Cost cutting + adviocate monitoring in the criminal courts

Cost cutting + adviocate monitoring in the criminal courts

Author
Discussion

singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
part of the Guardian report said:
"Limiting access to justice and shredding the treasured principle of equality before the law," Waddington said.
But we already know that the more you can pay, the better a lawyer you can have, and there's surely no point in getting a better lawyer if all are equal before the law, or is there?

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
True equality may be impossible, but reducing the extent of inequality is a worthwhile aim.

singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
So it's just a principle then, not anything that anybody need take much notice of bar the occasional nod in its direction.

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
Court cases should and will always be expensive. Rather than try and do it on the cheap, they should do it less.

Sending people to court for such extreme crimes as: Swearing, calling someone a name on the internet and most crimes is not useful. Hey i'm no fan of drugs but taking an addict to court for owning them is not going to stop them being a junkie. Funding top notch rehab might though...

As a society we have fallen into a habit of trying to punish everything, the police are targeting on getting people to court, the cps only care about getting a conviction - and then the government will happily sell this information and pretend that it's to protect the public.

The best situation would be to link the budget of the CPS, legal aid, the police and the prison service. Where everyone who gets charged gets legal aid. When charging someone meant that the police had less money to spend we would see how many of these silly cases and trials came about. On the other hand they could spend the money on trying to help people and stop long term offending instead.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
If you live on Planet Earth you don't aim for perfection, but try to make things better. Is that such a difficult concept?

kowalski655

14,599 posts

142 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
But better costs BV,and the government don't want to pay

singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
If you live on Planet Earth you don't aim for perfection, but try to make things better. Is that such a difficult concept?
Who are you asking, photosnob or me?


In case it was me, it wasn't me who used the word principle. If he meant 'trying to make things more equal' he should have said so.



anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
I don't buy into the whole "greedy lawyer" argument - do people in the legal profession who are primarily motivated by money go into criminal law? I doubt it.

I believe in fair justice, but on the other £1.5 billion is a large sum. It's sometimes hard to see past all the repeat legal-aid (ab)users. It'd probably never work, but if you have 10 convictions or more, perhaps you should no longer are eligible for legal aid. It gets deducted from your benefits / you have to pay for it after that threshold.







photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
I don't buy into the whole "greedy lawyer" argument - do people in the legal profession who are primarily motivated by money go into criminal law? I doubt it.

I believe in fair justice, but on the other £1.5 billion is a large sum. It's sometimes hard to see past all the repeat legal-aid (ab)users. It'd probably never work, but if you have 10 convictions or more, perhaps you should no longer are eligible for legal aid. It gets deducted from your benefits / you have to pay for it after that threshold.
Perhaps we should look at why people have 10 convictions, and offer them more support rather than taking it away.

I was always under the impression the CPS had to check both there was enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of conviction, and it was in the public interest to prosecute.

How it can ever be in the public interest to prosecute someone for having a bit of weed in their pocket? Or after two adults having a stupid drunken wrestle with no injuries caused? The fact that I know someone who was convicted (after trial) of pushing a police officer back when they tried to push into his house (not a single injury) says it it all. That trial must have cost thousands. He got a conditional discharge. Thousands wasted, his ability to work in a whole range of fields removed - not a single positive result for anyone. Yet it's in the "public interest".

A right bunch of jokers making those decisions.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
photosnob said:
Perhaps we should look at why people have 10 convictions, and offer them more support rather than taking it away.
A lot of court disposals are just that. For example, orders to get anger / drugs / alcohol treatment and put through a formal system to ensure it gets done. They are trying to remove the cause. Ultimately it takes will power and personal responsibility which a lot of persistent criminals do not, and will not ever have.

photosnob said:
I was always under the impression the CPS had to check both there was enough evidence to have a reasonable chance of conviction, and it was in the public interest to prosecute.
They do, it's called the "full code test".

photosnob said:
How it can ever be in the public interest to prosecute someone for having a bit of weed in their pocket?
Because it's a class B substance, possession is criminal and the majority of the public support it being so. Just because you don't believe it's in the public interest doesn't mean most of the public don't. You're not the authority on what constitutes public interest or not.

There are also three out-of-court disposals (which allow someone at least two occasions of being in possession of cannabis) before someone is charged.

photosnob said:
Or after two adults having a stupid drunken wrestle with no injuries caused?
Risk isn't outcome dependant. I could push you over and cause no injuries, or I could push you over and you hit you head and die. The push needs to be challenged and condemned, regardless of outcome and not left to chance.

