 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As some of you have may heard, in September 2014 a 16 year old boy SB caused some distress and fear on Shetland after he roamed the streets with an air rifle. He discharged the air rifle a number of times and threatened police officers who - by all accounts - acted extremely professionally in being able to talk to him and convince him to resolve the situation without permanent harm to anyone.
In wider context, the boy is reported to have a developmental delays, to have been bullied (including by sex offenders) and to have been extremely distressed on the day in question. None of which, of course, made the day any less worrying for the Shetlanders or the police. It was suggested that SB had been attempting to goad the police into killing him - a phenomenon known in the US as "suicide by cop".
The boy was held at YOI Polmont (which is many hours' journey from Shetland - meaning the boys' parents/family/friends were unable to visit him frequently). He pled guilty at the earliest opportunity and has now been sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
To my mind, this is unjust. It is true that gun crimes are serious crimes. I am sure it is true that people felt unsafe and afraid on the day. But if it is the case that SB really does have developmental and emotional impairments (and I am sure that the court would have had access to qualified professionals on this issue), I do not think that he belongs in jail (which, for a youth in Scotland, means Polmont).
Jail has multiple functions: punishment, rehabilitation, protection of the public, deterrence and surely others. SB's imprisonment is surely punishment. I do not believe it is the best method of protecting society from a emotionally disturbed young man; I do not believe it will help him become rehabilitated; I do not believe it will deter others in his position in the slightest.
One appeal against his sentence has already been lost. As I understand it, a further appeal against the severity of sentence would be opposed by the Procurator Fiscal, and the PF would have a discretion to decide it's not in the public interest to oppose such an appeal. Can any Scots lawyers confirm if that is correct - and if there would be any point writing to the Procurator Fiscal asking them to determine it wouldn't be in the public interest to oppose?
I would also encourage anyone to read up on the case and consider signing the petition below.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/airgun-rampage-teenager-autistic-boy-4793830
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-29341509
http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/10109-parents-say-jail-the-wrong-place-for-barlow
Petition: https://www.change.org/p/shetland-call-a-rehearing-for-sam-barlow
Two problems
I) Complete paranoia and years of widespread scaremongering regarding anything to do with firearms has removed any common sense from the system regards either enforcement of sentencing
Ii) a guilty plea ties everyone's hands, as due to I) above, many offences are absolute and many sentences are mandatory in all buts the most unusual sentences
I remember this incident as it unfolded.
I see from one of the links that his parents feel that since being in custody he has been getting the help/support/treatment he needs but could not get prior to it. Could this, in the long run, do him some good getting on with his life once he's out? If he's been in custody since the incident (?) he could be out by Christmas.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you konabunny, just thinking out loud.
Honestly, I'm not convinced that 3y is an unreasonable sentence for something like that. Not that I know much about this case. I do think there's a bit of paranoia about gun ownership, but this is about someone basically going on a shooting spree. What would you think an appropriate sentence?
thegreatape: if I am thinking of the same statement you are, I think SB's father said something along the lines of "SB needs a regular routine, he's getting that in Polmont. and we think they are doing whatever they can" - or something similar. I am sure that's true, as far as that's what the father said.
However, I would also point out what his mother said:
Writing on the petition page, [SB]'s mother R[---] said: "[SB] is a child with both learning difficulties and mental heath issues who has been pushed beyond the limits he was able to cope with. "He has been isolated from his family through the internet and isolated further through the judicial system. "He needs family support and proper help and assessment so that he can learn to cope with society. A prison cannot do this and will make his problems ten times worse.
To put it another way - prison (or a YOI, if one believes that is different) that's many hours away from one's home is an extremely poor way of delivering mental health care to a minor. If the suggestion is that he's getting more care in a prison than in a normal community, then I think that's more of a criticism of social care and health care in the community than an endorsement of prison.
thecaptain: equally respectfully, I suppose i would look at it the other way around. If you lived in the same town, street or house as this boy, would you feel more secure knowing that he was being imprisoned for three years? For my part - and this is just opinion - I tend to think there is a big difference between someone that goes around taking shots at people because he wants to show how big his schlong is and an unbalanced child that wants to harm himself.
To put it another way - prison (or a YOI, if one believes that is different) that's many hours away from one's home is an extremely poor way of delivering mental health care to a minor. If the suggestion is that he's getting more care in a prison than in a normal community, then I think that's more of a criticism of social care and health care in the community than an endorsement of prison
I agree. It is a great shame that resources and help that might have prevented this happening were not there.
I suppose I was just trying to find something positive in the whole affair rather than suggesting this was the ideal place for him.
That said, I don't think a custodial sentence is necessarily inappropriate for his actions that day. I guess in this particular case it's the logistics/availability of resources that prevents this lad having the appropriate family contact and support while at the same time serving his sentence and rehabilitating.
I suppose it depends on the form that the prison sentence takes. If he's thrown in a box to "serve his time" then it's pretty much impossible to find a positive in it imo. But if it has support and effective rehabilitation it could actually help him rather than just being punitive.
(I work, from time to time, with kids with bad histories and it [i]can[/i] be transformative, pretty much the most inspirational student I've met came to us via polmont. Though fair to say, all the ones I work with are the ones it worked for)
I think in the UK we're both obsessed with putting people in prison, and pretty bad at making prison work, and any attempt to improve rehabilitation etc is shouted down because PRIZON IZ 2SOFT BRING BACK TEH BIRCH. We've privatised the probation service ffs.
Hope it works out for him.
Seems a reasonable sentence to be fair. I'm sure his needs will be assessed and met in Polmont.
This was a crime of some magnitude. Roaming public roads with a firearm (an air rifle is categorised as such in criminal scenarios) and discharging the firearm towards police officers is very serious. Can you imagine the fear that would have been instilled in the local community? Parents who's kids were out of the house would have been absolutely terrified. Then there's the fact that a firearms unit officer may have had to make that call. Perform the suicide by cop and have to live with the consequences. Last but not least, the financial cost of responding to this incident must have been significant. Somebody has to be accountable.
This kid needs time out. Three years without liberty but with the necessary support, counselling and education is justified.
Or to view his sentence in another way, perhaps it was made to protect him? To help him? Provide him with a structure of help and with added discipline to attend? Perhaps?
Perhaps because I find it odd that his mother comments in the petition about how important his family's support is and that he is being denied that by the nature of the custodial sentence. Yet, where was this family love, support and care before and during the moments of his walk around with a firearm? Makes me consider that the system can't do any worse than his family have done thus far.
That said, I don't think a custodial sentence is necessarily inappropriate for his actions that day
I really don't know, I can understand 100% that it would have caused real and genuine fear, and agree totally that that needs to be taken very seriously, and dealt with as such
I'm less convinced that he really understood what he was doing at the time, or that this should ever have been be dealt with through the criminal law rather than mental health law. I would see it as entirely appropriate do detain him for public/his own safety - not convinced that it appropriate to use prosecution to achieve this aim by alternative means, even if it's well intentioned.
As a comparison, if someone in a similar 'mental health crisis' jumped in front of a train or ran on the motorway, then there would be obvious real risks to the wider public safety, however we would very rarely prosecute them for doing so.
konabunny - Member
...If the suggestion is that he's getting more care in a prison than in a normal community, then I think that's more of a criticism of social care and health care in the community than an endorsement of prison.
100% agree.
It's a mandatory prison sentence for fire arms offences like this, I thought it was five years so they appear to have already considered his circumstances and reduced it.
3 years detention usually means a maximum of 18 months, and as little as a year if the Offender agrees to parole/release conditions, such as wearing a tag, attending a therapist / work regularly.
If he conforms during his stay inside, he will be out after a max. of 18 months, and it may give him the help that he needs to sort himself out.
A prison sentence was appropriate for this offence, many people will not have known he had an air rifle (which can be lethal up to 20 metres or so).
A bad upbringing/develoment issues does not mean he doesnt know right from wrong, which I'm sure the original Court, and the Appeal would have debated, and found he did know, what he was doing.
How times have changed. We were always shooting each other with air rifles in the 80's. Indeed, seem to remember habitually carrying a Gat Gun around at one point. I'd hate to be a yoof these days.
jambourgie - Member
How times have changed. We were always shooting each other with air rifles in the 80's...
I thought much the same. I have a number of small scars from air rifle "wars" with my brothers and friends. It was pretty common. We also carried knives as a matter of course.
I feel sorry for today's youth.
Some years ago I worked with offenders most of whom had just come out Of Polmont. There was at that time a rehabilitation programme in Polmont. I suspect it's the best equipped place to help the lad though a place closer to home may help.I am not aware of any other similar institution in Scotland. Hopefully he can get help and go on to live a full life.
I find it odd that people are suggesting that prison is appropriate because he will receive treatment, and no-one has expressed a view that he should be imprisoned because he should be punished.
Yet prison is obviously not a suitable way of treating or working with developmental delays or mental illness - no-one would ever suggest that the kid should be sent to prison for treatment if he hadn't committed an offence. (Neither would anyone say that people with cancer should be sent to prison because they'd get chemo there). So the reason for his imprisonment surely cannot be his illnesses (or conditions or whatever the right term is).
Does anyone feel safer because the kid is in prison?
alanl: there is no suggestion that he was not criminally culpable - he pled guilty. Practically no-one is found not guilty by way of mental incapacity. The discussion is about the sentence and what good it serves.
slackalice: I have no idea what the family life was like; I'm only reading the same articles you are. I think, perhaps, you are being somewhat cruel or dismissive of the complexity of having developmental delays and mental illness by reducing it to "well, if the family had more loving, supportive and caring, it wouldn't have happened". But perhaps you have more experience or insight into the issue than your comment belies - so feel to elaborate.