Cost cutting + adviocate monitoring in the criminal courts
Discussion
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.
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?
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.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. You are Purple Moonlight AICMFP. What might happen if all women made the "personal choice" not to have children or look after children? Women in all areas of the economy tend to take on more childcare work than men, and the average pay gap between men and women remains at something like eight per cent, 45 years after the Equal Pay Act. That's another topic. The Bar Council's point s that low pay for lawyers (who pay very large amounts for training) is not likely to encourage diversity at the Bar.
The Bar used to be white, male, and posh. Then it became less white, less male, and less posh. Now, because of the need for bank of mum and dad in the early stages, or even a private income for later stages, it is again becoming white and posh (although now gender-mixed). My chambers has recruited several excellent people who come from very non posh backgrounds, but increasingly the people that we see in the recruitment process are predominantly white and from upper middle class backgrounds, because only they can afford the expensive training (provided by commercial organisations that seem to care only for billing) and the risks and uncertainties of self employment. There are moves afoot for the Bar to re take control of training, reduce the costs and improve the quality, but this may take a while and, of course, the Government favours a so called competitive market of high price low quality training providers.
The Bar used to be white, male, and posh. Then it became less white, less male, and less posh. Now, because of the need for bank of mum and dad in the early stages, or even a private income for later stages, it is again becoming white and posh (although now gender-mixed). My chambers has recruited several excellent people who come from very non posh backgrounds, but increasingly the people that we see in the recruitment process are predominantly white and from upper middle class backgrounds, because only they can afford the expensive training (provided by commercial organisations that seem to care only for billing) and the risks and uncertainties of self employment. There are moves afoot for the Bar to re take control of training, reduce the costs and improve the quality, but this may take a while and, of course, the Government favours a so called competitive market of high price low quality training providers.
singlecoil said:
Breadvan72 said:
What might happen if all women made the "personal choice" not to have children or look after children?
That is never, ever going to happen. We might as well discuss what would happen if we all went to Mars.The general misanthropy of PH quite often includes the curiously sneery and negative attitude towards human reproduction that is in evident in some posts above. The view often comes bundled with some good solid misogyny. This is just one of those weird PH things. You might think that people who like cars would be a cheerful bunch, but if you read this sub forum and N,P&L you could be forgiven for thinking that the average petrolhead hates everybody and everything (except for his Audi or 320d, perhaps). Luckily, PH is not very representative of anything, as far as I can tell.
Anyway, I am now off to Bicester Village BLING-O-DROME on the Sunday before Xmas, so I expect that in a few hours I shall be hating all of humanity with a fervent passion.
Anyway, I am now off to Bicester Village BLING-O-DROME on the Sunday before Xmas, so I expect that in a few hours I shall be hating all of humanity with a fervent passion.
defblade said:
Breadvan72 said:
Anyway, I am now off to Bicester Village BLING-O-DROME on the Sunday before Xmas, so I expect that in a few hours I shall be hating all of humanity with a fervent passion.
I won't take that long. I n fact, I'd not be surprised if it happened before you've even parked 
ePALACEOFSHAME I hit solid traffic, with "no parking cones" on the roadside, hi-viz dudes trying to give directions, and every sign of a mega crawl to get into the TAT-A-TORIUM. I abandoned shoppage, made a neat three pointer, and blatted back on the same road, even faster than I had come. I rang the Missoni to extend the hold on a frock that I am buying for the mad Polish bird of my dreams, and will swing by and collect it on Tuesday. Then I went and bought Xmas knick knacks in Thame, which was quiet and friendly and OMG chav shoppa free. I saw there a fabby three door Rangey (1972) and some cool US muscle car (a mid 70s Dodge, I think). I abandoned a not very sensible plan to have lunch with my ex wife. Thus I am at peace with the world. Phew, dodged a bullet there.Now I'm off to Stansted via pre Xmas M40-M25-M11 to collect my daughter who is returning from a ski trip. That may knacker my mood a bit, but whatevs.
Back on topic: none of this could happen if I had to live on legal aid rates!
ging84 said:
You can think up a million and 1 reasons why it'll never work or never happen, but it already is, money claim online already deals with thousands of civil cases every month completely impersonally, it's not quite a fully automated process, but it's not going to be that far away.
....
You are either spoofing or are hilariously ill informed. You seem to think that MCOL is a computerised decision making process. It is not. It is a system for making claims online. The claims are then, if disputed, decided on by humans. The idea that you could create a program that could substitute for human judgment without first inventing fully autonomous artificial intelligence is laughable. If you think that the law is just a simple set of rules, you are merely betraying how little you know of the subject. The law is not just black letters on a page that people memorise and apply in some mechanistic way. There's a lot of nuance, and the untidy world of facts and fibs. I suppose that next you will be telling us that medicine is easy peasy and could be done by a computer.....
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st December 23:37
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff