Future railway offences to be judged by computer?

[Agent_c]

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 this proposal, defendants who opt into the online procedure and plead guilty will be offered the option to accept a pre-determined penalty (including the payment of any appropriate compensation and costs), be convicted and pay the amount immediately," said the government paper published earlier today on the scheme.

Railway and tram fare evasion and unlicensed fishing are the two categories of criminal offence that the Ministry of Justice wants to try this out with. In England and Wales one needs a rod licence to go fishing.

Train fare evasion is nominally a private matter between the privatised operating company and the passenger but is enforced through archaic 19th century laws that make it a criminal offence. Private prosecutions are regularly brought in the magistrates' courts by rail companies.

Defendants persuaded to plead guilty online will automatically be issued a fine, prosecution costs, ordered to stump up an amount for compensation and be made to pay the appropriate victim surcharge, which is effectively a tax levied on convicted criminals. Some of the proceeds are paid into a fund used to support various charities for victims in the criminal justice system.

Any thoughts?

 

[Llanigraham]

Where is this a quote from, please?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Not so much different to what happens in court right now. First time offender, pleading guilty: straight to the guidelines, fine according to (declared) income + costs + surcharge + compensation. All done in 2 minutes and could easily be computerised.

The first step towards this was the Single Justice procedure.

The system works in churning out the punishment - what is missing is the whole experience of going to court, which can be quite sobering.

 

[Camden]

"John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute"

 

[Agent_c]

Where is this a quote from, please?

A tech site, theregister.co.uk

 

[sheff1]

Not so much different to what happens in court right now. First time offender, pleading not guilty: straight to the guidelines, fine according to (declared) income + costs + surcharge + compensation. All done in 2 minutes and could easily be computerised.

Someone pleads not guilty and the next step is to ignore the plea and go straight to a fine without any consideration of evidence ? Doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone pleads not guilty and the next step is to ignore the plea and go straight to a fine without any consideration of evidence ? Doesn't sound right to me.

It says if they plead guilty. In that case there is no need for consideration of evidence, as the defendent has admitted the offence.

 

[sheff1]

It says if they plead guilty. In that case there is no need for consideration of evidence, as the defendent has admitted the offence.

In the post I quoted it clearly says not guilty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the post I quoted it clearly says not guilty.

I think that person probably mistyped. Or at least if they didn't they were wrong. You can't get from a "not guilty" plea to sentencing without considering evidence, even if with a Byelaw prosecution that would be relatively minimal in its extent.

 

[mickulty]

What concerns me about this, aside from the obvious horrific erosion of due process as the way is paved for such a scheme to become compulsory, is it could lead to people taking these "petty" crimes far more lightly. Efficiency is not necessarily a good thing - being hauled in front of a magistrate and made to answer for oneself is a genuine deterrent on an emotional level, an automatic fine is a variable in someone's head when they decide if it's worth the risk.

Where is this a quote from, please?

It's linked at the top of the quote.

 

[Llanigraham]

It's linked at the top of the quote.

Having looked at the site in general it is worth pointing out that this is NOT an official site, and is NOT making any official statements. Much of the info on it I would not consider "dependable".

Make what you will of the article.

 

[TheEdge]

"John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute"

Best use of a Demolition Man quote ever...

 

[Gareth Marston]

Friend of mine I use to work with was a magistrate this sort of thing has been talked about for years within MOJ circles.

 

[PeterC]

Drifting a little off topic this thread reminded me of a story I read many years ago. I found a copy on the web at http://www.dave.rainey.net/calendars/dystopias/process3.html

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Railway and tram fare evasion and unlicensed fishing are the two categories of criminal offence that the Ministry of Justice wants to try this out with. In England and Wales one needs a rod licence to go fishing.

This knowledge should make it a great deal easier to catch fare evaders - ticket checks for anyone carrying a fishing rod.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I think that person probably mistyped. Or at least if they didn't they were wrong. You can't get from a "not guilty" plea to sentencing without considering evidence, even if with a Byelaw prosecution that would be relatively minimal in its extent.

In the post I quoted it clearly says not guilty.

It says if they plead guilty. In that case there is no need for consideration of evidence, as the defendent has admitted the offence.

Someone pleads not guilty and the next step is to ignore the plea and go straight to a fine without any consideration of evidence ? Doesn't sound right to me.

Not so much different to what happens in court right now. First time offender, pleading not guilty: straight to the guidelines, fine according to (declared) income + costs + surcharge + compensation. All done in 2 minutes and could easily be computerised.

The first step towards this was the Single Justice procedure.

The system works in churning out the punishment - what is missing is the whole experience of going to court, which can be quite sobering.

Brain working ahead of keyboard...... I did mean Guilty. (no not).

 

[cuccir]

As an 'opt-in' for Byelaw offences I see this working. Would be uncertain about allowing this to happen for anything that might produce a criminal record.

 

[najaB]

As an 'opt-in' for Byelaw offences I see this working. Would be uncertain about allowing this to happen for anything that might produce a criminal record.

If the accused is pleading guilty they will get a criminal record whether it's a computer or a magistrate pronouncing sentence.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm looking forward to the conversation "i got this fine online and they've made a mistake" much the same as they do when they buy tickets online.

 

[MikeWh]

If the accused is pleading guilty they will get a criminal record whether it's a computer or a magistrate pronouncing sentence.

Not if it's a byelaw offence.

 

[najaB]

I know, was replying to cuccir's comment about not being comfortable with this applying to recordable offences.

 

[Joe Paxton]

No smoke without fire.

Guilty.

Send him down...

 

[tony_mac]

At least computers don't get hungry....
http://www.economist.com/node/18557594

The team found that, at the start of the day, the judges granted around two-thirds of the applications before them. As the hours passed, that number fell sharply (see chart), eventually reaching zero. But clemency returned after each of two daily breaks, during which the judges retired for food. The approval rate shot back up to near its original value, before falling again as the day wore on.

 

[185]

"John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute"

lol was just thinking that.

With the final piece in the puzzle, Trump getting elected, it seems the movie Idiocracy was infact an accurate documentary of the future rather than fiction.

 

[cuccir]

I know, was replying to cuccir's comment about not being comfortable with this applying to recordable offences.

Yeah, and I appreciate the point - it's more that with a criminal record added to the punishment, such offences have more at stake and therefore I'd rather a human look at it and make a judgement, rather than a Byelaw prosecution in which the outcome is only the fine given.

 

[najaB]

Yeah, and I appreciate the point - it's more that with a criminal record added to the punishment, such offences have more at stake and therefore I'd rather a human look at it and make a judgement, rather than a Byelaw prosecution in which the outcome is only the fine given.

Genuine question: do magistrates ever reject a guilty plea and find the defendant not guilty?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Genuine question: do magistrates ever reject a guilty plea and find the defendant not guilty?

Possibly....

Sometimes you will hear a defendant say, "I'm pleading Guilty to get it over with, but I didn't do it", or words to that effect. That is an equivocal plea and the court will usually set it down as not guilty and move to set a trial date. The defendant may be found Not Guilty after the trial.

There are also cases where the defendant may plead guilty on the basis of their version of events. Eg. An offence has been committed, but not to the extent suggested by the prosecution. For the railway this may mean someone being charged with avoiding the fare from Euston to Manchester, but the defendant says "I only got on at Crewe". The offence is complete, but the sentence may well depend on the extent of the offending. This may lead to a "Newton Hearing" - in effect a mini trial to agree on the facts of the case.