Man gets 70 days in jail for "creepily" staring at someone.

professore

professore wrote: »

70 days in jail is very excessive especially for a homeless person with mental health issues. The money would have been better spent on treatment. All the other gender wars stuff on here is irrelevant.

I wonder if he was sent down because the judge thought he might be ill and would be better off off the streets and in a place where he could get medical attention? It is November, in Glasgow.

Stranger things have happened. It might be that the judge thought it would be a dangerous thing to send him out on the streets, if he was unstable.

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

Yer man dumped his chips over her friends head
That's usually followed by a few punches etc

a nasty thing to do agreed.

gctest50 wrote: »

She stopped it dead, the little wuss is now gone to hide under his mammy's bed

no she asalted him and needs to be off the streets. she is a danger to society and she will do this again, next time it won't be someone dumping chips but someone, well, doing nothing. when you let a violent individual away with something they will definitely do it again.

gctest50 wrote: »

The other one in your post, the judge said :

doesn't matter, she should have been locked up also, with her drug and alcohol issues dealt with.

anna080 wrote: »

Start a thread on it if it bothers you so much. I'm not saying that it's not a problem in some cases- but it's brought into every single relevant thread lately, as if the inconsistency is what's paramount and the actual crime secondary to that.

because sentencing is one branch of crime discussions. there is only so many times one can write or read "shocking crime, lock them up" . the thread has to contain some line of discussion and often that will branch out a bit in to other aspects related to crime in general, such as sentencing.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

because sentencing is one branch of crime discussions. there is only so many times one can write or read "shocking crime, lock them up" . the thread has to contain some line of discussion and often that will branch out a bit in to other aspects related to crime in general, such as sentencing.

But they're not even in the same jurisdiction.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Women should serve the same sentences in the same conditions as men.

No more Dochas centre. No keys for their 'room'. Lock em up in cells like the boys.

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not saying that it's not a problem in some cases- but it's brought into every single relevant thread lately, as if the inconsistency is what's paramount and the actual crime secondary to that.

Because it's fcuking relevant, anna, sentences should be consistent and a good way of showing that inconsistency is to highlight certain cases which have made the headlines...... no 'scouring of the Internet' needed. It's also far from a just a gender issue and in my first post on this thread I never even mention gender:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The problem here is consistency. Quite often I read about far more serious crimes getting community service in the UK, so why is that not good enough here.

That's not to say that sexism doesn't play a role in some farcical sentencing, it absolutely does. One of the worst examples this case were three women stripped and beat an 18-year-old, burning his testicles with a curling iron, and all of them walked with community service orders. You think we would ever see ancase of three men stripping a beating an 18-year-old girl, burning her genitals and all of them walking? Course not, thankfully.

Not that only women get lenient sentences, indeed twice or three times this year on threads I've spoken about how the man who murdered my best friend received a pathetic sentence. But, in the UK right now, and for a quite a while, it does tend to be more women we see getting laughably lenient sentences and more men getting absurdly harsh ones. Anyway you slice it, this sentence is absurd.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Because it's fcuking relevant, anna, sentences should be consistent and a good way of showing that inconsistency is to highlight certain cases which have made the headlines...... no 'scouring of the Internet' needed...

Across different crimes in different jurisdictions involving different facts?

The comparable cases should be Scottish and for the same offence, at the very least.

Sam Quentin

Can't believe some of you are sticking up for this creep.

wakka12

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Can't believe some of you are sticking up for this creep.

Nobody in this thread cares about this creepy weird guy
I don't want to be friends with him or ever meet him
I am sticking up the fact that somebody was imprisoned for something that isn't a 'crime'

He was imprisoned for menacing behaviour, it's a crime, and he admitted to it.

wakka12

Candie wrote: »

He was imprisoned for menacing behaviour, it's a crime, and he admitted to it.

Menacing behaviour is extremely subjective. he didn't physically harm somebody, or verbally say anything to her even, no threats made
Regardless of what he admitted to its ridiculous theres laws punishable by jail time for this 'crime'

Sam Quentin

wakka12 wrote: »

Nobody in this thread cares about this creepy weird guy
I don't want to be friends with him or ever meet him
I am sticking up the fact that somebody was imprisoned for something that isn't a 'crime'

Well, if it's not a crime!?
IT SHOULD BE.

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

Menacing behaviour is extremely subjective.

Lots of crimes like our own threatening, abusive and insulting behaviour can be claimed to be subjective. But the Courts usually just ask if the reasonable person would have found the words or gestures threatening, abusive or insulting. Are you saying there is a different test in Scotland?

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

Menacing behaviour is extremely subjective. he didn't physically harm somebody, or verbally say anything to her even, no threats made
Regardless of what he admitted to its ridiculous theres laws punishable by jail time for this 'crime'

I think the court probably had a better handle on the nature and extent of the menacing, and the guy admitted to it.

I'm not sure what's served by arbitrarily deciding that he wasn't menacing at all and just admitted to it for kicks, and was sent down for no reason at all.

Whether you approve or not it's a crime to behave menacingly to another person, and it seems that's what this person was doing, or said he was doing.

Allinall

I do, but it doesn't mean I can swing my arm wherever I like, with my fist closed.

Or lie on the fround and look up a girls skirt.

GritBiscuit

wakka12 wrote: »

Menacing behaviour is extremely subjective. he didn't physically harm somebody, or verbally say anything to her even, no threats made
Regardless of what he admitted to its ridiculous theres laws punishable by jail time for this 'crime'

Menacing behaviour is on a spectrum of nuisance behaviours - for reasons best known to yourselves, some posters are choosing to assume this case is on the most minor end of that spectrum. We don't know if the assistant is female. We don't know if threatening behaviour was part of the "odd behaviour" the article refers to. We don't know what the guy was doing or how he looked other than it clearly wasn't in the category of "normal behaviour".

Put it another way, if some big hairy bloke was growling and stalking up and down outside your house a couple of times a day, coming and pressing his nose up against your windows would you find that menacing? Other than this being the pharmacy assistant's workplace (and I would imagine being a drugs dispenser probably had something to do with why his behaviour was taken so seriously) - can you really see no reason why this could be considered a criminal offence?

kylith

We had a menacing starer in a place I worked before. He'd come in and stare at a particular member of staff. Then he started following this staff member around at work, muttering to himself under his breath. Nothing illegal there, right?

Then he started hanging around outside. Then he tried to follow the staff member home. You'd better believe we called the Gardaí.

Hammer89

kylith wrote: »

We had a menacing starer in a place I worked before. He'd come in and stare at a particular member of staff. Then he started following this staff member around at work, muttering to himself under his breath. Nothing illegal there, right?

Then he started hanging around outside. Then he tried to follow the staff member home. You'd better believe we called the Gardaí.

This is what I mean. This is why I don't see much wrong in the 70-day sentence, because some people just aren't okay. Either they're fully aware of the level of discomfort and anguish they inflict on others with this sort of carry on or, more worryingly, they're completely oblivious.

The fact that the Scottish chap returned to the scene a second time might suggest that he doesn't understand that it's creepy or why, and that's a problem because like Kylith's example, it could've easily escalated into a more serious issue had the judge not come down hard on him.

Staring isn't a crime in itself, obviously, but when that behaviour suggests you could be a threat to society then that's when questions must be asked about whether he should go back on the streets without being given a very clear message.

end of the road

Hammer89 wrote: »

This is what I mean. This is why I don't see much wrong in the 70-day sentence, because some people just aren't okay. Either they're fully aware of the level of discomfort and anguish they inflict on others with this sort of carry on or, more worryingly, they're completely oblivious.

The fact that the Scottish chap returned to the scene a second time might suggest that he doesn't understand that it's creepy or why, and that's a problem because like Kylith's example, it could've easily escalated into a more serious issue had the judge not come down hard on him.

Staring isn't a crime in itself, obviously, but when that behaviour suggests you could be a threat to society then that's when questions must be asked about whether he should go back on the streets without being given a very clear message.

it's not the job of the justice system to give messages, it's their job to punish crimes and protect society. it's the job of the education system to give messages.
it's being concerned about sending messages and deterrents that has the justice system the way it is, because it has forgotten what it's job actually is

dubrov

end of the road wrote:

it's not the job of the justice system to give messages, it's their job to punish crimes and protect society.

The whole point is to protect society and not to punish unless necessary to achieve this aim.
If sending messages achieves that then so be it

Allinall

No.

But you can be at risk of harassment, intimidation, stalking etc.- all of which are offences.

BillyBobBS

Worlds gone mad.

tomwaterford

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Worlds gone mad.

Any virtue signalling though??

:pac:

Allinall

Plymouth Ale wrote: »

How long is it ok to stare at someone before it becomes harassment, 10 seconds, 20 seconds?

That would be up to a judge.

Ghost Train

If you compare the behavior to that of paparazzi, in most cases they never seem to have a problem stalking people in public places

Allinall

Ghost Train wrote: »

If you compare the behavior to that of paparazzi, in most cases they never seem to have a problem stalking people in public places

If you think about the intention, you'll see the difference .

suicide_circus

Should have been 70 YEARS

Irish Guitarist

I wonder is there more to it. Like maybe he does this on a regular basis or he has previous convictions. It says he started behaving 'oddly'. I wonder what that entails.

Poor Uncle Tom

So, this is the new natural selection!

Ghost Train

Allinall wrote: »

If you think about the intention, you'll see the difference .

I guess one group gets paid for being creepy and probably wouldn't leave if you asked them

What the news story says is "When outside, Yexley put his face to the glass window and stared in at the worker then left". 2 hours later.."he returned and was spotted walking past the pharmacy, again staring in towards the same counter assistant. The police arrived and arrested Yexley, of no fixed abode, for the menacing behaviour"

Just odd that you can be arrested and held for 40 days before trial and then get 30 more for staring. The news story is a bit light on any other details of his intent or what his problem was with the pharmacy assistant. Doesn't say if they asked him to go away or if the police had talked to him before or what the history was. Does say he admitted the charge but that's only described as looking through a window

Ghost Train

Ghost Train wrote: »

What the news story says is "When outside, Yexley put his face to the glass window and stared in at the worker then left". 2 hours later.."he returned and was spotted walking past the pharmacy, again staring in towards the same counter assistant. The police arrived and arrested Yexley, of no fixed abode, for the menacing behaviour"

Just odd that you can be arrested and held for 40 days before trial and then get 30 more for staring. The news story is a bit light on any other details of his intent or what his problem was with the pharmacy assistant. Doesn't say if they asked him to go away or if the police had talked to him before or what the history was. Does say he admitted the charge but that's only described as looking through a window

The answers to both issues raised in the last paragraph are contained in the quote.

People of no fixed abode are often remanded in custody following a bail hearing, before trial. For obvious enough reasons, I would have thought, the difficulty in locating them if they don't turn up.

And the charge is not only described as looking though a window, the charge relates to menacing behaviour.

Ghost Train

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The answers to both issues raised in the last paragraph are contained in the quote.

People of no fixed abode are often remanded in custody following a bail hearing, before trial. For obvious enough reasons, I would have thought, the difficulty in locating them if they don't turn up.

And the charge is not only described as looking though a window, the charge relates to menacing behaviour.

But going on the news story alone the only menacing behaviour mentioned is the staring from outside in the street, it doesnt really say he was stalking or being agressive or making threats or harassing in any other way than the staring these two times, doesn't say he resisted arrest or threatened police. Doesn't say he was an addict or off his head. It's odd if the 70 days was just for staring, it's what the headline implies. Maybe it's just poor journalism to paint it that way if there was more to it.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

it's not the job of the justice system to give messages, it's their job to punish crimes and protect society. it's the job of the education system to give messages.
it's being concerned about sending messages and deterrents that has the justice system the way it is, because it has forgotten what it's job actually is

And yet we often see judges saying that a strict sentence is enforced to send a message to others not to engage in the same crime.

Big Bag of Chips

Ghost Train wrote: »

But going on the news story alone ......

which is just a news story.

He was arrested for "menacing behaviour". The shop managers, police and judge will have had more detail. News stories are usually worded sensationally.