Sentencing for serious crime
Discussion
As an offshoot to the discussion of the sentencing of the scum who killed PC Harper it's got me thinking of sentencing again. Currently, if you commit a crime for which you are sent to prison the system works in the fashion that you are given a sentence of 'X' period of time and it is usual to be released on licence after completion of some arbitrary proportion of that term, often half or two thirds.
The complaint often seems to be that justice isn't being seen to be done and that society is being fed a bit of a con in that someone who is sentenced to ten years may actually only do five locked up. In practical terms they are being sentenced to five years and not ten. The public feel that they have been conned by the system. Perhaps rightly.
Is it time to return to a system under which you serve every day of the sentence handed down with a possibility (but not a right) for early release for the traditional "good behaviour"? I'm not even sure that that was even the system here, to be honest, can anyone shed any light on it? I mean it just gives the impression of being more just. In the case of PC Harper, if the scrotes who killed him get, say, fifteen years they may be out in seven and a half. Yes, they are still technically serving their sentence on licence but they won't give a toss and will be impossible to find once out of custody to ever be called back. It's also very disingenuous to the wider community because the judicial system is essentially handing down a seven and a half year sentence dressed up as a fifteen year one. The judicial system needs to be more honest and upfront with the public in this respect, I think.
If you have committed a serious offence, especially one of violence, then it should be incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that you deserve early release rather than be entitled to it via operation of law.
The complaint often seems to be that justice isn't being seen to be done and that society is being fed a bit of a con in that someone who is sentenced to ten years may actually only do five locked up. In practical terms they are being sentenced to five years and not ten. The public feel that they have been conned by the system. Perhaps rightly.
Is it time to return to a system under which you serve every day of the sentence handed down with a possibility (but not a right) for early release for the traditional "good behaviour"? I'm not even sure that that was even the system here, to be honest, can anyone shed any light on it? I mean it just gives the impression of being more just. In the case of PC Harper, if the scrotes who killed him get, say, fifteen years they may be out in seven and a half. Yes, they are still technically serving their sentence on licence but they won't give a toss and will be impossible to find once out of custody to ever be called back. It's also very disingenuous to the wider community because the judicial system is essentially handing down a seven and a half year sentence dressed up as a fifteen year one. The judicial system needs to be more honest and upfront with the public in this respect, I think.
If you have committed a serious offence, especially one of violence, then it should be incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that you deserve early release rather than be entitled to it via operation of law.
Prison space is at a premium and it costs loads to keep someone locked up. Governments have squeezed the budget for years, claim to be tough on law and order whilst simultaneously stripping the courts, probation service and the prison service of funds.
The only reason prisoners are released early is to save money and relieve pressure on the system and then expect a depleted probation service to keep them on the straight and narrow.
The only reason prisoners are released early is to save money and relieve pressure on the system and then expect a depleted probation service to keep them on the straight and narrow.
Judges can set minimum terms to sentences, and indeed do so all the time.
I would also add that for longer terms, you want people to have the opportunity to be released on licence. It gives inmates the incentive for rehabilitation, which together with justice being “seen to be done” is really what prison should be about.
I would also add that for longer terms, you want people to have the opportunity to be released on licence. It gives inmates the incentive for rehabilitation, which together with justice being “seen to be done” is really what prison should be about.
I’m a pinko commie compared to the mean on here but my view is that violent criminals are dealt with comparatively leniently by the justice system. Conversely I also think that there should be no place in prison for the vast majority of non-violent criminals, especially given that re-offending rates don’t indicate that prison is generally effective at rehabilitating criminals. This would help offset the issues with prison capacity - according to the Prison Reform Trust 69% of inmates had committed non-violent crime - though it might require some creative thinking in terms of how perpetrators of things like serious white collar crimes, drug offences etc are dealt with.
As already stated, its all about saving money. I think there's an argument for early release not being applied to recidivist offenders. E.g. if you're sentencing for a similar offence on, say, a 3rd occasion then you serve the full term as you've demonstrated that you aren't working towards rehabilitation.
Unfortunately the opposite is often true - I've heard defence raise the argument in sentencing hearings that custody does their client no good as they'll just come back out and do it again so there's no point locking them up. Sadly I've heard this argument accepted and non-custodial sentences awarded instead. The reality that the offender can't create more victims for all the time they're inside is often lost on those passing sentence.
Unfortunately the opposite is often true - I've heard defence raise the argument in sentencing hearings that custody does their client no good as they'll just come back out and do it again so there's no point locking them up. Sadly I've heard this argument accepted and non-custodial sentences awarded instead. The reality that the offender can't create more victims for all the time they're inside is often lost on those passing sentence.
DeWar said:
I’m a pinko commie compared to the mean on here but my view is that violent criminals are dealt with comparatively leniently by the justice system. Conversely I also think that there should be no place in prison for the vast majority of non-violent criminals, especially given that re-offending rates don’t indicate that prison is generally effective at rehabilitating criminals. This would help offset the issues with prison capacity - according to the Prison Reform Trust 69% of inmates had committed non-violent crime - though it might require some creative thinking in terms of how perpetrators of things like serious white collar crimes, drug offences etc are dealt with.
Other countries, with lower rates of recidivism, do things differently. Research tends to show that where we are doing things differently is where we are failing.We imprison offenders where there is no advantage and this means we have shorter sentences for those who should be imprisoned for longer if only to protect society.
Incarceration rates in the UK are the highest in Europe (or used to be, but as we are imprioning more offenders than ever I doubt we've lost that accolade) yet have amongst the highest recidivism rates. We're doing something wrog, and it is irritating that better methods are out there but we refuse to learn from them.
These better methods are generally cheaper as well.
As you say, the majority of inmates are there for non-violent offences and many of these are of no particular threat to the public if they are managed properly.
The irony is that the too difficult light comes on despite it being easier. The problem is politics. Hard on crime is a vote catcher. Reducing the number of prisoners is not a rallying call despite it likely to reduce crime.
Derek Smith said:
Other countries, with lower rates of recidivism, do things differently. Research tends to show that where we are doing things differently is where we are failing.
We imprison offenders where there is no advantage and this means we have shorter sentences for those who should be imprisoned for longer if only to protect society.
Incarceration rates in the UK are the highest in Europe (or used to be, but as we are imprioning more offenders than ever I doubt we've lost that accolade) yet have amongst the highest recidivism rates. We're doing something wrog, and it is irritating that better methods are out there but we refuse to learn from them.
These better methods are generally cheaper as well.
As you say, the majority of inmates are there for non-violent offences and many of these are of no particular threat to the public if they are managed properly.
The irony is that the too difficult light comes on despite it being easier. The problem is politics. Hard on crime is a vote catcher. Reducing the number of prisoners is not a rallying call despite it likely to reduce crime.
I agree pretty much entirely. The bit in bold is the kicker. There is no possibility of anybody in power even beginning to be able to have a conversation about prison and sentencing reform because any suggestion that doesn’t amount to “lock everybody up for longer” results in shrieks of “SOFT ON CRIME!”We imprison offenders where there is no advantage and this means we have shorter sentences for those who should be imprisoned for longer if only to protect society.
Incarceration rates in the UK are the highest in Europe (or used to be, but as we are imprioning more offenders than ever I doubt we've lost that accolade) yet have amongst the highest recidivism rates. We're doing something wrog, and it is irritating that better methods are out there but we refuse to learn from them.
These better methods are generally cheaper as well.
As you say, the majority of inmates are there for non-violent offences and many of these are of no particular threat to the public if they are managed properly.
The irony is that the too difficult light comes on despite it being easier. The problem is politics. Hard on crime is a vote catcher. Reducing the number of prisoners is not a rallying call despite it likely to reduce crime.
s1962a said:
There has to be a punishment for crime as a deterrent. An extreme example is the chopping off of your hand if you steal in Saudi Arabia. I’ve heard you can pretty much leave your belongings on show in an unlocked car and it probably wouldn’t get nicked.
You have duff information. Yes, Saudi has about half the crime rate of the U.K., but it is about the same as Norway, which is at the polar opposite end of the spectrum, without arbitrary detention for the most minor of accusations and human rights abuses.It was mentioned above about prisons being unsuitable for non-violent offenders. An issue with that is, white collar or other non-violent offences can be as damaging and costly to society as violent ones. If there is no prison deterrent, you're likely to see an uptick in these offences.
I agree with the principle that persistent violent offenders should have to prove themselves before release, however it's not that long since indeterminate sentences were introduced and since removed. Perhaps where there is a 'long stop' rather than an indeterminate period of detention, it might solve that problem?
I'd rather we spent a some chunk of our foreign aid budget on educating prisoners and tackling recidivism, however I imagine I'd be in a minority in that regard.
I agree with the principle that persistent violent offenders should have to prove themselves before release, however it's not that long since indeterminate sentences were introduced and since removed. Perhaps where there is a 'long stop' rather than an indeterminate period of detention, it might solve that problem?
I'd rather we spent a some chunk of our foreign aid budget on educating prisoners and tackling recidivism, however I imagine I'd be in a minority in that regard.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
It was mentioned above about prisons being unsuitable for non-violent offenders. An issue with that is, white collar or other non-violent offences can be as damaging and costly to society as violent ones. If there is no prison deterrent, you're likely to see an uptick in these offences.
I agree with the principle that persistent violent offenders should have to prove themselves before release, however it's not that long since indeterminate sentences were introduced and since removed. Perhaps where there is a 'long stop' rather than an indeterminate period of detention, it might solve that problem?
I'd rather we spent a some chunk of our foreign aid budget on educating prisoners and tackling recidivism, however I imagine I'd be in a minority in that regard.
Although no one knows what would happen in the UK if we followed the better performing countries, it has been axiomatic, supported by lots and lots of evidence, with little or none to counter, that the biggest deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. There has, most suggest, to be a punishment but incarceration is not the only option. In fact, it shows the highest rates of recidivism. I agree with the principle that persistent violent offenders should have to prove themselves before release, however it's not that long since indeterminate sentences were introduced and since removed. Perhaps where there is a 'long stop' rather than an indeterminate period of detention, it might solve that problem?
I'd rather we spent a some chunk of our foreign aid budget on educating prisoners and tackling recidivism, however I imagine I'd be in a minority in that regard.
The options chosen by the better performing countries with regards to crime and recidivism are not massively cheaper than imprisonment as there is a lot of supervision involved. However, if you take into account the savings in lower rates of crime, not to mention the inconvenience to the victims, long term trauma and such, it's a no-brainer.
The research is out there online. Easily accessed but a challenge to read as it contradicts much of what people tend to 'know'. I was lucky in the sense that I was obliged to listen to a couple of lectures as part of my job. The lecturer opened up for questions after about 20 mins of putting her side and evidenced all her replies. A dirty trick.
Those of us in the lecture - I was an instructor and the others students - talked about it at lunch (always a sign of an involving lesson) and the ones who had refused to listen got up and walked off. My lesson was after lunch but it ended up as a discussion about the lecture. We'd been given lots of handouts, and I'd got a couple of lesson plans as well, with sources, and I think most of us had our minds changed. This was bobbies who'd been in the Job for 10-15 years, the very people you might regard as recalcitrant.
Not that you'd be particularly wrong there.
She had me as a convert.
Derek Smith said:
the biggest deterrent is the likelihood of being caught.
Totally agree with that, albeit dependent on the offence. Violent or crimes of passion aren't always designed to a nicety around the chance of plod catching them, for example. Some people are coerced or otherwise brought into offending willingly or unwillingly with low or no regard to the real chances of being caught. Once they are caught and dealt with, prison is not only for the deterrence of others, but also the protection of public and rehabilitation.
I'd argue one issue with current prison is overly short sentences or sentences with insufficient support upon release that give rehabilitation a proper chance.
My views will always (as far as I can see).be unpopular in this country, because they invariably involve spending more money on criminals. People like to view short term results and politicians rarely have more than a 5 year interest at best. These things take more money and time than people in this country are prepared to give.
CoolHands said:
The real problem is, what do you do with all the scumbags?
There is no solution
Teach as many of them as you can to read and write, get them off drugs and into employment. There is no solution
Give those damaged by abuse psychological help.
Protect the public from the ones who can't or won't respond to the above.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Derek Smith said:
the biggest deterrent is the likelihood of being caught.
Totally agree with that, albeit dependent on the offence. Violent or crimes of passion aren't always designed to a nicety around the chance of plod catching them, for example. Some people are coerced or otherwise brought into offending willingly or unwillingly with low or no regard to the real chances of being caught. Once they are caught and dealt with, prison is not only for the deterrence of others, but also the protection of public and rehabilitation.
I'd argue one issue with current prison is overly short sentences or sentences with insufficient support upon release that give rehabilitation a proper chance.
My views will always (as far as I can see).be unpopular in this country, because they invariably involve spending more money on criminals. People like to view short term results and politicians rarely have more than a 5 year interest at best. These things take more money and time than people in this country are prepared to give.
He got 7 years, the high end of the range. He'd been remanded in custody so that was taken off his total, and he was out in under 3 years.
He offended again, a series of minor sexual offences, which then culminated in a rape, again a nasty one, and you don't get pleasant ones. This time 10 years, which he appealed against, but only got a couple of months off. When he came out this time, the DCI set up an expensive surveillance on the chap. The team was put on and they caught him offending. He got an indefinite sentence, with a minimum of 7. Everyone knows he'll offend again but there's no chance of a surveillance team being used again as there isn't the manpower.
With a number of prisoners posing no threat to the community, other forms of punishment are, the evidence shows, more suitable. We should be giving those who do pose a threat longer terms.
I was involved in the case where he got 7 years, this in 2002. He was released and then sentenced to 10 years. That's 17 in total. Yet the offence reported here, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-17479... occurred in 2011. Work that out. It's wrong.
His victim went through the hell of the series, remember a series, of sexual assaults involving penetration, all the time thinking she'd be killed. She was then forced onto an ID parade, despite there being ample, overwhelming in fact, DNA evidence to convict. She collapsed when she saw him, then got up and continued the parade. Then she was forced to give evidence in England, despite being a young German national, his brief thinking she would fail to appear. He subjected her to torture both during the offence as well as long after, the brief was culpable in the latter.
One of the volunteers, referred to disdainfully by the brief as a stooge, this despite the volunteer giving up time to go on a parade, and the brief just hoping I'd make an error he could bring up at the trial, said to the offender that if he saw him again in Brighton, he'd kill him.
The 'stooge' with more sorted morals than the brief.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 27th July 08:14
Other than taking the person out of circulation for the time they’re incarcerated, however long that may be, there are plenty of studies which show prison (as in, “being locked up”) doesn’t reduce recidivism or rehabilitate offenders.
My view is that the Scandinavian countries have a much better system, but it’s hugely expensive. Most prisons are on an almost one to one ratio of staff to prisoners. I think it’s Norway where to become a prison officer, it’s the equivalent of a three year degree course, with a degree at the end. The societal benefit is that reoffending rates are much, much lower.
Of course there will always be a small minority of people who are “unrehabilitateable”, but they are just that, a minority. It looks more expensive “up front”, but surely the reduced costs (financial and otherwise) of fewer criminals is beneficial in the long run. It’d be a very brave politician who suggested going down that route in the UK.
I’m no bleeding heart liberal (actually, maybe I am, but that’s another discussion), but we do need to try something different to what we have here. It just doesn’t work.
My view is that the Scandinavian countries have a much better system, but it’s hugely expensive. Most prisons are on an almost one to one ratio of staff to prisoners. I think it’s Norway where to become a prison officer, it’s the equivalent of a three year degree course, with a degree at the end. The societal benefit is that reoffending rates are much, much lower.
Of course there will always be a small minority of people who are “unrehabilitateable”, but they are just that, a minority. It looks more expensive “up front”, but surely the reduced costs (financial and otherwise) of fewer criminals is beneficial in the long run. It’d be a very brave politician who suggested going down that route in the UK.
I’m no bleeding heart liberal (actually, maybe I am, but that’s another discussion), but we do need to try something different to what we have here. It just doesn’t work.
Dibble said:
Other than taking the person out of circulation for the time they’re incarcerated, however long that may be, there are plenty of studies which show prison (as in, “being locked up”) doesn’t reduce recidivism or rehabilitate offenders.
My view is that the Scandinavian countries have a much better system, but it’s hugely expensive. Most prisons are on an almost one to one ratio of staff to prisoners. I think it’s Norway where to become a prison officer, it’s the equivalent of a three year degree course, with a degree at the end. The societal benefit is that reoffending rates are much, much lower.
Of course there will always be a small minority of people who are “unrehabilitateable”, but they are just that, a minority. It looks more expensive “up front”, but surely the reduced costs (financial and otherwise) of fewer criminals is beneficial in the long run. It’d be a very brave politician who suggested going down that route in the UK.
I’m no bleeding heart liberal (actually, maybe I am, but that’s another discussion), but we do need to try something different to what we have here. It just doesn’t work.
I agree - the Scandinavian countries have a far better handle on this than us. A fascinating article from the Guardian on prisons in Norway, focussing on one particular island prison, Bastoy:My view is that the Scandinavian countries have a much better system, but it’s hugely expensive. Most prisons are on an almost one to one ratio of staff to prisoners. I think it’s Norway where to become a prison officer, it’s the equivalent of a three year degree course, with a degree at the end. The societal benefit is that reoffending rates are much, much lower.
Of course there will always be a small minority of people who are “unrehabilitateable”, but they are just that, a minority. It looks more expensive “up front”, but surely the reduced costs (financial and otherwise) of fewer criminals is beneficial in the long run. It’d be a very brave politician who suggested going down that route in the UK.
I’m no bleeding heart liberal (actually, maybe I am, but that’s another discussion), but we do need to try something different to what we have here. It just doesn’t work.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/no...
It's expensive, but it would appear to work. But I can't see it catching on here any time soon. Part of our problem is a section of the public feel essentially that prison must be nasty. The Norwegian system as shown here, would attract criticism here for being cushy - a holiday camp etc.
I'm definitely at the 'bleeding heart liberal' end of the spectrum, I'll freely admit that, but I often wonder whether when society here demands 'justice' what they actually mean is 'revenge.' Justice always seems to only be served if the prisoner suffers beyond the deprivation of liberty.
I would prefer a reformist system like Norway, but whatever happens, I think that prisoners should be tagged after they are released for the remainder of their original sentence, and should be required to be at home from 9 to 6 unless previously agreed with probation officers for employment reasons.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff