The End of a Stolen Golf R story
Discussion
otolith said:
La Liga said:
The reasons prisons are full is because more people go to prison and for longer:
Some data from 2013 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
If you want to see another large increase then there needs to be significant investment to increase the population size.
Or a refocusing on who we are locking up, for how long, and why. Some data from 2013 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
If you want to see another large increase then there needs to be significant investment to increase the population size.
Some depressing numbers in here;
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoesto...
Something isn't working.
I don't think there are any simple solutions, and that anyone who says there are is either wrong or lying. And I think the doctrine of human rights makes it very difficult to deal with people who are - I'm not going to say "bad", I'm going to say "irreparably broken". We can't off them, or transport them, or lock them up indefinitely unless they do something really bad.
Given a free hand, I'd go for a series of enclosed communities with progressively more freedom and less surveillance, from high security prison at one end to something that resembles normality at the other, with convicts entering at an appropriate level for their offending, but capable of moving in either direction depending on their behaviour, and not coming out until they'd proved themselves capable of living like a decent human being in the least restrictive of them. Getting and keeping a job would be one of the criteria for moving down a level. Pie in the sky, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bast%C3%B8y_Prison
Retroman said:
richs2891 said:
OK so reading most of the thread, jail doe not seem to deter or ultimately stop offending,
Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
Unlikely.Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
USA has some very harsh punishments for even small crimes, yet it has some of the highest violent crime rates in the west.
Harder punishments breed hardened criminals.
Unless you can break into places using your toes.......
irc said:
La Liga said:
Sentencing is consistent as it's driven by guidelines
See the data from the early 90s to early 2010s.
More people in prison for longer. The opposite of 'liberal attitudes'.
And it is working. A higher prison population has resulted in less crime.See the data from the early 90s to early 2010s.
More people in prison for longer. The opposite of 'liberal attitudes'.
"Robust policing protects the honest poor – and the poor want more police. Tougher sentencing is popular across the income spectrum – but it would help the poor most of all.It is easy to underestimate the effect of locking up the average criminal even for as little as a year, but each prison sentence means no one outside that prison can be victimised by them for the duration of the time they serve. The numbers of crimes prevented appear to be very large indeed. In 2000, the Home Office concluded that the average offender committed 140 crimes every year. The average drug offender was estimated to commit 257 crimes a year. The graph below shows that, since 1980, every extra criminal in prison was associated with an average of 176 fewer crimes a year. The result was statistically significant and the correlation was 0.78, implying that more than 60% of the variation in crime rates was attributable to how many criminals were in prison, rather than free to commit crimes."
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/povertyan...
I was talking about our approach hasn't been what you'd call 'liberal'.
I'd say about that that correlation isn't causation.
Crime and disorder is complex mix of different factors.
REALIST123 said:
Does that data take population growth and demographic change into account?
So what do you think needs to be done? Turn a blind eye? That would, statistically, reduce crime.
The prison population has doubled so those two factors have a minor impact. So what do you think needs to be done? Turn a blind eye? That would, statistically, reduce crime.
I don't think things are too bad. People like to rose-tint and the speed, volume and availability of information about crime helps influence us in this technological age.
I'd like to see evidence-based policies and save prison for dangerous, violent people.
richs2891 said:
OK so reading most of the thread, jail doe not seem to deter or ultimately stop offending,
Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
Jail does deter some and ultimately will stop some. Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
The problem is their not the issue. The prolific repeat offenders are the real problem. It should be like the American system. 3 strikes and we’re going to bring a world of pain down on from high.
Massive long prison sentence
No nice nicely. (No Tv, No Visits, No socialising with other inmates)
Solitary confinement in a deep dark hole (ever seen the movie the maze, think like that)
Back breaking work for 12 hours a day even if it’s just moving a pile of bricks from one side of a courtyard to another every day 12 hours a day come rain snow or fiery hell. Make it so hellish that the thought of getting caught again with a mandatory doubling of sentence means only the idiotic would do so.
I now await the lefty liberals raving on about human rights and how it’s not fair on his kids etc. Probably doing his kid a favour keeping him out the way.
R32 said:
What are the chances of him actually completing the 150 hours unpaid work? I'd bet absolutely zero.
A chippie I know got 100 hours, they had him putting up fences but the rest of the time he was sat round in a mini bus waiting for people, sat round because of the rain and when the person running it wanted to bunk off he would let them all go home and just add their hours on for them.They dont do the full hours work so no real benefit to the commuinty.
Also Ive seen the collecting trollies at the local Ikea, I'm sure there is pleanty of litter for them to pick up elsewhere.
Edited by PAULJ5555 on Wednesday 17th July 12:50
MB140 said:
richs2891 said:
OK so reading most of the thread, jail doe not seem to deter or ultimately stop offending,
Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
Jail does deter some and ultimately will stop some. Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
The problem is their not the issue. The prolific repeat offenders are the real problem. It should be like the American system. 3 strikes and we’re going to bring a world of pain down on from high.
Massive long prison sentence
No nice nicely. (No Tv, No Visits, No socialising with other inmates)
Solitary confinement in a deep dark hole (ever seen the movie the maze, think like that)
Back breaking work for 12 hours a day even if it’s just moving a pile of bricks from one side of a courtyard to another every day 12 hours a day come rain snow or fiery hell. Make it so hellish that the thought of getting caught again with a mandatory doubling of sentence means only the idiotic would do so.
I now await the lefty liberals raving on about human rights and how it’s not fair on his kids etc. Probably doing his kid a favour keeping him out the way.
The 'three strikes' doesn't seem too much of a deterrent.
Could that money be better spent than putting someone in prison for that long?
La Liga said:
MB140 said:
richs2891 said:
OK so reading most of the thread, jail doe not seem to deter or ultimately stop offending,
Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
Jail does deter some and ultimately will stop some. Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
The problem is their not the issue. The prolific repeat offenders are the real problem. It should be like the American system. 3 strikes and we’re going to bring a world of pain down on from high.
Massive long prison sentence
No nice nicely. (No Tv, No Visits, No socialising with other inmates)
Solitary confinement in a deep dark hole (ever seen the movie the maze, think like that)
Back breaking work for 12 hours a day even if it’s just moving a pile of bricks from one side of a courtyard to another every day 12 hours a day come rain snow or fiery hell. Make it so hellish that the thought of getting caught again with a mandatory doubling of sentence means only the idiotic would do so.
I now await the lefty liberals raving on about human rights and how it’s not fair on his kids etc. Probably doing his kid a favour keeping him out the way.
The 'three strikes' doesn't seem too much of a deterrent.
Could that money be better spent than putting someone in prison for that long?
Simple fact is. If their locked up there not committing crimes to the general public. By all means let them keep killing, beating and robbing each other inside. Not the public’s problem then.
My car was stolen end of last year. Broke into the kitchen at 7pm about 5 mins after we'd finished feeding the kids in there.
Car not recovered.
If they catch the persons who did it, what do I want? I don't see the point in putting them in prison. They're just footsoldiers for a larger criminal enterprise. Giving them a few weeks or months in prison won't change their lives when they come out. They won't be better people or less likely to reoffend.
I'd like them to be listened to and their lives assessed to understand why it was worth stealing a car rather than something slightly less illegal.
Then I'd like the state to spend the equivalent jail money training that person on the job as in either private or public organisations, giving them employable skills.
There are push and pull factors at work in crime. The strength of need to take the risk in the first place. The level of the risk. The height of the punishment if the risk is realised.
With comparatively very few police officers able to police car theft, the risks of getting caught are very low and the punishment is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant.
We should out more resources into policing these types of crime, and then try to recycle low-level crims by educating them when they're caught. That way, instead of just pausing the cycle, you're actively trying to divert it.
It won't bring a car back, but it will make society better.
Car not recovered.
If they catch the persons who did it, what do I want? I don't see the point in putting them in prison. They're just footsoldiers for a larger criminal enterprise. Giving them a few weeks or months in prison won't change their lives when they come out. They won't be better people or less likely to reoffend.
I'd like them to be listened to and their lives assessed to understand why it was worth stealing a car rather than something slightly less illegal.
Then I'd like the state to spend the equivalent jail money training that person on the job as in either private or public organisations, giving them employable skills.
There are push and pull factors at work in crime. The strength of need to take the risk in the first place. The level of the risk. The height of the punishment if the risk is realised.
With comparatively very few police officers able to police car theft, the risks of getting caught are very low and the punishment is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant.
We should out more resources into policing these types of crime, and then try to recycle low-level crims by educating them when they're caught. That way, instead of just pausing the cycle, you're actively trying to divert it.
It won't bring a car back, but it will make society better.
janesmith1950 said:
My car was stolen end of last year. Broke into the kitchen at 7pm about 5 mins after we'd finished feeding the kids in there.
Car not recovered.
If they catch the persons who did it, what do I want? I don't see the point in putting them in prison. They're just footsoldiers for a larger criminal enterprise. Giving them a few weeks or months in prison won't change their lives when they come out. They won't be better people or less likely to reoffend.
I'd like them to be listened to and their lives assessed to understand why it was worth stealing a car rather than something slightly less illegal.
Then I'd like the state to spend the equivalent jail money training that person on the job as in either private or public organisations, giving them employable skills.
There are push and pull factors at work in crime. The strength of need to take the risk in the first place. The level of the risk. The height of the punishment if the risk is realised.
With comparatively very few police officers able to police car theft, the risks of getting caught are very low and the punishment is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant.
We should out more resources into policing these types of crime, and then try to recycle low-level crims by educating them when they're caught. That way, instead of just pausing the cycle, you're actively trying to divert it.
It won't bring a car back, but it will make society better.
Interesting and very understanding trail of thought.Car not recovered.
If they catch the persons who did it, what do I want? I don't see the point in putting them in prison. They're just footsoldiers for a larger criminal enterprise. Giving them a few weeks or months in prison won't change their lives when they come out. They won't be better people or less likely to reoffend.
I'd like them to be listened to and their lives assessed to understand why it was worth stealing a car rather than something slightly less illegal.
Then I'd like the state to spend the equivalent jail money training that person on the job as in either private or public organisations, giving them employable skills.
There are push and pull factors at work in crime. The strength of need to take the risk in the first place. The level of the risk. The height of the punishment if the risk is realised.
With comparatively very few police officers able to police car theft, the risks of getting caught are very low and the punishment is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant.
We should out more resources into policing these types of crime, and then try to recycle low-level crims by educating them when they're caught. That way, instead of just pausing the cycle, you're actively trying to divert it.
It won't bring a car back, but it will make society better.
It is annoying though for sure, the lack of punishment .
La Liga said:
I'd like to see evidence-based policies and save prison for dangerous, violent people.
But if you do that then you give a pass to thieves and burglars. Even more than we already have. I think a system where 94% of first offence robbers avoid jail is already fairly lenient. And while I don't know English law that well is violence or threat of violence not part of the crime of robbery? So they are violent criminals and the vast majority of first offenders are not jailed."Only 6% of those in prison for robbery were first-time offenders – with almost twice as many first-time offenders convicted of robbery receiving a community sentence as a custodial sentence.68% of those sent to prison for robbery had at least seven previous convictions or cautions and 44% had at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.
Page 8 at
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoesto...
To get the jail for theft you either need to commit a very high value crime or you are a seriel offender where other options to deter you have been tried and failed.
"Prolific criminals dominate the prison population70% of custodial sentences are imposed on those with at least seven previous convictions or cautions, and 50% are imposed on those with at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.Any large reductions in the prison population would therefore mean far fewer prolific criminals going to prison.
Page 1
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoesto...
2Btoo said:
You won't find many people who disagree with you on here. However I think that the best deterrent to crime is not stiffer sentences, it's increasing the likelihood of getting caught. If the police managed to catch 50% of culprits in car theft cases then the crime levels would drop very sharply, even if they did little about the sentencing guidelines.
Mostly agree, though it does need to be coupled with proper prisons and sentencing.MB140 said:
La Liga said:
MB140 said:
richs2891 said:
OK so reading most of the thread, jail doe not seem to deter or ultimately stop offending,
Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
Jail does deter some and ultimately will stop some. Should we say follow the countries that chop the offenders right hand off ? And no disability for them in regards to the arm.
Would the social stigma of a missing right hand reduce crimes ?
The problem is their not the issue. The prolific repeat offenders are the real problem. It should be like the American system. 3 strikes and we’re going to bring a world of pain down on from high.
Massive long prison sentence
No nice nicely. (No Tv, No Visits, No socialising with other inmates)
Solitary confinement in a deep dark hole (ever seen the movie the maze, think like that)
Back breaking work for 12 hours a day even if it’s just moving a pile of bricks from one side of a courtyard to another every day 12 hours a day come rain snow or fiery hell. Make it so hellish that the thought of getting caught again with a mandatory doubling of sentence means only the idiotic would do so.
I now await the lefty liberals raving on about human rights and how it’s not fair on his kids etc. Probably doing his kid a favour keeping him out the way.
The 'three strikes' doesn't seem too much of a deterrent.
Could that money be better spent than putting someone in prison for that long?
Simple fact is. If their locked up there not committing crimes to the general public. By all means let them keep killing, beating and robbing each other inside. Not the public’s problem then.
irc said:
La Liga said:
I'd like to see evidence-based policies and save prison for dangerous, violent people.
But if you do that then you give a pass to thieves and burglars. Even more than we already have. I think a system where 94% of first offence robbers avoid jail is already fairly lenient. And while I don't know English law that well is violence or threat of violence not part of the crime of robbery? So they are violent criminals and the vast majority of first offenders are not jailed."Only 6% of those in prison for robbery were first-time offenders – with almost twice as many first-time offenders convicted of robbery receiving a community sentence as a custodial sentence.68% of those sent to prison for robbery had at least seven previous convictions or cautions and 44% had at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.
Page 8 at
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoesto...
To get the jail for theft you either need to commit a very high value crime or you are a seriel offender where other options to deter you have been tried and failed.
"Prolific criminals dominate the prison population70% of custodial sentences are imposed on those with at least seven previous convictions or cautions, and 50% are imposed on those with at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.Any large reductions in the prison population would therefore mean far fewer prolific criminals going to prison.
Page 1
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoesto...
Prolific comes down to re-offending rates and our CJS is poor at preventing re-offending.
Isn't the other big problem that us law abiding people are told to just hand over the goods if someone tries to take them.
So now we have a population of obedient sheep that can't/won't defend themselves and are ripe for the picking.
In the UK now, there must never have been an easier time to rob than the beginning of the 21st century.
So now we have a population of obedient sheep that can't/won't defend themselves and are ripe for the picking.
In the UK now, there must never have been an easier time to rob than the beginning of the 21st century.
croyde said:
Isn't the other big problem that us law abiding people are told to just hand over the goods if someone tries to take them.
So now we have a population of obedient sheep that can't/won't defend themselves and are ripe for the picking.
In the UK now, there must never have been an easier time to rob than the beginning of the 21st century.
The trouble is most people aren't programmed to think that way these days. I think someone posted on another thread recently something along the lines of "it's all very well arming yourself with a hammer to protect your home from burglars, but unless you're fully prepared to use it the chances are you'll just end up with an angry burglar now armed with your hammer".So now we have a population of obedient sheep that can't/won't defend themselves and are ripe for the picking.
In the UK now, there must never have been an easier time to rob than the beginning of the 21st century.
RSTurboPaul said:
otolith said:
La Liga said:
The reasons prisons are full is because more people go to prison and for longer:
Some data from 2013 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
If you want to see another large increase then there needs to be significant investment to increase the population size.
Or a refocusing on who we are locking up, for how long, and why. Some data from 2013 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
If you want to see another large increase then there needs to be significant investment to increase the population size.
Some depressing numbers in here;
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoesto...
Something isn't working.
I don't think there are any simple solutions, and that anyone who says there are is either wrong or lying. And I think the doctrine of human rights makes it very difficult to deal with people who are - I'm not going to say "bad", I'm going to say "irreparably broken". We can't off them, or transport them, or lock them up indefinitely unless they do something really bad.
Given a free hand, I'd go for a series of enclosed communities with progressively more freedom and less surveillance, from high security prison at one end to something that resembles normality at the other, with convicts entering at an appropriate level for their offending, but capable of moving in either direction depending on their behaviour, and not coming out until they'd proved themselves capable of living like a decent human being in the least restrictive of them. Getting and keeping a job would be one of the criteria for moving down a level. Pie in the sky, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bast%C3%B8y_Prison
2Btoo said:
You won't find many people who disagree with you on here. However I think that the best deterrent to crime is not stiffer sentences, it's increasing the likelihood of getting caught. ....
I don't quite follow the logic on this line of thinking.If the consequences of getting caught are negligible then why would crims be worried about the likelihood of being caught? To me that doesn't serve as any form of deterrent.
V10leptoquark said:
I don't quite follow the logic on this line of thinking.
If the consequences of getting caught are negligible then why would crims be worried about the likelihood of being caught? To me that doesn't serve as any form of deterrent.
The argument isn't that there should be no penalty or an overly light one. It is that, assuming there is at least some penalty the offender would like to avoid, it's the chances of being on the end of any penalty that works as the deterrent. If the consequences of getting caught are negligible then why would crims be worried about the likelihood of being caught? To me that doesn't serve as any form of deterrent.
If you had the death sentence but little chance of being prosecuted, the deterrence would be less than a life sentence with a high chance.
We can see from nations like the US that harsh sentencing doesn't really have a positive effect on criminality.
Unfortunately society tends to clamour for stiff punishments and dislikes the thought of time, energy and money being spent on offenders. This means we accept the car is broken, and rather than fix the cause, we put a bit of tape on the exhaust and become offended when it inevitably begins blowing again.
Our political short termism means, unless we get a truly dedicated justice system and supportive ministers over a long (10yr+) period, we will always be moaning about the cost of plasters and never replace the system with a new, better one.
croyde said:
So now we have a population of obedient sheep that can't/won't defend themselves and are ripe for the picking.
Verging on dominating the stairs but let's not go there.Sadly, the law doesn't look favourably upon those who defend themselves.
That aside, why would you risk your safety when simply handing over the keys would see the thieves away in the shortest possible time.
You need to give people options not to reoffend, help them get off the drugs and stay off the drugs. Help them train in something to earn a decent living. We are at a point now where if you mess up at school, if you have something happen to you that sends you off the rails at 15 thats it for life, it sends you down a path of no return. Theres little training opportunities that don't cost a fortune, theres huge housing issues, we are in the middle of a mental health crisis with virtually no help available. Meanwhile you've got gangs willing to "support" the vulnerable . It shouldn't be the gangs doing that, it should be society.
Its double pronged, jail as punishment and rehabilitation.
Norway have some great examples of this.
At the moment you leave jail with a phone number and if you don't have the support network and the right support network of course you will slip into your old ways
Its double pronged, jail as punishment and rehabilitation.
Norway have some great examples of this.
At the moment you leave jail with a phone number and if you don't have the support network and the right support network of course you will slip into your old ways
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff