Allow juries to do their own research

I believe that juries should be allowed to do their own research into any case that they are hearing and deciding on. If you are on a jury and have to decide on something then surely you should be allowed to investigate the facts yourself. One of the key reasons this wasn't possible before is that the courts weren't allowed to talk about previous convictions. Now, most previous convictions are unveiled to them anyway. So why shouldn't juries be allowed to do their own research into the evidence and facts in the case?

Why is this idea important?

I believe that juries should be allowed to do their own research into any case that they are hearing and deciding on. If you are on a jury and have to decide on something then surely you should be allowed to investigate the facts yourself. One of the key reasons this wasn't possible before is that the courts weren't allowed to talk about previous convictions. Now, most previous convictions are unveiled to them anyway. So why shouldn't juries be allowed to do their own research into the evidence and facts in the case?

Change the test of all courts to beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence

I would like to see the test in all courts changed to "beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence". I don't think the test of "on the balance of probabilities" is tough enough and leads to miscarriages of justice in the civil system. I also think that the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal courts isn't tough enough. If people on the jury or a judge has any doubt at all then they shouldn't be convicting.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the test in all courts changed to "beyond any doubt whatsoever based on the evidence". I don't think the test of "on the balance of probabilities" is tough enough and leads to miscarriages of justice in the civil system. I also think that the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal courts isn't tough enough. If people on the jury or a judge has any doubt at all then they shouldn't be convicting.

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGHTY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

IMPRISON VIOLENT CRIMINAL TAG OTHERS ELECTRONICALLY

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Why is this idea important?

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Bringing ancient justice back to the modern justice system

I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:

1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.

3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.

4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.

5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see five points reflected in the new justice legislation created by the Coalition government:

1.. A swift return to the ancient instruction from all judges to jurors allocated to criminal prosecution cases that in order to convict, the balance of evidence must have caused them to believe that a defendant is guilty 'beyond all reasonable doubt', and that this means that if they have any doubts at all that they should not convict, bearing in mind that the underpinning foundation of our legal system is that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

2. The removal of all banana republic inspired New Labour 'complaint to conviction' targets created for police and CPS. The target for any democratic society's criminal justice system should be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, not to frog march anyone who is the subject of a complaint through to a 'guilty' verdict as swiftly as possible.

3. A thorough investigation of the victim compensation system in terms of any potential for abuse, followed by a move to balance legislation so that people who make false allegations due to malice and/ or to fraudulently claim compensation face heavy penalties, which grow heavier the later this comes to light (as the person they have accused will have suffered for a longer time due to their allegations). This should be clearly explained to people at the point they make a complaint to the police by a professional mediator, not a police officer.

4. That no person is imprisoned without charge for longer than the 36 hours that was the limit before New Labour legislation.

5. That no person is ever subject to government employees of any description circulating information about him or her that has been gathered through rumour and unsubstantiated allegation (as can be the case on the enhanced CRB).

Remove Gross Indecency Convictions from all records

The European Court of Human Rights in the case ADT versus The UK (July 2000) found the old gross indecency law (men who have sex with other men – consenting adult sex) to be contravene human rights.

The UK government repealed the gross indecency law, which only applied to gay male sex, in December 2000. Yet those historic convictions remain in place on police and court records to be used over and over again to perpetuate the discrimination against gay men who engaged in consensual adult sex.

Amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (which is in the Coalition Agreement) does nothing to remove those records from the PNC, court records, and other local police records -and DNA,  fingerprint and photo databases.

Remove all records relating to the decriminalised offence of gross indecency.

Why is this idea important?

The European Court of Human Rights in the case ADT versus The UK (July 2000) found the old gross indecency law (men who have sex with other men – consenting adult sex) to be contravene human rights.

The UK government repealed the gross indecency law, which only applied to gay male sex, in December 2000. Yet those historic convictions remain in place on police and court records to be used over and over again to perpetuate the discrimination against gay men who engaged in consensual adult sex.

Amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (which is in the Coalition Agreement) does nothing to remove those records from the PNC, court records, and other local police records -and DNA,  fingerprint and photo databases.

Remove all records relating to the decriminalised offence of gross indecency.

s 226 and 228 CJA 2003 need abolishing or serious curtailing

Sections 226 and 228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 are the ones that provide for extended and indefinite sentences for public protection. This legislation was supposed to demonstrate the last government's ferocious approach to tackling crime and to respond to public concern about 'dangerous criminals' being released to molest the law abiding. The guidance that accompanied them was hopelessly broad and the provisions have been grossly overused. it is time to review them and, ideally, repeal them.

Why is this idea important?

Sections 226 and 228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 are the ones that provide for extended and indefinite sentences for public protection. This legislation was supposed to demonstrate the last government's ferocious approach to tackling crime and to respond to public concern about 'dangerous criminals' being released to molest the law abiding. The guidance that accompanied them was hopelessly broad and the provisions have been grossly overused. it is time to review them and, ideally, repeal them.

Free the innocent to alleviate prison overcrowding

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Why is this idea important?

U.K prisons are full to overflowing and this is not necessarily due to an increase in crime. The fault lies not with the way the prisons are run or organised but is due to fundamental flaws at the heart of the Criminal Justice System; it is antiquated and desperately requires a radical overhaul.

Most British citizens have complete faith in the UK legal system, unless they know someone who has had the misfortune to have been falsely accused and wrongfully convicted.

It may seem incredible in this day and age but it is entirely possible for an upright, model citizen to be wrongfully convicted of crimes that never happened. A person with no previous convictions can be proven guilty with absolutely no concrete evidence, purely by accusation. It should not be possible for innocent people to be incarcerated indefinitely due to the lies of false accusers eager for compensation and inadequate funding for a proper defence. More emphasis should be placed on the investigation at the early stages to prevent miscarriages of justice occurring – there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons and this in itself is enough to contribute to prison overcrowding.

Several years ago a new sentence was introduced which has since made things even worse – the IPP sentence (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection). This sentence is only supposed to be served when the convicted person is deemed to pose a significant risk to the public and therefore they must be incarcerated for an indefinite term until no longer considered a danger.

The IPP sentence means it is theoretically possible for a prisoner to remain incarcerated for up to 99 years! The Judge will give a minimum tariff which a prisoner is required to serve before he can apply for parole and after that he has to satisfy The Parole Board that he is no longer a threat to the public in order to be considered for release. To prove he has been reformed an inmate has to attend certain courses to address his offending behaviour – courses which are not always readily available. This means that prisoners are being dealt these open-ended sentences on a grand scale and are not progressing through the system.

Although the IPP sentence was originally introduced with the very good intention of protecting the public against highly dangerous individuals it can now adversely affect the guilty and innocent alike. It can seriously hamper their progression through the system, exacerbating overcrowding in already overcrowded prisons.

For a guilty prisoner who wishes to participate in courses to genuinely address his offending behaviour, he may come up against the problem of not being able to get a placement for the relevant course by the time his tariff is up. So supposing he has been set a minimum tariff of two years, he will have to remain in prison much longer if the course is not available in the local prison he was sent to initially, or if he cannot be transferred to one which runs those courses and can find him a placement within that timescale.

As for the innocent, they are faced with an even worse predicament – an absolute bureaucratic limbo – since in maintaining their innocence they quite rightly refuse to participate on the offending behaviour courses with the result that they may never be released. Perversely a guilty inmate may thus qualify for parole years sooner than an innocent one maintaining their innocence.

There is absolutely no recognition of the plight of innocent prisoners as prison policy dictates that all inmates are viewed as guilty and the prison and probation service must abide by the decision of the courts.

Here in the UK we are scheduled to begin construction of three vast ‘Super prisons’ due to be completed between 2012 and 2014. They have been designed to house up to 2,500 inmates each, but currently there is no funding available within the present budget. We are also building prison ships which look like huge, ugly floating slabs of concrete.

I am convinced that constructing more prisons is not the answer. For all but the most serious offenders, more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation within the community. And for the wrongfully convicted, the appeals process should be less convoluted and given more funding so that they are not taking up valuable space needed for the guilty.

Re-evaluate the use of juries

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Why is this idea important?

 

I feel the use of juries should be re-evaluated as the way evidence is presented in court is in need of a radical overhaul.

Any logically-thinking human being would assume that if twelve people decide to convict a defendant then there can be no possibility of a miscarriage of justice; The Jury will have been convinced of the defendant's guilt 'Beyond all reasonable doubt.'

So, as a logically-thinking human being you would ask yourself, twelve people surely cannot get it wrong? Think again. I am a logically-thinking human being too. I thought the British Legal System was fair and just until a person I care about was convicted of crimes he did not commit… crimes that never even happened. I do not however blame that particular jury as I firmly believe that any twelve people would have convicted him. If I had been a member of the jury I would have convicted him too! And this is why:

The jury is just a pawn in the game: picture yourself as an innocent man, falsely accused. The police want a conviction. They can readily gather together sufficient evidence about you, delving into your past with a fine-tooth comb. They will say that people have 'Come forward' when really the police have gone trawling for people to tempt them with compensation packages. Ninety nine people who the police have questioned may say good things about you but if the hundredth person says something bad it is THEIR evidence that will be placed before The Jury.

Then when the police have done their 'Dutiful' deeds, to the public, the Crown Prosecution Service takes over. They have unlimited financial and legal resources at their disposal, but you, the accused, have only your innocence, the truth and legal aid which is never enough.

If several people bear a grudge against you, the corroboration of these liars and the compounding of their lies and machinations will be enough to convict you if the jury are duped into believing their allegations are totally separate. Quite often the accusers are tempted into making false allegations due to the lure of compensation. They have nothing to lose as their anonymity is protected. They don't even have to face you in court as they can choose to be screened off. The Jury will always be convinced by the lies of many rather than the truth of a few.

Would you think it possible that a jury could convict you purely on the grounds of accusation? I did not think so until the person I care about was denied a fair trial. All the people who could vouch for his innocence, including me, were excluded on the grounds that there was not enough public funding, with the consequence that he was not allowed an adequate defence. So the Jury heard only lies, wrongly assuming there was no other side to the story. The Jury can only make a decision on the basis of what is placed before them and if they are only presented with lies then it is not outside the bounds of possibility to convict a saint on trumped up charges. Juries will always err on the side of caution and it often happens that an innocent person is convicted rather than risk a guilty one walking free.

The judge is Pontius Pilate in his own court; he can easily wash his hands and say: 'Don't blame me… The Jury convicted you.'

The police will say: 'Don't blame us, we only gathered the evidence together' and the Crown Prosecution Service say they only acted on that evidence. So at the end of the day the Jury have been used as a means to an end… a pawn in the game: 'It was The Jury who convicted who you.'

After conviction the Prison Authorities and Probation services will not tolerate cries of 'I'm innocent' they will keep on repeating the same old one liner: 'But The Jury convicted you.'

And as for The Jury themselves – they can easily sleep soundly at night thinking they have done their bit for truth and British Justice when really they have just been used as a tool to destroy an innocent person's life.

It may be too late for the person I care about, unless he can find the legal representation to support him wholeheartedly in the fight to clear his name. The Jury has convicted him and the judge has viewed him as dangerous, but there are far more people who know the real truth of the matter and are unable to prove it.

The British Tax payer now has to pay for an innocent man to be kept in prison for perhaps the rest of his life at a cost of around 35,000 pounds per annum. Where is the sense in that?

In order to prevent miscarriages of justice like this occurring, I would advise anyone serving on a jury to question everything put before them so they can make a fair decision. Don't just accept the evidence placed before you because several accusers have said the same thing – you may be destroying the life of someone who has been falsely accused. If you are a jury member attending a trial where the only evidence put before you is bad then you must surely begin to wonder whether the good has somehow been deliberately excluded.

All the good was excluded at the trial of the person I care about. He was allowed no proper defence. I was waiting in the witness waiting room for two hours to be called but I was not called. I feel certain the outcome would have been different if I had been given a chance to appear in his defence and I feel the way the evidence was presented was totally engineered and geared up for a conviction to ensure that he would not be given the chance of a fair trial. The scales of Justice were weighted against him from the onset, but Justice should be all about balance… so that the Jury can weigh things in the balance and reach a fair and just decision as to the defendant's innocence or guilt. This was not permitted in his case and if it can happen to him, an honest law-abiding citizen, then it can happen to anyone.

Make it impossible to be proven guilty by accusation alone

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

Why is this idea important?

 

In a fair and just society it should not be possible for a defendant to be convicted purely by accusation but sadly this can and does happen rather more frequently that most members of the British public care to realise. It is a common occurrence in America too.

The Criminal Justice System is held in high regard by most UK citizens and is still viewed as one of the finest in the world but it is being abused by malicious liars who bring false allegations to court in the same way as some people make fraudulent claims on their insurance. But in cases such as these, the monetary gain succeeds in destroying the lives of innocent people, sometimes causing them to be incarcerated indefinitely. This is no overstatement; due to the introduction of the absurd Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection in 2005 it is possible to be imprisoned for up to 99 years even if you are an innocent person, falsely accused.

Currently in the UK our prisons are full to overflowing and the number of wrongly convicted prisoners needs to be drastically reduced. There is very little opportunity for the innocent to overturn the decision of the court and right the wrongs that have been done to them once their trial is over. Recently in the UK, legal funding for appeals has been reduced even further so these unfortunate victims of an imperfect justice system are left with no realistic hope of release.

It should be made impossible for a person to be convicted when the only "Evidence" that an offence was actually committed is based on the accusations of others. But at present it is quite possible for juries to convict when there is no proper factual evidence such as a body in the case of a murder or DNA evidence in the case of a rape. The only "Proof" of the defendant's guilt is sometimes the lies and vindictive corroboration of people who bear grudges against the accused and are abusing the power of the state to convict an innocent citizen.

The Jury only have to be convinced by the prosecution that the defendant is guilty and if they believe what is placed before them "Beyond all reasonable doubt" then a conviction is guaranteed. The Jury are more than willing to go along with the lies of many rather than the truth of few. This is especially true in cases of alleged sexual offences against children when quite often the mere implication that this may have occurred is enough to swing the jury in favour of a conviction.

Judges in cases of this nature should be more willing to direct juries away from this absurd reasoning which would be better suited to a medieval witch hunt than a fair and reliable justice system that we should be able to respect and rely on. The defendant should always be found not guilty when it is a case of accusation alone or perhaps the introduction of the Verdict of:"Not proven" would be prudent as is the case in Scotland. The Crown Prosecution Service, in bringing innocent people to trial is only succeeding in imposing further burdens on the British tax payer. It costs over thirty thousand pounds per annum to keep a prisoner imprisoned so the only people who benefit are the liars who have ruined the lives of upright citizens.

The British legal system can therefore be abused by blatant liars who know they can secure the conviction of the defendant purely by invented evidence. They may be awarded compensation for their false evidence – sometimes as much as twenty thousand GB pounds apiece but as a result an innocent person can easily be denied justice and have their life completely ruined.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will gladly pay out to the unscrupulous people who have borne false witness against their neighbours and perjured themselves in a court of law and the public will feel safer because they have been led to believe that another dangerous offender has been locked away. Justice has not been done, it has been abused but the innocent prisoner and the people who know the real truth are given no chance to prove it.

Cases based on dubious evidence should not be allowed to proceed, thus avoiding expensive trials and depriving innocent people of their freedom. Innocent people should never be deprived of their freedom without any realistic hope of release or ever having a chance to clear their name. It is a breach of Human Rights… and there are enough real criminals with which to fill our prisons.

The Government needs to acknowledge the plight of innocent prisoners


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

Why is this idea important?


This idea is important because the current legislation that binds prison, probation and parole officials to accept without question that all prisoners are guilty, needs to be changed.

Prisoners who maintain innocence should be given every assistance to prove their innocence so that their freedom is restored. There is no help from any government department at present and with appeals processes being long and tedious, the innocent in prison soon find they have become society's forgotten citizens.

Innocence is a word that does not exist in prison vocabulary. You are considered as being 'In denial' of the offence you have supposed to have committed and you will be referred to as an offender and be continually bombarded with officials who try to persuade you to participate on treatment programmes to treat you for a disorder you know you do not have. You will be told you must lower your risk before you can be safely released back into society, but as a wrongly convicted person you know full well that you pose no risk at all. There is no one within the prison walls (with perhaps the exception of the chaplain) who is even prepared to listen to the pleas of an innocent prisoner.

In every area of life mistakes can be made; a pilot can shut down the wrong engine; a surgeon can remove the wrong limb – so why will the Criminal Justice System not admit that it makes the occasional blunder in convicting an innocent person?

Change the law so that the predicament of these innocent prisoners is realised by officialdom. Even providing them with a course that they can go on to explain why they think they are innocent would help!

restore pedestrians rights

pedestrians rights have been eroded following government and local government policies to encourage cycling.  the current laws in place that cyclists are expected to follow should be enforced, and pedestrians should be given rights and the ability to be able to identify cyclists and ensure they are swiftly proesecuted.

Why is this idea important?

pedestrians rights have been eroded following government and local government policies to encourage cycling.  the current laws in place that cyclists are expected to follow should be enforced, and pedestrians should be given rights and the ability to be able to identify cyclists and ensure they are swiftly proesecuted.

Impose a statute on rape claims

Tohelp stop the imprisonment of the innocent there needs to be set by statute a timescale for reporting the offence(s). This is not said to help the guilty or punish a victim. But the facts remain clear.

1. It is virtually impossible to prove the offence happened without substantial evidence (DNA) after a short period of time.

2. It is virtually impossible to prove you did not do it after a short period of time.

Do you remember what you were doing 2 years ago? for the full 12 months? each and every day? and have witnesses to prove what you are saying?

NO? I rest my case.

Now go and see what is happening all the time in Crown Courts and thereafter the Courts of Appeal. A complete waste of taxpayers money to lock someone up for a very long time on no evidence, only to clear them years later, lives destroyed. Check out the CCRC website and recent cases, many are of rape and indecent assault convictions overturned.

Why is this idea important?

Tohelp stop the imprisonment of the innocent there needs to be set by statute a timescale for reporting the offence(s). This is not said to help the guilty or punish a victim. But the facts remain clear.

1. It is virtually impossible to prove the offence happened without substantial evidence (DNA) after a short period of time.

2. It is virtually impossible to prove you did not do it after a short period of time.

Do you remember what you were doing 2 years ago? for the full 12 months? each and every day? and have witnesses to prove what you are saying?

NO? I rest my case.

Now go and see what is happening all the time in Crown Courts and thereafter the Courts of Appeal. A complete waste of taxpayers money to lock someone up for a very long time on no evidence, only to clear them years later, lives destroyed. Check out the CCRC website and recent cases, many are of rape and indecent assault convictions overturned.

Restore the right to be innocent until proven guilty

Sarah’s law and the legislation surrounding it do no more than ensure that convicted sex offenders are viewed as wanting to commit further crimes, no matter if they have been rehabilitated or reformed.

I strongly feel that this is wrong for a number of reasons, as not only is the rate of re-offending smaller in this group than several others, but most sexual offences against children are committed by family members and relatives.

All these laws do is pander to the lowest common denominator, keep parents in a state of fear and isolate people who have committed sex crimes but who have reformed themselves.

We don’t assume that people who have been jailed for drug offences will repeat their past behaviour after rehabilitation, so why sexual offences?

Why is this idea important?

Sarah’s law and the legislation surrounding it do no more than ensure that convicted sex offenders are viewed as wanting to commit further crimes, no matter if they have been rehabilitated or reformed.

I strongly feel that this is wrong for a number of reasons, as not only is the rate of re-offending smaller in this group than several others, but most sexual offences against children are committed by family members and relatives.

All these laws do is pander to the lowest common denominator, keep parents in a state of fear and isolate people who have committed sex crimes but who have reformed themselves.

We don’t assume that people who have been jailed for drug offences will repeat their past behaviour after rehabilitation, so why sexual offences?

REPEAL THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT ( POCA)

The proceeds of crime act ( poca ) was as i see it  origanley introduced to deal with drug dealers and fraudsters,as time has gone by this act has been abused by the authorities ,this act gives the courts the power to cease peoples assets and money on a pure   suspicion that these items were gained from an illegal act  without the court having to prove so. I always thought that the british justice system was about people being presumed innocent until proven guilty, this no longer seems to be the case , a drug dealer can get convicted and loose nothing because he knows how to use the system , a person can buy something innocently and  find out that the items are stolen and be convicted of movement of stolen goods and possibly loose thousands of pounds regardless of the value of the items purchased . This act also gives the courts the power to freeze peoples assetts without them even being charged with a criminal offence and refusing them legal aid to challenge this decision therefor leaving them unable to pay to challenge this decision, this to me is a gross breach of peoples human rights and not what the british justice system was designed for. My idea is to repeal this act and introduce a different act that is more just and fair on innocent people,an act that will punish the criminals it is designed to deal with without the chance of it being abused by the courts because they can't get the criminals it is designed for. 

Why is this idea important?

The proceeds of crime act ( poca ) was as i see it  origanley introduced to deal with drug dealers and fraudsters,as time has gone by this act has been abused by the authorities ,this act gives the courts the power to cease peoples assets and money on a pure   suspicion that these items were gained from an illegal act  without the court having to prove so. I always thought that the british justice system was about people being presumed innocent until proven guilty, this no longer seems to be the case , a drug dealer can get convicted and loose nothing because he knows how to use the system , a person can buy something innocently and  find out that the items are stolen and be convicted of movement of stolen goods and possibly loose thousands of pounds regardless of the value of the items purchased . This act also gives the courts the power to freeze peoples assetts without them even being charged with a criminal offence and refusing them legal aid to challenge this decision therefor leaving them unable to pay to challenge this decision, this to me is a gross breach of peoples human rights and not what the british justice system was designed for. My idea is to repeal this act and introduce a different act that is more just and fair on innocent people,an act that will punish the criminals it is designed to deal with without the chance of it being abused by the courts because they can't get the criminals it is designed for. 

Extradition treaties

Extradition treaty to USA and elsewhere – this treaty HAS to be re-thought as currently we kow tow to foreign governments     who have no idea of what true justice means – we should be ashamed that we extradite our citizens to regimes, including USA where justice is not dispensed in an acceptable manner – the previous government should have been totally ashamed of its betrayal of the people of this country

Why is this idea important?

Extradition treaty to USA and elsewhere – this treaty HAS to be re-thought as currently we kow tow to foreign governments     who have no idea of what true justice means – we should be ashamed that we extradite our citizens to regimes, including USA where justice is not dispensed in an acceptable manner – the previous government should have been totally ashamed of its betrayal of the people of this country

Prisoners to pay for their ‘Board and Lodgings

 

I think it would be very fair for anyone who is sent to prison to pay for their food and accommodation. This could be administered in the same way as student loans.

 

For example, if a person is sent to prison for 6 months, his punishment is being deprived of his freedom for that period. Why should tax payers pay for that persons keep whist in prison? The cost of ones ‘board and lodgings’ should be paid for by the prisoner and if funds are not available, then the monies would be lent to that person in a form of a loan. The loan would then be paid back either by money or community service after the prison term has ended.

Why is this idea important?

 

I think it would be very fair for anyone who is sent to prison to pay for their food and accommodation. This could be administered in the same way as student loans.

 

For example, if a person is sent to prison for 6 months, his punishment is being deprived of his freedom for that period. Why should tax payers pay for that persons keep whist in prison? The cost of ones ‘board and lodgings’ should be paid for by the prisoner and if funds are not available, then the monies would be lent to that person in a form of a loan. The loan would then be paid back either by money or community service after the prison term has ended.

Are we living in a police state?

 






I was on the bus from Walton (Liverpool) when it stopped at a designated stop.  Two ticket inspectors got on the bus to check passenger tickets.  Okay, nothing unusual in that.  Except in front of the bus was a police van with its doors open to receive anyone who did not have a ticket.  Anyone wanting to lave the bus had his or her way blocked by a fully kitted out police officer.

 

Again, on the train a few days later two community police persons were patrolling the length of the train reinforcing the train company’s regulations.

 

Whilst passengers can accept the occasional ticket inspector, who is an employee of the company who operate the services, it is a bit much that the police should back them up and that they (the operator’s employees) have their job done by community police.

 

There can be no excuse for this other than to intimidate people by accusing all people of fare dodging until it has been proved otherwise.  The police have no presence in the local communities and when they do come into the areas it is in heavy armour and always with lights flashing and sirens screeching.  Local attitudes toward police are not favourable and are hardly going to be changed by having police acting like uniformed bouncers on public transport. 

Why is this idea important?

 






I was on the bus from Walton (Liverpool) when it stopped at a designated stop.  Two ticket inspectors got on the bus to check passenger tickets.  Okay, nothing unusual in that.  Except in front of the bus was a police van with its doors open to receive anyone who did not have a ticket.  Anyone wanting to lave the bus had his or her way blocked by a fully kitted out police officer.

 

Again, on the train a few days later two community police persons were patrolling the length of the train reinforcing the train company’s regulations.

 

Whilst passengers can accept the occasional ticket inspector, who is an employee of the company who operate the services, it is a bit much that the police should back them up and that they (the operator’s employees) have their job done by community police.

 

There can be no excuse for this other than to intimidate people by accusing all people of fare dodging until it has been proved otherwise.  The police have no presence in the local communities and when they do come into the areas it is in heavy armour and always with lights flashing and sirens screeching.  Local attitudes toward police are not favourable and are hardly going to be changed by having police acting like uniformed bouncers on public transport. 

Unjust police rules.

Can i first state that i  was in trouble with the police when i was young until the age of 20years . I have not committed any crimes of dishonesty for 36 years i have not been in trouble for 26 years. All my crimes were for theft in all 12 offences 7 offences were committed under the age of           18 years, the most i received was a sentence of 6 month's in prison. Why then is my criminal record still there when i have a CRB Check done for employers to see after all these years ago, don't you thing this could be used as a block for my employment chances. I do understand that some crimes are never spent for reasons of the serious implications.

Why is this idea important?

Can i first state that i  was in trouble with the police when i was young until the age of 20years . I have not committed any crimes of dishonesty for 36 years i have not been in trouble for 26 years. All my crimes were for theft in all 12 offences 7 offences were committed under the age of           18 years, the most i received was a sentence of 6 month's in prison. Why then is my criminal record still there when i have a CRB Check done for employers to see after all these years ago, don't you thing this could be used as a block for my employment chances. I do understand that some crimes are never spent for reasons of the serious implications.

A Law to replace Stop and Search

Now that the Stop and Search Law has been abandoned (Jul 2010) there is nothing to tackle the suspicion of terrorists walking the streets.   In times of heightened security the police are powerless to act until after the event when possibly tens of people have been killed or maimed.

Therefore a less intrusive act is necessary.   No innocent likes to be frisked especially because of your colour that you are being targetted.

The idea would be to change that law to 'Stop and Question'.     If the answers do not satisfy the policeman the person could be taken to the station to be further questioned.

Why is this idea important?

Now that the Stop and Search Law has been abandoned (Jul 2010) there is nothing to tackle the suspicion of terrorists walking the streets.   In times of heightened security the police are powerless to act until after the event when possibly tens of people have been killed or maimed.

Therefore a less intrusive act is necessary.   No innocent likes to be frisked especially because of your colour that you are being targetted.

The idea would be to change that law to 'Stop and Question'.     If the answers do not satisfy the policeman the person could be taken to the station to be further questioned.

Restore stolen goods to owners

Currently if theives are caught with stolen goods they just say those goods were bought from someone – and voila! the theives get to keep the stolen goods. Make sure all stolen goods, once described by the victim of theft, are returned.

Why is this idea important?

Currently if theives are caught with stolen goods they just say those goods were bought from someone – and voila! the theives get to keep the stolen goods. Make sure all stolen goods, once described by the victim of theft, are returned.

Ensure that someone who kills gets life and not 3 years! Manslaughter or not!

I, like most law abising citizens find it appalling that two people could hit a man in his 70s to the ground who later died got a few years. It wasn't the first man they had hit. It was murder, it is highly likely that a man in his 70s would fall if hit. Even manslaughter or GBH should get more than a few years. At the same time a man who conned someone out of a million pounds "selling" the Ritz got 5 years. Who is the greater danger to the public really? Is there a contest? No. The law as they say is an ass. Increase the minimum sentence for these crimes.

Why is this idea important?

I, like most law abising citizens find it appalling that two people could hit a man in his 70s to the ground who later died got a few years. It wasn't the first man they had hit. It was murder, it is highly likely that a man in his 70s would fall if hit. Even manslaughter or GBH should get more than a few years. At the same time a man who conned someone out of a million pounds "selling" the Ritz got 5 years. Who is the greater danger to the public really? Is there a contest? No. The law as they say is an ass. Increase the minimum sentence for these crimes.

Convictions for MINOR offences like shoplifting……..

Not to be placed on the PCN

well, another good area is for anyone being arrested for a first time offence invovling shoplifting should be not placed on the PCN but on soft intelligence for 5 years and than erased.  Also if they are fined only in the courts than the fine needs to be doubled each time they get arrested for a similiar offence, and each time they get arrested than you add 5 years on, but the record only gets added to the PCN when re-offending occurs more than 2 times, so that means someone who keeps shoplifting or pick a pocket ot two than he gets heavily fined, and only after 3 offences of the same nature he/she will get placed on the PCN.

This is common sense, as (a) here you spot who is re-offending and (b) know who is a real thief or petty criminal, but each time he/she re-offends than the 5+5 rule applies and after the third offence of the same nature it gets added on the PCN and keeps incrementing 5+5+5+.  So if they never offend again i.e become a good person, than the record comes off after 10 years

Why is this idea important?

Not to be placed on the PCN

well, another good area is for anyone being arrested for a first time offence invovling shoplifting should be not placed on the PCN but on soft intelligence for 5 years and than erased.  Also if they are fined only in the courts than the fine needs to be doubled each time they get arrested for a similiar offence, and each time they get arrested than you add 5 years on, but the record only gets added to the PCN when re-offending occurs more than 2 times, so that means someone who keeps shoplifting or pick a pocket ot two than he gets heavily fined, and only after 3 offences of the same nature he/she will get placed on the PCN.

This is common sense, as (a) here you spot who is re-offending and (b) know who is a real thief or petty criminal, but each time he/she re-offends than the 5+5 rule applies and after the third offence of the same nature it gets added on the PCN and keeps incrementing 5+5+5+.  So if they never offend again i.e become a good person, than the record comes off after 10 years