At least have the decency to remove your jackets until breaktime is over. They only shifted when their Superior Officer came down. Then again, maybe this was an exercise for the Olympics. kildare43

3:58pm Thu 17 May 12

Dr Brendan Webster says...

I wonder, if the police database were made available to private investigators would detection improve. If my home were violated, I might well pay a Private Investigator to do the legwork. I expect the insurance industry would offer a product to pay for PIs if allowed and people wanted them
.
I can not see the government raising taxes significantly to assist in providing more police. Most people do not experience crime and the frustration of inadequate police response and so are unlikely to vote for higher tax to do pay for detective work for anything other than major crime, national security - and road safety. The latter is to some extent self financing from the pockets of offenders, thankfully. Everyday theft and burglary are a low priority.
I wonder, if the police database were made available to private investigators would detection improve. If my home were violated, I might well pay a Private Investigator to do the legwork. I expect the insurance industry would offer a product to pay for PIs if allowed and people wanted them . I can not see the government raising taxes significantly to assist in providing more police. Most people do not experience crime and the frustration of inadequate police response and so are unlikely to vote for higher tax to do pay for detective work for anything other than major crime, national security - and road safety. The latter is to some extent self financing from the pockets of offenders, thankfully. Everyday theft and burglary are a low priority. Dr Brendan Webster

5:46pm Thu 17 May 12

portland rebel says...

BUT THEY ARE VERY GOOD AT CRIMINALISING MOTORISTS,FOR SILLY LITTLE MISTAKES.
BUT THEY ARE VERY GOOD AT CRIMINALISING MOTORISTS,FOR SILLY LITTLE MISTAKES. portland rebel

7:27pm Thu 17 May 12

Wykeite says...

cj07589 wrote:
Lizzy Bennett wrote:
Someone has just today been released after serving 7 yrs for a murder he didnt commit- under your rules an innocent man would have hanged.
What if that man had been YOU!!!
Dear Lizzy I’m confused by your post what is your point? The current justice system format already has a robust appeal process in place to deal with the exact erroneous point you raised. The crux of it is, if the penalty/punishment was commensurate to the seriousness of the crime committed then it would be only fair and reasonable to expect less investigative work would be required by our ever diminishing police. As an example, I live 15 or so miles away from the closest police station so extra cuts to the police will mean reduced police coverage and response times its is insulting to think I pay money every month and will have to wait hours for the police to turn up.
I have no doubt that criminals the being low life criminals they are will certainly look to take full advantage of the situation, hence a real and viable alternative is to increase the size of the 'stick’ aka punishment to deter the crime from being committed in the first instance. God forbid what all your do-gooder liberal lefty friends would say!...... what about the criminals rights to rob, plunder and steal at their leisure whilst your out working hard for a living, least forgetting their rights to have a unhindered family life at our expense! It’s a simple idea really stop treating the "Symptoms" with a sticking plaster and start focusing on curing the "Disease" through preventive measures through tougher punishment. After all if criminals were held in prison for longer there would be fewer criminals on our streets to perpetrate the crimes. It’s only an idea but reducing the quantity of front line police officers is a very short sighted proposal and insulting to the law abiding public. The very first positions to receive the axe should be the nauseasating and political correct traveler/Gypsy liaison officers as they represent a heinous waste of precise community resources imposed on us by the corrupt and unaccountable EUSSR.
Erm... the point was that if the death penalty was in place an innocent man would've hanged seven years ago. Simples!
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lizzy Bennett[/bold] wrote: Someone has just today been released after serving 7 yrs for a murder he didnt commit- under your rules an innocent man would have hanged. What if that man had been YOU!!![/p][/quote]Dear Lizzy I’m confused by your post what is your point? The current justice system format already has a robust appeal process in place to deal with the exact erroneous point you raised. The crux of it is, if the penalty/punishment was commensurate to the seriousness of the crime committed then it would be only fair and reasonable to expect less investigative work would be required by our ever diminishing police. As an example, I live 15 or so miles away from the closest police station so extra cuts to the police will mean reduced police coverage and response times its is insulting to think I pay money every month and will have to wait hours for the police to turn up. I have no doubt that criminals the being low life criminals they are will certainly look to take full advantage of the situation, hence a real and viable alternative is to increase the size of the 'stick’ aka punishment to deter the crime from being committed in the first instance. God forbid what all your do-gooder liberal lefty friends would say!...... what about the criminals rights to rob, plunder and steal at their leisure whilst your out working hard for a living, least forgetting their rights to have a unhindered family life at our expense! It’s a simple idea really stop treating the "Symptoms" with a sticking plaster and start focusing on curing the "Disease" through preventive measures through tougher punishment. After all if criminals were held in prison for longer there would be fewer criminals on our streets to perpetrate the crimes. It’s only an idea but reducing the quantity of front line police officers is a very short sighted proposal and insulting to the law abiding public. The very first positions to receive the axe should be the nauseasating and political correct traveler/Gypsy liaison officers as they represent a heinous waste of precise community resources imposed on us by the corrupt and unaccountable EUSSR.[/p][/quote]Erm... the point was that if the death penalty was in place an innocent man would've hanged seven years ago. Simples! Wykeite

7:55pm Thu 17 May 12

wurzelbasher says...

The police like an easy life and doing people for trivial motoring offences is about as easy as it gets! On the other hand investigating a burglary could be hard work, having to traipse around looking for evidence etc!
The police like an easy life and doing people for trivial motoring offences is about as easy as it gets! On the other hand investigating a burglary could be hard work, having to traipse around looking for evidence etc! wurzelbasher

10:27am Fri 18 May 12

NEWHOP says...

Bring on the cuts as we are not getting our monies worth.look at the annual cost and look at the service, is it paying for our needs?. Less BMW,S and more british made cars may save and help out our econmy. More police on the streets will reduce crime and I mean walking the beat.
Bring on the cuts as we are not getting our monies worth.look at the annual cost and look at the service, is it paying for our needs?. Less BMW,S and more british made cars may save and help out our econmy. More police on the streets will reduce crime and I mean walking the beat. NEWHOP

10:32am Fri 18 May 12

212 dorset says...

kildare43 wrote:
When I was working we had to have our mid morning break at our desks, today I saw three fully uniformed Police officers sitting by the beach in the Hive Cafe at Burton Bradstock enjoying their coffee. At least have the decency to remove your jackets until breaktime is over. They only shifted when their Superior Officer came down. Then again, maybe this was an exercise for the Olympics.
Im confused.. Three Polie Officers in uniform having a cup of coffee whilst on duty?? Surely, a Police Officer is allowed a drink whilst on duty? Would you rather they go back to the Station and hide away, or would you rather they were visible to the Public, which will obviously prevent Crime?
[quote][p][bold]kildare43[/bold] wrote: When I was working we had to have our mid morning break at our desks, today I saw three fully uniformed Police officers sitting by the beach in the Hive Cafe at Burton Bradstock enjoying their coffee. At least have the decency to remove your jackets until breaktime is over. They only shifted when their Superior Officer came down. Then again, maybe this was an exercise for the Olympics.[/p][/quote]Im confused.. Three Polie Officers in uniform having a cup of coffee whilst on duty?? Surely, a Police Officer is allowed a drink whilst on duty? Would you rather they go back to the Station and hide away, or would you rather they were visible to the Public, which will obviously prevent Crime? 212 dorset

1:54pm Fri 18 May 12

cj07589 says...

Wykeite, It’s all hypothetical anyway isn’t it? however your citing of one rare and most unfortunate miscarriage of justice is not a fair reflection of the judicial system nor does it provide an basis to make an informed decision on such a controversial and emotive subject. IMO it’s fair and proportionate that should someone be proved to purposely and deliberately take another person’s life that they should expect the penalty in return. i.e hand for a hand, eye for an eye etc…After all the proof that it works is evident all over the world. But I fear we’ve gone too soft here and would rather accept the good olde gullible taxman to pickup the circa £60kPA to feed and house murders which reflects exceptionally poor value for money and justice for the family members of the victims. Personally I’d rather save that money and have it spent on more police resources dealing with assaults, theft, burglary and car crime for example. More spending cuts to the police are only going to make crime and its detection worse so its only right that a wholesale review of the entire judicial process is considered.
Wykeite, It’s all hypothetical anyway isn’t it? however your citing of one rare and most unfortunate miscarriage of justice is not a fair reflection of the judicial system nor does it provide an basis to make an informed decision on such a controversial and emotive subject. IMO it’s fair and proportionate that should someone be proved to purposely and deliberately take another person’s life that they should expect the penalty in return. i.e hand for a hand, eye for an eye etc…After all the proof that it works is evident all over the world. But I fear we’ve gone too soft here and would rather accept the good olde gullible taxman to pickup the circa £60kPA to feed and house murders which reflects exceptionally poor value for money and justice for the family members of the victims. Personally I’d rather save that money and have it spent on more police resources dealing with assaults, theft, burglary and car crime for example. More spending cuts to the police are only going to make crime and its detection worse so its only right that a wholesale review of the entire judicial process is considered. cj07589

3:53pm Fri 18 May 12

JamesYoung says...

I'm not so sure that miscarriages of justice are so rare. There are lots of similar cases. What scares me is how long it takes to overturn a decision - id really recommend downloading and reading the Sam Hallam overview from the website set up by his family. It could so easily have been you or I.
As for traffic offences, as Brendan says, there are far more road deaths than murders. Traffic policing could be a profitable business - Highways Agencies staff have police powers on motorways, why not private companies. After all, as the Sam Hallam case shows, a private company is probably no less likely to indulge in bad practice than the police themselves driven as they are by impossible political targets.
I'm not so sure that miscarriages of justice are so rare. There are lots of similar cases. What scares me is how long it takes to overturn a decision - id really recommend downloading and reading the Sam Hallam overview from the website set up by his family. It could so easily have been you or I. As for traffic offences, as Brendan says, there are far more road deaths than murders. Traffic policing could be a profitable business - Highways Agencies staff have police powers on motorways, why not private companies. After all, as the Sam Hallam case shows, a private company is probably no less likely to indulge in bad practice than the police themselves driven as they are by impossible political targets. JamesYoung

4:42pm Fri 18 May 12

Wykeite says...

cj07589 wrote:
Wykeite, It’s all hypothetical anyway isn’t it? however your citing of one rare and most unfortunate miscarriage of justice is not a fair reflection of the judicial system nor does it provide an basis to make an informed decision on such a controversial and emotive subject. IMO it’s fair and proportionate that should someone be proved to purposely and deliberately take another person’s life that they should expect the penalty in return. i.e hand for a hand, eye for an eye etc…After all the proof that it works is evident all over the world. But I fear we’ve gone too soft here and would rather accept the good olde gullible taxman to pickup the circa £60kPA to feed and house murders which reflects exceptionally poor value for money and justice for the family members of the victims. Personally I’d rather save that money and have it spent on more police resources dealing with assaults, theft, burglary and car crime for example. More spending cuts to the police are only going to make crime and its detection worse so its only right that a wholesale review of the entire judicial process is considered.
Yes, it’s all hypothetical and I’m citing a very rare miscarriage of justice, but as these events do occur in the judicial system then it cannot be justified to have an ultimate punishment that results in the possibility of taking an innocent life. I could not sit on a jury knowing that my decision could result in such a mistake being made. If we are taking an ‘eye for an eye’ then should the judge, jury, police investigators, CPS be in the dock for sending innocent people to their deaths in such cases where incompetence is clear? Again hypothetical, but I could not live with such a heavy burden. Also, with the spending cuts, then there surely is the potential for more of these miscarriages of justice to take place.

I agree with your second point that we are too soft on criminals and the cost of incarceration is far too high, however, I’d be very surprised if this cost cannot be vastly reduced by cutting the luxuries of those prisoners that will never be free; the ‘Bangkok Hilton’ is a fine example of how it could be. The prisoners there have the human right to life and can be freed if mistakes were made in their trial.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Wykeite, It’s all hypothetical anyway isn’t it? however your citing of one rare and most unfortunate miscarriage of justice is not a fair reflection of the judicial system nor does it provide an basis to make an informed decision on such a controversial and emotive subject. IMO it’s fair and proportionate that should someone be proved to purposely and deliberately take another person’s life that they should expect the penalty in return. i.e hand for a hand, eye for an eye etc…After all the proof that it works is evident all over the world. But I fear we’ve gone too soft here and would rather accept the good olde gullible taxman to pickup the circa £60kPA to feed and house murders which reflects exceptionally poor value for money and justice for the family members of the victims. Personally I’d rather save that money and have it spent on more police resources dealing with assaults, theft, burglary and car crime for example. More spending cuts to the police are only going to make crime and its detection worse so its only right that a wholesale review of the entire judicial process is considered.[/p][/quote]Yes, it’s all hypothetical and I’m citing a very rare miscarriage of justice, but as these events do occur in the judicial system then it cannot be justified to have an ultimate punishment that results in the possibility of taking an innocent life. I could not sit on a jury knowing that my decision could result in such a mistake being made. If we are taking an ‘eye for an eye’ then should the judge, jury, police investigators, CPS be in the dock for sending innocent people to their deaths in such cases where incompetence is clear? Again hypothetical, but I could not live with such a heavy burden. Also, with the spending cuts, then there surely is the potential for more of these miscarriages of justice to take place. I agree with your second point that we are too soft on criminals and the cost of incarceration is far too high, however, I’d be very surprised if this cost cannot be vastly reduced by cutting the luxuries of those prisoners that will never be free; the ‘Bangkok Hilton’ is a fine example of how it could be. The prisoners there have the human right to life and can be freed if mistakes were made in their trial. Wykeite

3:36pm Mon 21 May 12

markerpen says...

It must be soul destroying being a police officer, you nick someone and then have to waste weeks in court just to have the little sh*t let off or given just a slap on the wrist.

As for being a criminal for driving, this is totally different as most people dont set out to break the law and crashes tend to be a culmination of many factors.

It's like making a criminal of Asda because they sell some food with a high fat content, how many people die of unhealthy diets? it puts the number of people killed in road accidents in the shade.

A statistic that I found interesting is that in the 10- years since 9/11 four hundred thousand people died in the USA from road deaths. A war was begun over the 3000 killed in the twin towers...I think it's all a matter of intention and malice.

Regarding the death penalty, I think the argument against it is basically that our legal system is so bad we cant rely on its judgements...does that sum it up?...and if so what is the point of having police or caring about cuts in the first place.
It must be soul destroying being a police officer, you nick someone and then have to waste weeks in court just to have the little sh*t let off or given just a slap on the wrist. As for being a criminal for driving, this is totally different as most people dont set out to break the law and crashes tend to be a culmination of many factors. It's like making a criminal of Asda because they sell some food with a high fat content, how many people die of unhealthy diets? it puts the number of people killed in road accidents in the shade. A statistic that I found interesting is that in the 10- years since 9/11 four hundred thousand people died in the USA from road deaths. A war was begun over the 3000 killed in the twin towers...I think it's all a matter of intention and malice. Regarding the death penalty, I think the argument against it is basically that our legal system is so bad we cant rely on its judgements...does that sum it up?...and if so what is the point of having police or caring about cuts in the first place. markerpen

8:57pm Mon 21 May 12

tjf portland says...

the only way police cuts would make any difference to the crime rate in weymouth&portland would be if they did a 90 per cent cut and then start again to build an honest none corrupt police force! the web site www.dorsetpolice.com should open peoples eyes to the truth about our police force.
the only way police cuts would make any difference to the crime rate in weymouth&portland would be if they did a 90 per cent cut and then start again to build an honest none corrupt police force! the web site www.dorsetpolice.com should open peoples eyes to the truth about our police force. tjf portland

7:44am Tue 22 May 12

CharlieBarley says...

Perhaps if we make the police do more service before allowing them to retire there would be more money in the pot for solving crimes. Why is it that police can retire on full pension after only 30 years service when the rest of us have to do 40 years or more. So many of these retired police take on other jobs whilst still claiming full pension - if they are capable of working why not keep them in the police. I'm not suggesting having 60yo coppers on the streets at closing time but there's plenty of other less physical duties that older staff can do.
Perhaps if we make the police do more service before allowing them to retire there would be more money in the pot for solving crimes. Why is it that police can retire on full pension after only 30 years service when the rest of us have to do 40 years or more. So many of these retired police take on other jobs whilst still claiming full pension - if they are capable of working why not keep them in the police. I'm not suggesting having 60yo coppers on the streets at closing time but there's plenty of other less physical duties that older staff can do. CharlieBarley

7:47am Tue 22 May 12

CharlieBarley says...

Perhaps if we make the police do more service before allowing them to retire there would be more money in the pot for solving crimes. Why is it that police can retire on full pension after only 30 years service when the rest of us have to do 40 years or more. So many of these retired police take on other jobs whilst still claiming full pension - if they are capable of working why not keep them in the police. I'm not suggesting having 60yo coppers on the streets at closing time but there's plenty of other less physical duties that older staff can do.
Perhaps if we make the police do more service before allowing them to retire there would be more money in the pot for solving crimes. Why is it that police can retire on full pension after only 30 years service when the rest of us have to do 40 years or more. So many of these retired police take on other jobs whilst still claiming full pension - if they are capable of working why not keep them in the police. I'm not suggesting having 60yo coppers on the streets at closing time but there's plenty of other less physical duties that older staff can do. CharlieBarley

9:52pm Tue 22 May 12

Austin7 says...

Too many corrupt police officers around!!! Hypocrites!!! And they get let off in court or lesser sentence!!!
Too many corrupt police officers around!!! Hypocrites!!! And they get let off in court or lesser sentence!!! Austin7

5:52pm Wed 23 May 12

Nomalice says...

CharleyBarley, the police,the armed forces, fire service, etc, are all faced with the same problems. They are all "a young mans' game." Whilst it makes sense to retain older personnel, on 'extended service', for the valuable experience they can pass on, it would be uneconomical to keep everyone past their 'sell by date', as they would be at the top of their pay scales.It is cheaper to use, a few and back them up with community officers and reservists. The bottom line is money.
CharleyBarley, the police,the armed forces, fire service, etc, are all faced with the same problems. They are all "a young mans' game." Whilst it makes sense to retain older personnel, on 'extended service', for the valuable experience they can pass on, it would be uneconomical to keep everyone past their 'sell by date', as they would be at the top of their pay scales.It is cheaper to use, a few and back them up with community officers and reservists. The bottom line is money. Nomalice

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree