Suspended sentences... What's the point?
Discussion
Watch just about any real life crime programme on TV, and you'll see scumbags being given suspended sentences.
What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the f
kers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.
These make me angry!
What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the f
kers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.These make me angry!
Digga said:
There's just one point - we don't have sufficient prison spaces to accommodate all the scum.
That and hand-wringing, do-gooding, liberals infiltrating a great many of our public services.
In that case, why not at least give them community service picking up dog turds or something? A suspended sentence seems to equate to "no punishment at all" where lesser crimes actually carry more severe non custodial sentences.That and hand-wringing, do-gooding, liberals infiltrating a great many of our public services.
Surely the point is that it hangs over the convicted person and if they commit another crime during a certain period then the suspended sentence would become a 'real' one?
If they were given community service then that would replace the sentence - some might consider community service to be a 'let off'.
If they were given community service then that would replace the sentence - some might consider community service to be a 'let off'.
Kermit power said:
Watch just about any real life crime programme on TV, and you'll see scumbags being given suspended sentences.
What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the fkers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.
These make me angry!
Imo community service / suspended sentences have a place. Only as a first, literally first, step in sentencing. What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the f
kers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.These make me angry!
The problem comes when iterative sentencing results in repeat offenders being given another bite of the cherry after a fine they haven't paid, community service they haven't served, and a suspended sentence they've ignored straight after leaving court.
It's frustrating to see someone convicted of aggravated burglary having umpteen previous convictions just getting yet another suspended sentence like the previous one. That itself was also handed out on the back of numerous previous convictions. Or the bod stopped on his return from court convicted for theft and handling stolen goods who has used his trip to another county to attend court to nick more stuff. Both completely true examples.
Not to mention the pleas in mitigation that use the same bleeding heart sob story over and again, soon to be a father, turned over a new leaf finally realised the destructive path, his granny is in hospital treatment and needs him to look after her cat.
It just means that society is saying to these people, yes what you do is against the law, and the police will try to catch you, but really society in general doesn't care about it so much.
Problem is that there will be evidence from the usual that prison doesn't work. But see a serial scrote facing a really long stretch and they would shop their grandmother to stay out.
FiF said:
Imo community service / suspended sentences have a place. Only as a first, literally first, step in sentencing.
The problem comes when iterative sentencing results in repeat offenders being given another bite of the cherry after a fine they haven't paid, community service they haven't served, and a suspended sentence they've ignored straight after leaving court.
It's frustrating to see someone convicted of aggravated burglary having umpteen previous convictions just getting yet another suspended sentence like the previous one. That itself was also handed out on the back of numerous previous convictions. Or the bod stopped on his return from court convicted for theft and handling stolen goods who has used his trip to another county to attend court to nick more stuff. Both completely true examples.
Not to mention the pleas in mitigation that use the same bleeding heart sob story over and again, soon to be a father, turned over a new leaf finally realised the destructive path, his granny is in hospital treatment and needs him to look after her cat.
It just means that society is saying to these people, yes what you do is against the law, and the police will try to catch you, but really society in general doesn't care about it so much.
Problem is that there will be evidence from the usual that prison doesn't work. But see a serial scrote facing a really long stretch and they would shop their grandmother to stay out.
Many true words in there.The problem comes when iterative sentencing results in repeat offenders being given another bite of the cherry after a fine they haven't paid, community service they haven't served, and a suspended sentence they've ignored straight after leaving court.
It's frustrating to see someone convicted of aggravated burglary having umpteen previous convictions just getting yet another suspended sentence like the previous one. That itself was also handed out on the back of numerous previous convictions. Or the bod stopped on his return from court convicted for theft and handling stolen goods who has used his trip to another county to attend court to nick more stuff. Both completely true examples.
Not to mention the pleas in mitigation that use the same bleeding heart sob story over and again, soon to be a father, turned over a new leaf finally realised the destructive path, his granny is in hospital treatment and needs him to look after her cat.
It just means that society is saying to these people, yes what you do is against the law, and the police will try to catch you, but really society in general doesn't care about it so much.
Problem is that there will be evidence from the usual that prison doesn't work. But see a serial scrote facing a really long stretch and they would shop their grandmother to stay out.
TTwiggy said:
Surely the point is that it hangs over the convicted person and if they commit another crime during a certain period then the suspended sentence would become a 'real' one?
If they were given community service then that would replace the sentence - some might consider community service to be a 'let off'.
Yeah, if they are unlucky enough to be caught and if the police can gather suitable evidence and if the CPS don't bungle the case and if there is not some bleeding-heart loony judge presiding.If they were given community service then that would replace the sentence - some might consider community service to be a 'let off'.
All the while, the victim count - those innocents whose lives are touched by and permanently blighted by crime - is at least one person higher. This assumes the police get them on their first repeat offence and that only one person's life is f
ked up by the event. Doubtful.The system stinks and it is very, very simple to see where the problem lies.
FiF said:
Imo community service / suspended sentences have a place. Only as a first, literally first, step in sentencing.
The problem comes when iterative sentencing results in repeat offenders being given another bite of the cherry after a fine they haven't paid, community service they haven't served, and a suspended sentence they've ignored straight after leaving court.
It's frustrating to see someone convicted of aggravated burglary having umpteen previous convictions just getting yet another suspended sentence like the previous one. That itself was also handed out on the back of numerous previous convictions. Or the bod stopped on his return from court convicted for theft and handling stolen goods who has used his trip to another county to attend court to nick more stuff. Both completely true examples.
Not to mention the pleas in mitigation that use the same bleeding heart sob story over and again, soon to be a father, turned over a new leaf finally realised the destructive path, his granny is in hospital treatment and needs him to look after her cat.
It just means that society is saying to these people, yes what you do is against the law, and the police will try to catch you, but really society in general doesn't care about it so much.
Problem is that there will be evidence from the usual that prison doesn't work. But see a serial scrote facing a really long stretch and they would shop their grandmother to stay out.
Difficult to argue with the sentiment here, other than to point out the obvious, which is that we already lock up a higher percentage of our population that most developed countries. Which sort of suggests that we are going about things the wrong way, and that while suspended sentences may be no deterrent, it's clear that neither is prison.The problem comes when iterative sentencing results in repeat offenders being given another bite of the cherry after a fine they haven't paid, community service they haven't served, and a suspended sentence they've ignored straight after leaving court.
It's frustrating to see someone convicted of aggravated burglary having umpteen previous convictions just getting yet another suspended sentence like the previous one. That itself was also handed out on the back of numerous previous convictions. Or the bod stopped on his return from court convicted for theft and handling stolen goods who has used his trip to another county to attend court to nick more stuff. Both completely true examples.
Not to mention the pleas in mitigation that use the same bleeding heart sob story over and again, soon to be a father, turned over a new leaf finally realised the destructive path, his granny is in hospital treatment and needs him to look after her cat.
It just means that society is saying to these people, yes what you do is against the law, and the police will try to catch you, but really society in general doesn't care about it so much.
Problem is that there will be evidence from the usual that prison doesn't work. But see a serial scrote facing a really long stretch and they would shop their grandmother to stay out.
TTwiggy said:
Difficult to argue with the sentiment here, other than to point out the obvious, which is that we already lock up a higher percentage of our population that most developed countries. Which sort of suggests that we are going about things the wrong way, and that while suspended sentences may be no deterrent, it's clear that neither is prison.
Might part of that be explained by a number of factors?- Our police and detection systems outrank other developed nations
- Our sentences are insufficiently robust to act as deterrent
- We have very poor rehabilitation programs
- Our prisons are being run in such as way as to allow criminal activities to continue inside
- We perhaps import more criminals than other developed countries
0000 said:
Better to keep someone remorseful contributing the economy than pay to lock them up, take up another prison place and struggle to rehabilitate.
If they take the piss and prove not to respect the position they're in then they get locked up anyway.
And how many innocent lives are blighted in the mean time?If they take the piss and prove not to respect the position they're in then they get locked up anyway.
I have a friend in the police. They know that if/when certain 'knowns' are released, there will be an almost instant increase in late night, random, un-provoked assaults on drinkers making their way home from a night out. Most, unless severely injured, are unlikely to become known to the police, but even when they are, the majority are too scared to press charges and, without CCTV footage or other witnesses, the police often have to let cases go.
FiF said:
Problem is that there will be evidence from the usual that prison doesn't work. But see a serial scrote facing a really long stretch and they would shop their grandmother to stay out.
These 'usual' would include those who have studied the subject of reoffending.The real problem is that we imprison too many of the wrong type of offender. The serial offenders for whom imprisonment is the only answer are not receiving custodial sentences because the prisons are full.
Half those in prison are inadequates, and most of the rest are suffering from mental disorders or drug dependency.
Penal reform in this country could save £millions but the main problem is that those whose knee-jerk reaction is to make matters worse seem to be the ones that governments are afraid of.
Other countries manage to have stable societies without imprisoning quite as high a percentage as we do.
There are alternatives to prison which are a more severe form of punishment for the offender without banging them up.
However, those who won't take the trouble to study the facts tend to be the most vociferous. The DM staff know that the present system is an expensive failure yet their readers need to have their prejudices reinforced.
If we had a sensible penal system we could imprison those who are serial offenders for a justifiable longer period, protecting the public, such as me, and without raiding taxes quite so uselessly.
Prisons should be the preserve of those for whom other forms of punishment are unsuitable.
Derek Smith said:
If we had a sensible penal system we could imprison those who are serial offenders for a justifiable longer period, protecting the public, such as me, and without raiding taxes quite so uselessly.
Prisons should be the preserve of those for whom other forms of punishment are unsuitable.
Could not agree more.Prisons should be the preserve of those for whom other forms of punishment are unsuitable.
Derek Smith said:
FiF said:
Problem is that there will be evidence from the usual that prison doesn't work. But see a serial scrote facing a really long stretch and they would shop their grandmother to stay out.
These 'usual' would include those who have studied the subject of reoffending.The real problem is that we imprison too many of the wrong type of offender. The serial offenders for whom imprisonment is the only answer are not receiving custodial sentences because the prisons are full.
Half those in prison are inadequates, and most of the rest are suffering from mental disorders or drug dependency.
Penal reform in this country could save £millions but the main problem is that those whose knee-jerk reaction is to make matters worse seem to be the ones that governments are afraid of.
Other countries manage to have stable societies without imprisoning quite as high a percentage as we do.
There are alternatives to prison which are a more severe form of punishment for the offender without banging them up.
However, those who won't take the trouble to study the facts tend to be the most vociferous. The DM staff know that the present system is an expensive failure yet their readers need to have their prejudices reinforced.
If we had a sensible penal system we could imprison those who are serial offenders for a justifiable longer period, protecting the public, such as me, and without raiding taxes quite so uselessly.
Prisons should be the preserve of those for whom other forms of punishment are unsuitable.
[quote=TTwiggy]...we already lock up a higher percentage of our population that most developed countries./quote]
Totally off topic, but what's the deal with using 'that' for comparisons, instead of 'than', e.g. 'The population of England is higher that the population of Scotland'. I'm seeing this more and more - is this an autocorrect thing, or some grammatical useage that I'm not aware of?
Totally off topic, but what's the deal with using 'that' for comparisons, instead of 'than', e.g. 'The population of England is higher that the population of Scotland'. I'm seeing this more and more - is this an autocorrect thing, or some grammatical useage that I'm not aware of?
Twilkes]Twiggy said:
...we already lock up a higher percentage of our population that most developed countries./quote]
Totally off topic, but what's the deal with using 'that' for comparisons, instead of 'than', e.g. 'The population of England is higher that the population of Scotland'. I'm seeing this more and more - is this an autocorrect thing, or some grammatical useage that I'm not aware of?
I meant 'than'. It may have been a typo or possibly autocorrect. I'm not sure.Totally off topic, but what's the deal with using 'that' for comparisons, instead of 'than', e.g. 'The population of England is higher that the population of Scotland'. I'm seeing this more and more - is this an autocorrect thing, or some grammatical useage that I'm not aware of?
Kermit power said:
Watch just about any real life crime programme on TV, and you'll see scumbags being given suspended sentences.
What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the fkers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.
These make me angry!
I note you conveniently forget that a suspended sentence is also accompanied by a community punishment , fines and costs ... What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the f
kers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.These make me angry!
like recall to prison the suspended sentence is automatically invoked should a further offence be committed
mph1977 said:
Kermit power said:
Watch just about any real life crime programme on TV, and you'll see scumbags being given suspended sentences.
What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the fkers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.
These make me angry!
I note you conveniently forget that a suspended sentence is also accompanied by a community punishment , fines and costs ... What on earth is the point of this? If the did something deserving of jail time, then lock the f
kers up. If they didn't, then give them a lesser punishment, but this just seems utterly pointless! Commit a crime, get caught, and as long as you don't get caught again within 12 months or whatever, you get off scott free.These make me angry!
like recall to prison the suspended sentence is automatically invoked should a further offence be committed
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff