Is there any point to concurrent sentencing?
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
These Countries that have extreme sentencing for theft, do they also have a comprehensive benefits system that allows people without jobs to live a comfortable life or do they have to steal to prevent starvation?Do you really think fat Sharron is going to go on the rob in Asda to top up her Christmas booze fund if it means 10 years in chokey.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's just wishy washy liberal stuff, life is cheap in those type of Countries and whether your inside or outside a hell hole prison in some s
thole 3rd world Country it makes no odds to your daily life. Look at somewhere like China, if there is a fatal car crash everyone just drives by like nothing has happened, they're not interested so you will never stop murderers over there no matter what you do.However we are talking about the UK where most do care and value life and their freedom, however I'll wager that a lot of the brutal crimes you hear about nowadays are committed by people that originate from these types of Countries.
Take speeding for e.g. the other month I had to go to London, I know the M40 has a few mobile cameras on bridges but I didn't want the journey to take all day so I did 80+ most of the way there. And the simple reason was I wan't that bothered about getting 3 points and a fine, the risk of getting caught didn't outweigh the benefits of doing that speed. Bang me up for 48 hrs though and I'd do 70 max.
In your utopia you want to give prisoners fluffy bunnies to cuddle so they don't murder two people, isn't one one too many in the first place?
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
Theres always one
Who turns up and points out the observable and proovable example(s) of why Hang 'em High justice doesn't work, except in the fevered imaginations of the Daily Mail's readershipAllsmokeandmirrors said:
How to reduce the tax burden?
Well some ideas others have already laid out, such as prisoner work details, make them work for their food, luxuries etc doing useful work to repair infrastructure and to rehabilitate them would be a good start.
Let's take your average prisoner:Well some ideas others have already laid out, such as prisoner work details, make them work for their food, luxuries etc doing useful work to repair infrastructure and to rehabilitate them would be a good start.
Presently (and I beg to remain the obedient servant of TVR Moneypit if any of the forthcoming is an unfair reflection) they sit in their cells 22 hours a day. They eat precious little in line with that and are kept broadly in check by securely locked doors and by 26% fewer officers than we had in 2010.
Let's assume a prisoner is serving 12 months for some minor violent offence against the person. He is 22, has 4 GCEs and no transferable skills.
This work detail is, say, resurfacing a road.
Instead of being guarded by 2 blokes with truncheons, each making £80/day and fed 600 calories for £1.30, They have to...
Conduct feasibility studies into the whole thing.
Overcome the inevitable legal challenge to the same.
Train the prisoners in how to repair roads.
Feed them the 4000 calories a day they need doing this work.
Employ 1 guard per man to ensure public safety.
Arrange for the hire of portapotties.
Close pavements and offices and shops around the working area to keep their public away from violent crims looking to take hostages.
Set up safety zones around the work to contain any escape/attempted breakout.
Arrange prisoner transport to and from.
Find something else for the people who usually repair the roads to do rather than being on the Rock and Roll.
Train prison officers to use Tazer and pay them the extra.
Pay the crims not less than minimum wage.
Deal with the fallout when one inevitably gets away
Deal with the legal challenges at virtually all stages.
Tell me again about all that money it'll save.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
For the serious cases, the hardenened drug dealers, rapists, murderers and child abusers etc, ie those who never can be helped, a prison island out in the atlantic such as ascension island could make a nice diversion for them.
Just drop them off and let them live out their lives how they act in society.
If you want to be cruel to people who transgress, might I suggest ISIS controlled areas of the Middle East?Just drop them off and let them live out their lives how they act in society.
We separate ourselves from less fully evolved peoples, at least in part, by the way we treat those who fail to conform. Those who wish to regress to the middle ages can pick from any number of countries run by despotic juntas. Best of luck to them, says I.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How about a lot of the USAhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_State...
According to that chart even somewhere like San Francisco has a murder rate less than Spain (0.61 compared to 0.78). Why are lots of Countries missing of your list by the way including USA and UK?
ferrariF50lover said:
If you want to be cruel to people who transgress, might I suggest ISIS controlled areas of the Middle East?
We separate ourselves from less fully evolved peoples, at least in part, by the way we treat those who fail to conform. Those who wish to regress to the middle ages can pick from any number of countries run by despotic juntas. Best of luck to them, says I.
Transgress, is that what you call it when a 3 year old girl gets raped and mutilated? A slow death at the hands of ISIS would be too good for them, why don't you rehabilitate a few of them in your home like these dWe separate ourselves from less fully evolved peoples, at least in part, by the way we treat those who fail to conform. Those who wish to regress to the middle ages can pick from any number of countries run by despotic juntas. Best of luck to them, says I.
heads did.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/04/homeles...
TVR Moneypit said:
As a final kick in the balls, I went to see a couple of employment agencies last week, but they wanted to see my passport before putting me on their books. The problem with that is that I have had my passport taken off me and revoked, and I'm not allowed to apply for another one for the next six years.
They need your passport to prove your right to work in the UK, for no other reason.https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/evidence-supp...
Link gives you a list of alternatives. It's written for immigrants, but you can certainly provide something from the list, probably a birth certificate & NI number.
As a more general question, I was under the impression that there Probation Service found releasees a job upon their leaving prison? I've met a host of ice cream men who were in that situation.
A final (I trust not unwelcome) suggestion would be that you approach Timpsons. Their whole thing is ex-cons and second chances. I live not a million miles from their Manchester head office and will gladly offer what assistance I can if it appeals.
Douglas Quaid said:
That is a good way to spend tax imo. Get scum off the street. Even if they’re locked up for life, at least they’re not bothering law abiding people any more.
This.Plus, weigh the cost of keeping them locked up longer against what we'd save in insurance excesses and rising premiums that result from crime. Then add the fact that we'd all suffer less psychologically if there was less crime and the fact that harder sentences might act as a more effective deterrent. We'd be quids in in the long run.
ferrariF50lover said:
Stuff......
Its easy for such as yourself to sit there all cosy in your safe space whilst those commiting crimes, you seem intent on justifying continue on their merry ways impacting on the vastly law abiding citizenery of the land.You post up plenty of obstructive reasons as to why nothing but nice soft fluffy sentencing is the best way, yet ignore the evidence of your own eyes; Criminals leaving prison after being treated well continue to act as previously.
Thats known as a fail in any language you care to use, kind of the point I was originally making regarding the obvious idiocy of concurrent sentencing.
Since youve not even considered making things harder for them youve automatically hamstrung the population and sentenced them to a life of misery, all because youre unwilling/afraid/ unaware to utilise harsher alternatives.
Aversion therapy works and some people only ever learn after multiple instances of it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Shouldnt need to be. You can have both aspects, the hardest regime for those who are the hardest to crack and options for rehab amongst those that want to change.I dont see that the public should have to continue carrying the can for failures in the system though.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Course not and as you well know it was never meant to fulfill such a role. Its specifically for those kinds of offenders that will always pose a threat and cant be released due to that fact.anonymous said:
[redacted]
But equally wheres the evidence to show that softer sentencing such as concurrent options is a deterrent and "works"?In the final analysis, offenders are the problem, the public shouldnt have to put up with their negative actions nor pay the price when theyre released, to my mind the sentencing options are not being properly applied, suspended sentences for rape etc arent good for the public safety.
I don't know the answer to this problem. But I know it's a problem ....and the situation should be better than what it is. I don't believe there a one size fits all remedy....not even a multi size remedy.
What I do think is that the 'system' gives primary consideration to criminals and scant consideration for victims. I also think the public should be protected ahead of consideration for criminals. The vast majority have a fundamental right to be treated better.
Another interesting 'Cost Benefit Calculation' would be to consider the case for building more prisons and seeing what benefits and reductions would come about from lower insurance costs, lower court costs, lower police costs etc etc....and a better feeling that justice has been done.
I'd happily put more money in.
What I do think is that the 'system' gives primary consideration to criminals and scant consideration for victims. I also think the public should be protected ahead of consideration for criminals. The vast majority have a fundamental right to be treated better.
Another interesting 'Cost Benefit Calculation' would be to consider the case for building more prisons and seeing what benefits and reductions would come about from lower insurance costs, lower court costs, lower police costs etc etc....and a better feeling that justice has been done.
I'd happily put more money in.
Check through the history of crime and punishment. When punishments were high - hanging or, for recidivists, transport to Australia - the crime rate was high, much higher than today. Look to those (very few) countries with higher incarceration rates than England/Wales and then decide if these are oases of model behaviour with criminals terrified of imprisonment.
Check all those who campaign for prison reform. Read their statistics and comparisons.
The idea that higher rates of incarceration is the answer to all our ills is institutional twaddle. Logical it may be, but that's the problems with logic; it doesn't always work. Counter intuitive runs counter to logic as well as intuition. To come to any conclusion on punishment one should have evidence and the strange thing is that there's much to counter the belief that incarceration for many years works.
There is an argument for incarceration for certain, and limited, offenders but these types of offenders are in a minority, thankfully. Many of those arguing for penal reform accept this and come up with answers.
There are many other ways in which to treat offenders which are a punishment, which show the person the way their actions are viewed by society, which protect society from their offending and which can offer a way out of their lifestyle. What is remarkable is that, in the main, they are cheaper than incarceration.
We know these work because they work elsewhere.
The problem is that punishment has become a political issue so the various parties use it to obtain votes. They disregard all evidence. We had short, sharp shock way back, despite the fact that the term was invented as a joke and that it didn't work and everyone knew it didn't work. But, of course, no one is going to get elected if they suggest that sentencing should be evidence based. Think of the headlines in the DM.
Concurrent sentences are not a fudge. They are a reasonable response to limitations, some of which are based in law, forced on the legal system by politicians who haven't got the nerve, nor the decency, to do what is best for the country.
Check all those who campaign for prison reform. Read their statistics and comparisons.
The idea that higher rates of incarceration is the answer to all our ills is institutional twaddle. Logical it may be, but that's the problems with logic; it doesn't always work. Counter intuitive runs counter to logic as well as intuition. To come to any conclusion on punishment one should have evidence and the strange thing is that there's much to counter the belief that incarceration for many years works.
There is an argument for incarceration for certain, and limited, offenders but these types of offenders are in a minority, thankfully. Many of those arguing for penal reform accept this and come up with answers.
There are many other ways in which to treat offenders which are a punishment, which show the person the way their actions are viewed by society, which protect society from their offending and which can offer a way out of their lifestyle. What is remarkable is that, in the main, they are cheaper than incarceration.
We know these work because they work elsewhere.
The problem is that punishment has become a political issue so the various parties use it to obtain votes. They disregard all evidence. We had short, sharp shock way back, despite the fact that the term was invented as a joke and that it didn't work and everyone knew it didn't work. But, of course, no one is going to get elected if they suggest that sentencing should be evidence based. Think of the headlines in the DM.
Concurrent sentences are not a fudge. They are a reasonable response to limitations, some of which are based in law, forced on the legal system by politicians who haven't got the nerve, nor the decency, to do what is best for the country.
Ideally a society where the quality of life is such that most petty crime is simply not worth the effort or risk.
Failing that for those convicted of multiple lower level crimes some jail time then consecutive suspended sentences that will mean even a single reoffense in the next decade will put them back inside for a while.
Failing that for those convicted of multiple lower level crimes some jail time then consecutive suspended sentences that will mean even a single reoffense in the next decade will put them back inside for a while.
The key political impediment faced by ministers that stops them implementing sensible prison policy is their fear of being seen as being "soft on crime". They run scared of ignorance. Having an opinion isn't good enough. If you're going to vote and therefore impose your opinion on the rest of us you have a duty to try to hold informed opinions. So spend a few minutes informing yourselves, or don't vote. Anyone who thinks tougher sentencing and gaol conditions would act as a deterrent, save money, reduce crime or serve any other useful purpose, go do some reading.
BugLebowski said:
ATG said:
Anyone who thinks tougher sentencing and gaol conditions would act as a deterrent, save money, reduce crime or serve any other useful purpose, go do some reading.
Is simple punishment not a useful purpose? BugLebowski said:
Is simple punishment not a useful purpose?
Has anyone advocating a different penal system suggested no punishment? The point is that there are more effective, productive, cheaper and proven methods than imprisonment for most offenders.
Surely the purpose of a punishment is to deter. As the poster stated, it falls on this simple hurdle.
The best deterrent, proved in many tests, is the likelihood of being caught. The next is a successful prosecution. If, for instance, some of the money saved by not imprisoning offenders was spent of effective policing and prosecution then there would be fewer offenders. The continual cuts to the police service and the CPS means that there will be more offending.
Rapists are released and go on to offend. This is odd MO and DNA will identify a repeat offender and then know this. Yet they continue to offend.
Let's take this chap: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/6766025.Raped_stude...
Offended and then, despite his DNA being on the police list, put the 17 year old through a series of sexual assaults of which rape was only one. He was arrested, charged, found guilty, sentenced to 7 years. On release he offended again almost immediately and was imprisoned again. He was again released and was they the subject of a surveillance. He offended again. He has an indefinite sentence at the moment.
This type of offender, and this kind of series of offences means that prison has no effect on him whatsoever. Clear the prisons of unnecessary clutter and bang up his kind for extended periods from the start, and treatment.
Let the punishment reflect the crime. Seven years for the first rape and other sexual offences was spot on for the guidance at the time. It's a bit lower now I believe. Double it. The man is not civilised. Let the prison try and sort him out so that when he's released, many years ahead, there is a good chance of him not reoffending. As it is he's just a bomb waiting to go off.
There is something to be said that prison needs to be more than a deterrent, but it’s still a valuable and viable option. I think the problem is our prison system is neither/or. It tries to combine deterrence with rehabilitation and fails (more often than not) with both.
A part of Texas ( I forget exactly where) had a recidivism rate that was massively lower than comparable areas, all based on the harshness of its penal option.
However, they did lots of things that many people wouldn’t condone (paid more to feed the guard dogs than prisoners, used chain gangs, had very basic conditions, with tents in the middle of the desert), one of which I remember stuck in my mind.
They got taken to court because they refused to allow inmates to watch TV. Lost. Had to install TV’s. Had all TVs permanently tuned into the weather channel so inmates could see how hot it was going to be.
With conditions so poor people really didn’t want to go back.
Wouldn’t wash in the UK, so there is no chance of our prison system being so vile that that in itself would adequately prevent people from choosing to commit the crime. I would argue and say the “punishment” part of the equation is adequately covered (and about as “harsh” as the UK would accept) by the merely being there (limited options to interact with your family, friends, grim facilities and surrounded by bedlam), so the main “function” of the prison system should be to “rehabilitate” (which should include help for mental health, physical health, literacy, employment prospects etc.)
If it doesn’t rehabilitate much more in the future it perpetuates a revolving door as the “deterrence” doesn’t work because it isn’t harsh enough, yet enough isn’t been done to equip people with the skills, self worth and self belief to do anything different.
There will always be a cohort of offenders who are beyond rehab (think Ian Brady, very radicalised terrorists and such like) but I’ve seen some hardcore criminals turned around with some pretty basic assistance and guidance.
A part of Texas ( I forget exactly where) had a recidivism rate that was massively lower than comparable areas, all based on the harshness of its penal option.
However, they did lots of things that many people wouldn’t condone (paid more to feed the guard dogs than prisoners, used chain gangs, had very basic conditions, with tents in the middle of the desert), one of which I remember stuck in my mind.
They got taken to court because they refused to allow inmates to watch TV. Lost. Had to install TV’s. Had all TVs permanently tuned into the weather channel so inmates could see how hot it was going to be.
With conditions so poor people really didn’t want to go back.
Wouldn’t wash in the UK, so there is no chance of our prison system being so vile that that in itself would adequately prevent people from choosing to commit the crime. I would argue and say the “punishment” part of the equation is adequately covered (and about as “harsh” as the UK would accept) by the merely being there (limited options to interact with your family, friends, grim facilities and surrounded by bedlam), so the main “function” of the prison system should be to “rehabilitate” (which should include help for mental health, physical health, literacy, employment prospects etc.)
If it doesn’t rehabilitate much more in the future it perpetuates a revolving door as the “deterrence” doesn’t work because it isn’t harsh enough, yet enough isn’t been done to equip people with the skills, self worth and self belief to do anything different.
There will always be a cohort of offenders who are beyond rehab (think Ian Brady, very radicalised terrorists and such like) but I’ve seen some hardcore criminals turned around with some pretty basic assistance and guidance.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff