Victim surcharge
In the case of fare evasion on SouthEast trains exactly who is the victim ?
Conviction by computer is go, confirms UK Ministry of Justice
Petty criminals in Britain will soon be found guilty and sentenced by computers, under new government plans. Originally floated last year in a public consultation scheme, the UK government has now announced it will press on with its scheme to persuade low-level lawbreakers that pleading guilty online is a good idea. "Under …
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 18:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Train fare evasion
Given that it's effectively a form of fraud it's not surprising that it's a criminal offence.
Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Q. Do you have a ticket?
A. No.
It is hard to see where the deception needed for fraud is, unless the person claims that they have a ticket when they do not have one.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 23:02 GMT Jason Hindle
Re: Train fare evasion
"So what happens if you lose your ticket? Off to the court you go, you horrible criminal ticket-loser?"
My rough understanding.... The fine comes with a threat of criminal proceedings. Pay up, and it is treated as a private matter; you don't have to plead guilty to anything. Manchester Metrolink even offers a discount for swift payment of fine. I agree, it can be unreasonable, and the otherwise friendly inspectors operate on the principle that mercy is for the weak, but at least there's a clear enough line.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2017 10:29 GMT billse10
Re: You're new here, aren't you?
"set a precedent."
There's a bit from Yes Minister, can't remember which one: Sir Humphrey warns the Minister that something could "create a dangerous precedent". Hacker "You mean, if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing next time?"
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 16:44 GMT Doctor Syntax
"We have considered the responses in full and think it is possible to prosecute low-level cases via an automatic online conviction procedure and impose an automated, standard penalty in these cases without compromising the principles of our justice system.
Translation: we've ignored the consultation & will go ahead with whatever we feel like doing.
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2017 10:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
"after they've sampled everyone's DNA and used that to predict if we are criminals or not...."
AC: that briefing paper was marked Top Secret, Prime Minister Only. Please report to your nearest detention centre for immediate processing. (Isn't it wonderful, the stuff we can do now we can leave the ECHR without anyone complaining, we just parrot "the will of the people"?)
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 20:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Consultation
Translation: we've ignored the consultation & will go ahead with whatever we feel like doing.
They usually do that - public bodies have to do public consultations, but aren't obliged to take notice of the results.
The official response says it all really - We ... think it is possible to prosecute low-level cases .. without compromising the principles of our justice system. Possible isn't the same as likely. Isn't even close.
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 17:31 GMT Peter Gathercole
Re: Prosecution Costs?! @User McUser
??? - Of course there are still costs.
The offense still has to be written up, and actually entered as an offense. A case still has to be made before it could be prosecuted. The evaluation of whether a case is likely to succeed if taken to court still has to be made.
I agree that the costs should be fairly minimal, but they are still costs
But to my mind, this new system is really intended to offer people who know they have committed a crime to admit to it, and have a means of going through the justice system without having to go to court, reducing the cost of the whole procedure and saving precious court time.
We already have such a system for traffic offenses. You get caught speeding bang to rights, you can offer to pay the fine, accept the points, and never see the inside of a court room.
In motoring offenses, if you think you're not guilty, you can still opt to go to court, plead your case and let the magistrate decide whether you're guilty or not. The way I read this, you will be able do exactly the same for a number of other minor offenses.
The difference here is that they can be minor criminal offenses, but still, probably ones that would only result in a fine, not a custodial sentence. What's wrong with that?
If you know you're guilty, plead guilty through the web site, and avoid a physical court case. Think that you're innocent, or you've got a chance to avoid it, take your chances in court.
It's not as if the computer will be deciding guilt, taking the place of a magistrate, judge or jury.
The only way this could be seen as disruptive to the justice system is if you are encouraged to plead guilty when you're not, merely to reduce the financial burden. That really would be unjust!
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 19:19 GMT Adam 52
Re: Prosecution Costs?! @User McUser
"I agree that the costs should be fairly minimal, but they are still costs"
To get CPS to charge the Police need to prepare a pre-charge pack. Roughly 4 hours of paperwork ignoring the evidence collection.
Then they need to spend 2 hours on hold to "CPS Direct", the CPS call centre.
Charge out rate for a Constable is about £60/hour (yes, you can hire Police officers privately). So that's £360, plus CPS lawyer time.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 23:40 GMT DavCrav
Re: Prosecution Costs?! @User McUser
"To get CPS to charge the Police need to prepare a pre-charge pack. Roughly 4 hours of paperwork ignoring the evidence collection."
Luckily, in this country, Police time spent investigating an offence is not counted as a prosecution cost, and only actual prosecution costs are counted. Otherwise long investigations would run into the millions.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 22:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Prosecution Costs?! @Peter Gathercole
Re: "The only way this could be seen as disruptive to the justice system is if you are encouraged to plead guilty when you're not, merely to reduce the financial burden. That really would be unjust!"
That's the whole point of this plan. Pleas bargains are all about money.
British Government - taking the justice out of British justice. Yet again.
We can only marvel at those societies that don't think that "justice" like that handed out 300 years ago is anything to aspire to.
-
Thursday 9th February 2017 10:53 GMT Peter Gathercole
Re: Prosecution Costs?! @AC
Most of the time, cases only make it to court in the UK if there is a very good chance that the accused will be found guilty, so a significant number of the cases that make it to court will end up with the accused pleading guilty anyway.
If you can reduce the cost of this process for both the accused and the court system, it looks like a win-win situation to me. Just as long as those who think they've been unjustly accused still have access to the court system if they want.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 17:22 GMT Stevie
Bah!
This is how NY stop light violations and out of state speeding tickets are handled in the USA. Other than the usurious charges to pay by credit card (and the attempt to shame me into same on the part of the NY Stop Light Fascisti by printing "GUILTY PLEA BY STOP LIGHT SCOFFLAW SCUM" in bold, black shouties on the envelope*) it works well enough. I break the law in some trivial way, get caught dead to rights, pay the fine and everyone gets on with their lives.
No-one forces me to plead guilty, but I have to make a court appearance if I don't.
And if I can't afford the time, I shouldn't do the crime. Or at least keep it down to 9 mph over the limit in South Carolina on I95.
* I paraphrase, but the "GUILTY PLEA" is definitely in there somewhere. The ploy fails because if I had any shame I wouldn't have shot the light in the first place.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 18:04 GMT DNTP
Re: "it works well enough"
The reason you're getting a downvote is that I got one of these automatically generated citations for:
1. A different state I'd never been in at the time
2. A car I don't own and in fact have no license to operate
So do I travel to court in a different state to dispute the charge, just pay the $50, or hire an out-of-state lawyer to represent me? Why is the system set up so that when the charge is inevitably dismissed, the company automatically generating these complaints doesn't have to cover the costs of their perjury or face any legal penalty?
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 18:27 GMT Stevie
Re: "it works well enough"
Well, you could do either of those, or you could just do what you are supposed to do.
If you can prove what you say you simply send back the citation with the little boxes in the back filled in and the proof you were somewhere else or a statement to the effect that you never owned the vehicle in question.
Of course, if this is a sign you are the victim of ID theft, then you have an uphill battle, but then a ticket is the least of your problems. Someone bought and registered a vehicle under your name. You'll almost certainly need a lawyer to begin sorting that mess out.
As for the "wasn't there, was somewhere else" scenario; happened to my wife a while back when the Triboro Bridge Authority tried to dun her for tolls she never incurred. Easily fixed by return mail.
Honestly, why would you think that these contingencies hadn't been covered? This could easily have been researched before you knee-jerked. Sometimes I wonder about the people in the IT game these days.
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 23:43 GMT DavCrav
Re: "it works well enough"
"Ooh, look at all the clever downvoters who're embarrassed they never thought of the contingencies and want to be angry at something, and if they can't be angry at the system they thought was wrong, they'll be angry at the person correcting them, bigorra!"
Oi! Listen twat: we're downvoting because the 'corrector' is trying to ignore the person's actual experience of the system. You don't get to say 'but contingencies!' if someone is standing there saying 'that system fucked me over'.
-
Thursday 9th February 2017 17:33 GMT Stevie
Re: we're downvoting because
the 'corrector' is trying to ignore the person's actual experience of the system
So my numerous personal experiences of the system as related don't count but his one does, just because it confirms your knee-jerky expectations of perfidy and malfeasance?
Tough crowd.
-
-
-
Thursday 9th February 2017 10:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "it works well enough"
"If you can prove what you say you simply send back the citation with the little boxes in the back filled in and the proof you were somewhere else or a statement to the effect that you never owned the vehicle in question."
Plus a bill for your time, at the same rates a top lawyer would charge.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 17:26 GMT Ogi
What about the consequences of admitting guilt?
I mean, unlike parking tickets, where you can pay the pound of flesh and go on your merry way, my understanding is this deals with criminal convictions.
So in theory, if you click "guilty" online, you now have to tick the "Have you been convicted of a crime in the last 5 years" checkbox on job applications, which 95% of the time fast tracks your application to the cylindrical filing cabinet. Not to mention other things (like car insurance) which want the same information, and I never clicked "yes", but I don't think it does your insurability any good to do so.
Sounds like there would be more reason to appeal and refuse the "one-click convict" system being proposed here. I think anyone would want to have this heard by an actual person. There is more at stake than just paying the penalty here.
This seems really ill thought out as concept. Besides, I thought Amazon has the patent on "one-click" online shit. Would love to see the arguments with reference to this.
Also worries me what the background thinking is behind this.. something along the lines of "Soon we are going to turn so many people into criminals with our law changes, we are going to need an automated one-click justice system to be able to handle the load"?
On the other hand, black hats will ply a busy consulting trade, hacking the system to minimise the penalties or otherwise mess with the justice system to the benefit of their clients.
-
Wednesday 8th February 2017 18:16 GMT Jason Bloomberg
Re: What about the consequences of admitting guilt?
People will have to tick that "I'm a criminal" box whether they admit guilt online, in court, or are found guilty by the court.
I can see no advantage to going to court and pleading guilty over doing that online. In fact, going to court would likely be the more expensive option.
The rationale for the scheme is that it costs money and wastes time to have people come to court only to admit guilt and have a judge sat there rubber stamping that. And other cases, which do need to be heard in person, will be delayed while that hearing is in progress. There are savings to be had if people who are going to plead guilty can avoid court appearances completely.
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