Low-level public order offences prevent serious assaults.

photosnob said:
The fact that I know someone who was convicted (after trial) of pushing a police officer back when they tried to push into his house (not a single injury) says it it all. That trial must have cost thousands. He got a conditional discharge. Thousands wasted, his ability to work in a whole range of fields removed - not a single positive result for anyone. Yet it's in the "public interest".
Perhaps he shouldn't assault police officers. He was the cause and effect there, not "the system". See above again about outcome and risk.


photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Friday 19th September 2014
quotequote all
La Liga you are missing the point.

Explain to me how any of the examples I gave are in "the public interest" to prosecute. For it to be in the public interest it would hopefully make society a better place, or help people improve their lives. Taking people to court it almost never the best way to do this. Until we properly define what the public interest is, then it's nothing more than a cop out for when someone decides they don't want to charge someone. Not all offences are anywhere near serious enough to justify the costs and long term damage to an individual that prosecuting them does.

A court order telling someone to do something is pretty pointless. Currently the rates of offending after short sentences demonstrate that. Statistically the chances of someone coming up drugs for good is very low, and that is when they want to have the help. Forcing them to with the threat of punishment is only going to make that worst.

You might think the current system is working. But it isn't. And with the cuts that are being made (and which are only going to get worst) the current status quo will not be able to continue. We need to start looking at how we can help people to change their behaviour rather than just punish them when they infringe the rules. You can keep stretching the current system or someone can have a look at how to change and improve it.


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Saturday 20th September 2014
quotequote all
photosnob said:
Explain to me how any of the examples I gave are in "the public interest" to prosecute.
The possession example discourages people from giving money to organised criminals who cause immense harm to society.

The assault / public order example discourages future behaviour that can lead to serious harm and the perception of crime and disorder.

photosnob said:
For it to be in the public interest it would hopefully make society a better place, or help people improve their lives. Taking people to court it almost never the best way to do this.
The plus 81,000 who are in prison through going through the courts are unable to offend against society whilst in there. Also see below for re-offending rates.

photosnob said:
Until we properly define what the public interest is, then it's nothing more than a cop out for when someone decides they don't want to charge someone.
It's properly defined here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_...

photosnob said:
Not all offences are anywhere near serious enough to justify the costs and long term damage to an individual that prosecuting them does.
Indeed. There were 330,000 out of court disposals in 2013. Most cases are guilty pleas which aren't that expensive. If someone wants to plead NG then they eliminate themselves from an out-of-court disposal and run the risk of a conviction. I suspect the genius you knew who assaulted a police officer could have received a caution.

photosnob said:
A court order telling someone to do something is pretty pointless.
Wrong. Youth referral orders have the lowest re-offending rates and the largest sample of people.



Community Orders for adults have a re-offending rate of 35% (within a year).

So tell me how 6.5 / 10 is "pointless"?

photosnob said:
Currently the rates of offending after short sentences demonstrate that.
Short prison sentences have a higher re-offending rate. One reason is because you're dealing with more tenacious criminals who continue to offend and behave in that manner. The second is because fewer interventions are able to be put in place unlike longer prison sentences.

photosnob said:
You might think the current system is working. But it isn't.
Fewer people re-offend compared to those who don't. That seems like a system working to me.

photosnob said:
We need to start looking at how we can help people to change their behaviour rather than just punish them when they infringe the rules.
Lots of disposals are aimed at addresses underlying needs and behaviours. Look at the youth proportions.





photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Saturday 20th September 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
The possession example discourages people from giving money to organised criminals who cause immense harm to society.
You seem hot on statistics. Where are the stats to show people are less likely to buy drugs if you criminalise their addiction? I'm pretty sure we can all think of a better way to do what you have suggested. We are doing it to some form with methadone. We could also start by spending serious money on rehab facilities.

La Liga said:
The assault / public order example discourages future behaviour that can lead to serious harm and the perception of crime and disorder.
Most public order offences, and even minor assaults are committed when people lose control or when they are intoxicated. In that state people generally do not think about the repercussions, so I can't see it making a difference. Again there are more affective things to stop this rather than criminalising people for life.

La Liga said:
The plus 81,000 who are in prison through going through the courts are unable to offend against society whilst in there. Also see below for re-offending rates.
Whilst in there... What about when the come out? Let's address that behaviour and try and avoid it in the future rather than punishing it after the fact. Prisons make people more criminal, not less. They should be avoided in most cases.


La Liga said:
Indeed. There were 330,000 out of court disposals in 2013. Most cases are guilty pleas which aren't that expensive. If someone wants to plead NG then they eliminate themselves from an out-of-court disposal and run the risk of a conviction. I suspect the genius you knew who assaulted a police officer could have received a caution.
330,000 people who were criminalised unnecessarily. Whilst most of them probably did something wrong, having a formal criminal "disposal" does little apart from allow Politicians to stand up and say we are catching criminals. The Genius was not offered a Caution. At the time he had mental health problems and pushed back when the police pushed into his house. Not a single mark was on any officer. Whilst what he did was wrong, does not justify the cost and the affect it will have on that man. No one won there. Let's stop trying to criminalise a nation, and start actually trying to help people and make the country a better place.

La Liga said:
Wrong. Youth referral orders have the lowest re-offending rates and the largest sample of people.

Community Orders for adults have a re-offending rate of 35% (within a year).

So tell me how 6.5 / 10 is "pointless"?
I will do no such thing. If those numbers are true then they are impressive. Still depressing that we are failing 35% of those people though. Further more - it is somewhat comical that the figures are given in terms of reoffending in one year. When they start showing the number of people who have not committed another crime up to the point where there conviction is spent, I will have more respect for them. I also think it's worth pointing out that the list only lists "convictions" I think it's fair to say however good the police are, you don't catch everyone.


La Liga said:
Short prison sentences have a higher re-offending rate. One reason is because you're dealing with more tenacious criminals who continue to offend and behave in that manner. The second is because fewer interventions are able to be put in place unlike longer prison sentences.
So you would agree then that short prison sentences should be gotten rid off?

La Liga said:
Fewer people re-offend compared to those who don't. That seems like a system working to me.
At some point everyone had to either die or stop committing crimes. I stopped committing crimes because I managed to get on top of my own problems and I also went away travelling and realised that I wanted more to life than I was currently getting. At that point I was running my own company and didn't have to worry about DBS checks and in reality could do pretty much what I wanted. I didn't change because of the system. However If I had to find normal paid work at that time would have found it impossible. Even now my convictions are spent I am unlikely to ever get a job that requires any form of checking. That's fine - but I would like to think as a society we could let people move on with their lives.

La Liga said:
Lots of disposals are aimed at addresses underlying needs and behaviours. Look at the youth proportions.
Great lets have more of these then. Let's spend the money doing this. Let's stop criminalising people and start helping people. Rather than taking someone to court and giving them a criminal record give them counselling or rehab.

Edited by photosnob on Saturday 20th September 02:37

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Saturday 20th September 2014
quotequote all
I'm not going into a mass quote-fest as I don't have time today, so I'll make some general points. First I'll say it's great to read you sorted yourself out and were able to move on with your life, and thanks for sharing that information.

I'm playing devil's advocate in some areas, others I disagree with which I'll point out. Let's talk about drugs first and foremost as I suspect you and I actually have a lot of common ground here.

My general view is prohibition is a waste of time and the very least addition is a) a medical problem and b) the whole criminalising of drugs needs a re-think. I'd happily legalise some drugs and reap the tax benefits to pay for rehabilitation and intervention for people addicted to things like heroin. There are many drugs where the benefit / harm profile is no worse than alcohol, and some a lot less. What we have at the moment is completely irrational and wrong. The ex-Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom who many dislike because of some of the rubbish he came out with about speeding (although some I spoke to who knew him said he just love to wind up the media), but he was a clear advocate of reform in this area.

However, we still need to consider that the majority of the public support prohibition, and they provide their support for the justice system. The question then becomes, "so why do we know better, and should the politicians and state do what's 'right' even without the majority of the public supporting them who elected them?"

I think there's some naivety (or at best, too much idealism) in your thinking. Perhaps this is due to your own experience and reference point. It comes across as though you believe everyone can be helped and "fixed" - the reality is lots of criminals are career criminals through choice. Whether nature or nurture they are simply going to commit crime. Sometimes, it's their 'job'. There are some people beyond help (and / or refuse to accept it) and the only solution is to keep them away from society for as long as possible to reduce the harm they cause. That may be depressing, but it's the reality. I also think your balance of internal vs external is a little skewed, too. What I mean by that is an individual's personal responsibility to help themselves. I always think it's odd to think that people don't have the power to change themselves and always look to some ancillary factor as being the cause of the effect. A lot of criminals simply won't be helped, and certainly won't be helped for what is economically reasonable.

Most people in prison would have had interventions prior to prison - and the longer the time inside, the more effective the interventions are in prison. There's only so much time and money available, and again, they need to want to be helped. Ideally we'd have more funding, but ideally we'd have more for every public service to make them better.

Going back to the views of wider society, people being sent to prison makes the majority of the law-abiding feel safer and satisfied. Justice being done and seen to be done. It's very tempting to only see our view and needs and forget the system is there as a product of mass public-support and opinion. That's our culture.

Fewer people re-offend who go through out-of-court disposals, the court system with non-custodial sentences, and the prison system. It's not a perfect system, but it is overall effective. Society functions, and crime has reduced steadily since the mid 1990s, over which period there's been a lot of work on the criminal justice system to match the punishment / disposal to the offender. Incidentally we've also been putting more people in prison over that same time, although I'm not going to make the casual link without sighting evidence.

photosnob said:
330,000 people who were criminalised unnecessarily. Whilst most of them probably did something wrong, having a formal criminal "disposal" does little apart from allow Politicians to stand up and say we are catching criminals.
That's the point, they aren't criminalised as they are out of court. People can realistically commit a couple of crimes and still avoid court. Interventions are still offered. We, for example, will offer people arrested for minor public order offences linked to alcohol the opportunity to attend an alcohol awareness presentation / intervention as an alternative to a Penalty Notice.

photosnob said:
I will do no such thing. If those numbers are true then they are impressive. Still depressing that we are failing 35% of those people though. Further more - it is somewhat comical that the figures are given in terms of reoffending in one year. When they start showing the number of people who have not committed another crime up to the point where there conviction is spent, I will have more respect for them. I also think it's worth pointing out that the list only lists "convictions" I think it's fair to say however good the police are, you don't catch everyone.
35% is very good. One year is the highest % - it drops off after. A referral order if completed is spent in a year. You are right, the police won't catch everyone who re-offends, but the proportions are still there with those are which we can draw suitable inferences from.

photosnob said:
La Liga said:
Fewer people re-offend compared to those who don't. That seems like a system working to me.
At some point everyone had to either die or stop committing crimes.
I'm not talking about until death, I'm talking about the measurable time frames like a year - 10 years. "Or stop committing crimes" - why? Because they had had enough of going through the court / punishment system?

photosnob said:
However If I had to find normal paid work at that time would have found it impossible. Even now my convictions are spent I am unlikely to ever get a job that requires any form of checking. That's fine - but I would like to think as a society we could let people move on with their lives.
I agree people who change their lives shouldn't be anchored down by their past. That's the responsibility of people to change their attitudes and belief to rehabilitation. It's a lot easier for us who've seen people who have changed their lives than people who haven't, though.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Sunday 21st September 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
I would still suggest that your perception of reasonable reward for labour is higher than that of those in other professions.

RH
Shock horror , roving actuslly says sometime sensible and wibble free.

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Sunday 21st September 2014
quotequote all
La Liga, one issue with 'decriminalisation' of drugs of misuse is that many of them ( opiates, benzos, 'phet, cocaine and ketamine) are legal as it stands as long as prooerly constructed direction to administer is in place / you are a prescriber or pharmacist... so do you propose dismantling the PoM and Controlled Drug systems and having a third world free for all with associated public health , epidemiological and 'superbug' issues.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Sunday 21st September 2014
quotequote all
An fundamental assessment of the benefit vs harm should be made of each substance. That assessment would include all the relevant issues.

I can't see how it's anywhere near rational or correct at the moment.


singlecoil

33,317 posts

245 months

Sunday 21st September 2014
quotequote all
The current drug laws, the unacceptable face of democracy.


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 8th October 2014
quotequote all

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Wednesday 8th October 2014
quotequote all
Solicitors and Barristers amaze me. They are in the special position of being the only people who can do their job - you can't just ship more in. Yet they are choosing to do nothing to protect themselves or their clients

If they had a mass strike for a reasonable amount of time then the justice system would change very quickly.

When no solicitor will attend a police station, how will the police interview?

When no Barrister will represent then either the system will back up at a silly rate, or cases will fall apart.

None of those things would harm clients. The Police can't interview without legal reps, nor will a Court make a defendant represent themselves.

Even a couple of weeks would cause enough problems to force a hand.

I know they had a very short strike - but a long term short strike would do amazing things.

So why bother asking for a judicial review when as a group you can do that...