Should War Memorials be given special legal status?

[mj.scuba]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7959258/Protect-war-memorials-by-using-long-jail-terms-says-MP.html

 

At the moment, War Memorials do not have any special legal protection, and therefor under the current law desecrating a War Memorial is no different to peeing on or vandalising a normal wall.

 

Should desecrating a War Memorial be made a specific criminal offence, so offenders that will pee on them, graffiti them, and perform sex acts on them, can be punished accordingly?

[Nagel]

No, there's already too many laws.

[Bulgarian]

What do you mean by "punished accordingly", they won't bring back hanging for this you know.

[sccsux]

Should desecrating a War Memorial be made a specific criminal offence

 

In a word, no.

[mj.scuba]

I think it should be made an offense and I hope they get it through. It should be recognised that a War Memorial isn't just a piece of stone like any other. It was put there for the specific purpose of commemorating our war dead, and things like peeing on it, vandalising it etc is an insult to them and any right minded person and deserves a more severe punishment than had they committed the offense somewhere else.

[dell12]

I think it should be made an offense and I hope they get it through. It should be recognised that a War Memorial isn't just a piece of stone like any other. It was put there for the specific purpose of commemorating our war dead, and things like peeing on it, vandalising it etc is an insult to them and any right minded person and deserves a more severe punishment than had they committed the offense somewhere else.

 

The thing is people peeing on a memorial is always done when they are drunk. While of course this doesn't make it right, they clearly don't know what they are doing. They would have peed on any wall, war memorial or not.

[Moosey]

You do realise this is why courts have a range of punishments available to them, rather than just a set penalty?

 

Pee on a wall in the middle of nowhere - bottom of the scale

In town somewhere - middle of the scale

War memorial/inside the library during the day - high end

On Bramall Lane - No charge but gift vouchers as a thank you.

 

One of those may be a joke, but you see the point. It's a scale, therefore the magistrates can choose accordingly, as can CPS. The guy in Sheffield demonstrated that. How many drunks do you normally see getting community penalties, rather than just a fine? Not many.

 

In summary - not necessary.

[mj.scuba]

The thing is people peeing on a memorial is always done when they are drunk. While of course this doesn't make it right, they clearly don't know what they are doing. They would have peed on any wall, war memorial or not.

 

Not knowing what your doing isn't an excuse that should carry any weight. A junkie high on drugs might not know what they're doing when they stab somebody for a tenner for example.

[Moosey]

Not knowing what your doing isn't an excuse that should carry any weight. A junkie high on drugs might not know what they're doing when they stab somebody for a tenner for example.

 

Without getting technical, it does carry limited weight. Specific v Basic intent crimes and all that. Said junkie would still be charged, just with a lesser offence, but again, as I said, the range of sentencing options would still be available, so it's largely a moot point.

[HeadingNorth]

In effect, they already do have special status. People don't get charged with urinating in a public place when this happens; they get charged with outraging public decency.

 

The very last thing we need is yet another ultra-specific law that applies only to one limited circumstance.