Is there any point to concurrent sentencing?
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
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.
Lets take weed for eg. I would imagine loads of people who post on here smoke weed, and I would imagine loads of people on here have also holidayed in places like Dubai or The Philippines or similar type of Countries. Yet how many of those people have smoked weed in those places, not many I'll wager and I would imagine it because they don't want to spend the next 10 years in the Bangkok Hilton.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
Its easy for such as yourself to sit there all cosy in your safe space whilst those commiting crimes... continue on their merry ways impacting on the vastly law abiding citizenery of the land.
No easier than it is for you to say we should just sentence everyone to a billion years hard labour and to hell with the consequences.Allsmokeandmirrors said:
you seem intent on justifying {criminals}
While simply making stuff up might work to convince the stupidest 52% of turkeys to vote for Christmas, it won't wash here, I'm afraid.Allsmokeandmirrors said:
You post up plenty of obstructive reasons...
None of which you have even attempted to counter, rendering your whole standpoint redundant.You want prisoners to earn their keep. I'm telling you what it'll cost and what the implications are.
"If my answers frighten you, you should cease asking scary questions."
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
nice soft fluffy sentencing is the best way
Two alternatives to what we currently have were proposed (draconian sentencing and singing for one's supper). I gave you a failed example of the former and a list of obstacles to the latter. My thoughts on the present system haven't been mentioned.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
yet ignore the evidence of your own eyes; Criminals leaving prison after being treated well continue to act as previously.
We really are into fantasy land here now.My own eyes have knowingly seen one released convict; the ice cream man mentioned in a previous post.
Prisoners are not treated especially well in jail, by the account of TVR.
You don't seem one for facts, but we'll use some anyway:
One reliable but limited source suggests the recividism rates for adult offenders sentenced to more than 12-months inside is just below 30% in the UK (I must stress this dataset is limited, but the stats gleaned from it will be highly reliable).
Contrastingly, in the USA (It is common ground that their penal system is much more harsh than ours?), one source from a larger, but older, study shows recividism rates at more than 56%.
The other fatal issue with your argument is your unwillingness to accept that these things are deeply complex.
A slightly trash documentary last night was on the BBC (presented by the delightful Stacey Dooley). It was hardly scholarly, but made the point quite well that, often, outright punishment treats the symptoms but not the disease.
Were I Secretary of State for the Justice Department and in possession of compromising photographs of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thereby allowing me to dip with impugnity into his little red briefcase, my first investment would be in significant rehabilitation efforts. As I sit here today, I haven't the research to hand, but I suspect a sensible starting point would be in tackling addiction and mental health issues, with education, workplace skills and social norms (reenfranchisement) a close second.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
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.
One well referenced source shows the difficulty in comparing recividism rates internationally, given there is no standard reporting period, sample size or other control. However, from a cursory glance around the world, the UK's quoted rate (as above) seems about median average. A number of places are above 50%, so we certainly could be doing worse.You've somehow equated consecutive sentencing with lower recividism rates. I can find no authority supporting that claim.
Concurrent sentencing serves a number of important roles. It ensures that all crimes are properly accounted for, that all sentences are undertaken and that the totality principle is upheld. Further, it maintains the unwritten principle of a sliding scale according to seriousness. If we start doling out 1000 year sentences to drug dealers caught with 100 wraps of cocaine on them, even if we sentence the likes of Dale Cregan to a billion squillion zillion years, we're effectively and practically giving them the same punishment, which simply isn't right.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
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.
Christ, this again. Punitive, draconian punishment doesn't work. The threat of the death penalty doesn't work. Life plus 1000 year sentences don't work. America's jail rate is 0.91%, ours is 0.13%. If we had that same percentage, our prison population would not be the 85,000 it is today, but 595,000.
If we allow that a 2000 inmate prison costs £250m just to build (these numbers are not a guess), then our capital outlay for capacity alone is £63,750,000,000. That's sixty three and three quarter billion pounds. Not to mention the £1.75bn/year we'd need to pay for prison guards, plus food, water, heating, power, kitting out, rehab, overtime, maintenance, other staff, medical, transport, security etc etc etc. It would bankrupt the country.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
Aversion therapy works and some people only ever learn after multiple instances of it.
You went to all that effort to show us that harsh sentencing would put people off committing crime and relapsing once out, then you end on this? You're pulling my leg. "The Flat Earth Society has members all round the globe"!
I must applaud the people trying to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
OP, if the only thing stopping someone from breaking the laws that the society has, is the fear of dreadful reprisal, hasn't the society failed?
A guy got killed in a car park argument a few years ago at my (formerly) local Asda. One punch, bam, dead. The puncher wasn't thinking about the risk of punishment at all when he threw the punch. He was thinking about punching someone. Because of a parking space. Do you not think that this is a ridiculous over-reaction, and that something fundamental has failed in this person's development or self-care for them to think that punching someone due to a parking space debate is a reasonable action ever?
OP, if the only thing stopping someone from breaking the laws that the society has, is the fear of dreadful reprisal, hasn't the society failed?
A guy got killed in a car park argument a few years ago at my (formerly) local Asda. One punch, bam, dead. The puncher wasn't thinking about the risk of punishment at all when he threw the punch. He was thinking about punching someone. Because of a parking space. Do you not think that this is a ridiculous over-reaction, and that something fundamental has failed in this person's development or self-care for them to think that punching someone due to a parking space debate is a reasonable action ever?
ferrariF50lover said:
Concurrent sentencing serves a number of important roles. It ensures that all crimes are properly accounted for, that all sentences are undertaken and that the totality principle is upheld.
So using your example of all crimes being accounted for, should Peter Sutcliffe now be released?He has 13 murders under his belt, and attempted seven others, yet under your concurrent sentencing rule, if he got [sarc] life [/sarc] and was released after 20 for being a good boy inside his debt would be paid in full? Is that about the size of the point you were trying to make?
You and others like you are forgetting one thing- the victims and what remains of their families.
ferrariF50lover said:
Christ, this again. Punitive, draconian punishment doesn't work. The threat of the death penalty doesn't work. Life plus 1000 year sentences don't work.
Talk about snow blindness. When theyre not IN society theyre not HURTING society. Thats the point of putting them away.
When theyre locked behind bars theyre not raping your kids, so I beg to differ, jailtime DOES work, it physically prevents offenders from continuing onwards.
Whether it deters or not is as youve suggested, questionable, but in the first instance I wasnt making any judgements on that point, Im still questioning the con of concurrent sentences.
TVR Moneypit said:
I missed this one yesterday.
Please, tell me from your own personal experience, examples of prisoners being treated "well" and what prison they were at, as I'd love to hear all about it?
It wouldnt matter what I said, youre in an entrenched position.Please, tell me from your own personal experience, examples of prisoners being treated "well" and what prison they were at, as I'd love to hear all about it?
TVR Moneypit said:
Also, when looking at re-offending rates, there is one small fact that often gets overlooked. Namely the fact that the homeless will often commit low level crime and get caught on purpose in order to secure a roof over their head and fed, abelt in prison, in preference to sleeping on the streets, especially as winter draws in.
And thats a damning indictment of societies failure to address the issue raised, its got nothing to do with concurrent sentencing rules being applied.I’d have to agree with TVR. Treated “well” in so far as their very basic needs are met, but not a lot more.
I’ve been in a few prisons. Not one didn’t make me shudder.
Decrepit in the main. Understaffed. Under resourced.Housing a large percentage of people with diagnosed and undiagnosed mental health issues. Generally amazes me that the staff manage to keep a lid on it at all.
I’d refer back to my original post. Fall between two stools, being neither focused on being punitive nor sufficiently geared up to stop recidivism.
As a result the general prison population (I.e those who aren’t beyond help) get very little from being incarcerated and often come out worse off than when they went in.
It is an arguement that when they are “inside” wider society get some respite from their offending, but that’s a bit like putting a bucket under a leaking roof. Does nothing to stop them almost being forced into reoffending on the outside.
I’ve been in a few prisons. Not one didn’t make me shudder.
Decrepit in the main. Understaffed. Under resourced.Housing a large percentage of people with diagnosed and undiagnosed mental health issues. Generally amazes me that the staff manage to keep a lid on it at all.
I’d refer back to my original post. Fall between two stools, being neither focused on being punitive nor sufficiently geared up to stop recidivism.
As a result the general prison population (I.e those who aren’t beyond help) get very little from being incarcerated and often come out worse off than when they went in.
It is an arguement that when they are “inside” wider society get some respite from their offending, but that’s a bit like putting a bucket under a leaking roof. Does nothing to stop them almost being forced into reoffending on the outside.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
ferrariF50lover said:
Concurrent sentencing serves a number of important roles. It ensures that all crimes are properly accounted for, that all sentences are undertaken and that the totality principle is upheld.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
So using your example of all crimes being accounted for, should Peter Sutcliffe now be released?
It wasn't an example.You have misunderstood, really rather spectacularly.
There are a number of legal principles involved in charging, trying, and sentencing which are too complex to explore here in detail. For brevity's sake (and because I grow weary of, as someone else put it, endeavoring to reason a person out of a position into which he has not reasoned himself) I shall leave it to you to explore what is meant by 'properly accounting for' all offences while maintaining the principle of totality.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
He has 13 murders under his belt, and attempted seven others, yet under your concurrent sentencing rule
Let us be quite clear, these are not my rules.A man convicted today of his crimes would be sentenced to a whole life order. Indeed, the sentencing notes (which you will have read during your research, no doubt) show clearly that the Judge, Mr Justice Boreham, remarked both that he wished for Sutcliffe's sentence to be greater than the 30 years, and regarding his lamentations that he did not feel able, such werr the statutory provisions of the day, able to pass what today we call a whole life order.
Allsmokeandmirrors] if he got [sarc] life [/sarc said:
and was released after 20 for being a good boy inside his debt would be paid in full?
This element, better than any other, evidences just how little you actually know about our legal system. There's more wrong with this than I can really [be arsed to] tackle. As before, I shall leave it to you to take the time to understand the system you seem to so despise. As a genuine offer, I have an old(ish) edition of Slapper and Kelly taking up valuable space on a bookshelf. If you let me have a suitable address, I will send it on to you.I had intended to reply more fully, but I am finding it harder and harder to even begin to penetrate the levels of ignorance and illogic, let alone deal with them fully.
That said, I would ask that you retract your statement suggesting that I have "forgotten" the victims of crime and their families. That's an appaling notion leveled unfairly, inaccurately and without basis in fact or evidence.
I doff my cap to MidEnginedCoupe (which one, out of interest?) for his gallantry in the face of dealing with others who have little more to offer than, 'chop their cocks off'. Over to you.
ferrariF50lover said:
Lots.
A family member when in their younger days embarked on a career that involved doing certain things which society and the rest of their family deemed downright criminal at least,No amount of threats worked, no amount of warnings had any effect whatsoever and they persisted in their criminality until their eventual arrest and trial at crown court after a varied criminal career.
Ill not go into the specifics of what they were doing except to say that what they did marked their card for some considerable period of time and they received 3 years in jail, rightly so.
Had they been of a more amenable nature at that time in their life they would have probably been released before their due date, but far from accepting the fact that they had gotten themselves into this predicament, they continued to kick against the system they found themselves in and in the end served over the 3 year term originally handed out, youd never get that these days.
The person in question always reckoned it was cushy in their jail, drugs were easily aquired to pass the time, booze, smokes etc and they wernt locked up for 24 hours a day, had their own tv and video games, plus a job inside which all made it more bearable.
The hardest thing to deal with was the lack of freedom to leave the place though.
After serving their time, they took up a local job, low paid and long hours but it kept them out of trouble and they slowly improved themselves to the point that they became a stable member of society, not a burden to it.
Some 30 years later that person hasnt re-offended even once and they ascribe their lack of re-offending down to one simple aspect- deprivation of their liberty.
Every copper will tell you that when a high profile offender gets removed from society then criminal offences drop whilst theyre inside, I feel that fact alone makes a mockery of the concurrent sentencing option, it shortens terms and has zero to do with justice, its all about paper shuffling and keeping costs down at the end of the day.
Every copper will tell you offences drop when inside, er no, not in the main.
In the odd isolated case perhaps with a prolific burglar or car thief where they target their offending against a particular thing. I’d agree here we would see a temporary reduction in offending. Indeed a few years ago one particular oxygen thief was responsible for over 90% of thefts from cars in my area (accurate because when he got caught he had an encyclopaedic recall for what he’d done and wanted to come out of prison with nothing hanging over his head that would send him straight back.)
But in general terms, it makes little to no discernible difference.
In some cases it makes things worse.
For example, drug dealer gets sent to prison. Creates a vacuum in the supply chain that others, opposing each other, step in to fill. Follows with violence, shootings and lord knows what else. Now, I’m not suggesting not sending the dealer to prison but simply recognising that “removing” the offender is only one part of breaking the cycle.
That’s why it’s important to look at the “wider “ picture. Prison has its place in the criminal justice system but in isolation simply increasing sentence length and sentencing frequency wouldn’t have the effect many would assume it would.
In the odd isolated case perhaps with a prolific burglar or car thief where they target their offending against a particular thing. I’d agree here we would see a temporary reduction in offending. Indeed a few years ago one particular oxygen thief was responsible for over 90% of thefts from cars in my area (accurate because when he got caught he had an encyclopaedic recall for what he’d done and wanted to come out of prison with nothing hanging over his head that would send him straight back.)
But in general terms, it makes little to no discernible difference.
In some cases it makes things worse.
For example, drug dealer gets sent to prison. Creates a vacuum in the supply chain that others, opposing each other, step in to fill. Follows with violence, shootings and lord knows what else. Now, I’m not suggesting not sending the dealer to prison but simply recognising that “removing” the offender is only one part of breaking the cycle.
That’s why it’s important to look at the “wider “ picture. Prison has its place in the criminal justice system but in isolation simply increasing sentence length and sentencing frequency wouldn’t have the effect many would assume it would.
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
The person in question always reckoned it was cushy in their jail, drugs were easily aquired to pass the time, booze, smokes etc and they wernt locked up for 24 hours a day, had their own tv and video games, plus a job inside which all made it more bearable.
I'm fairly sure that smokes have always been akin to currency and I don't doubt that drugs can be acquired. Big deal.As for the rest how much is that recital bigging it up for your benefit and to make it seem like a holiday camp?
How would you know the reality of the conditions inside unless you were in there with them?
I've been in a number of jails, including those used for prisoners on remand. I've yet to find one I'd enjoy spending any time in.
The one that was most objectionable was a woman's wing of a prison. That was unbelievable. I wondered why I'd been given the nice day out in the smoke. I'd seen the films on women in prison, and they were way, way off reality.
Yet, as pointed out, the worst thing about prison, everyone says, is the fact that the doors are locked; it is regimented. Individuals make no choices.
I've been to Arundel, an 'open' prison. It is used for those people who are seen as no threat to society - which begs the question as to why we are spending all than money incarcerating them - and those at the end of their sentence. It is the typical 'soft touch', with TVs, games rooms, a well equipped gym and such. It was not a nice place. I've been to holiday camps as well and they don't even get near it for horribleness. No matter how it is dressed, an open prison is still regimented. The rules are lax, but they are still rules.
If, as some suggest, some of the inmates enjoy their time, then they are very strange indeed.
The one that was most objectionable was a woman's wing of a prison. That was unbelievable. I wondered why I'd been given the nice day out in the smoke. I'd seen the films on women in prison, and they were way, way off reality.
Yet, as pointed out, the worst thing about prison, everyone says, is the fact that the doors are locked; it is regimented. Individuals make no choices.
I've been to Arundel, an 'open' prison. It is used for those people who are seen as no threat to society - which begs the question as to why we are spending all than money incarcerating them - and those at the end of their sentence. It is the typical 'soft touch', with TVs, games rooms, a well equipped gym and such. It was not a nice place. I've been to holiday camps as well and they don't even get near it for horribleness. No matter how it is dressed, an open prison is still regimented. The rules are lax, but they are still rules.
If, as some suggest, some of the inmates enjoy their time, then they are very strange indeed.
If you are living a chaotic lifestyle, bereft of a supportive family or friends, with no support network, no colleagues, no functioning relationships and no employment then having some form of order imposed on you for a time isn’t all bad. You are in company with like minded people. This is true of many low level criminals. For these people getting arrested holds broadly the same level of ‘fear’ as would an unanticipated trip to the dentist for someone law abiding and in employment.
If you are generally law abiding and find yourself in the unlikely situation of facing a stint in custody, assuming you have functioning relationships, a job etc, it would probably be a nightmare of epic proportions.
All depends on your baseline. For a typical PH reader custody would be very unpleasant while for the hardcore, it’s not that big of a deal.
I agree with the point made earlier. Prison should be punishment first, rehab second. I’m far more concerned with the lives of ‘victims’ than I am with those who do others harm. All the statistics and evidence in the world don’t change the fact that if someone is locked up they have very limited ability to cause others harm.
If you are generally law abiding and find yourself in the unlikely situation of facing a stint in custody, assuming you have functioning relationships, a job etc, it would probably be a nightmare of epic proportions.
All depends on your baseline. For a typical PH reader custody would be very unpleasant while for the hardcore, it’s not that big of a deal.
I agree with the point made earlier. Prison should be punishment first, rehab second. I’m far more concerned with the lives of ‘victims’ than I am with those who do others harm. All the statistics and evidence in the world don’t change the fact that if someone is locked up they have very limited ability to cause others harm.
"As a result the general prison population (I.e those who aren’t beyond help) get very little from being incarcerated and often come out worse off than when they went in."
Lock them up for longer then !. I've known and seen absolute scum bags and they almost get away with murder. Little hard men who beat up and terrorise old people in their homes, in some cases the people never recover and die from despair or fear.
Lock them up for longer then !. I've known and seen absolute scum bags and they almost get away with murder. Little hard men who beat up and terrorise old people in their homes, in some cases the people never recover and die from despair or fear.
TVR Moneypit said:
There's a little something called "totality" for starters. That is the overall sentence must fit the crime.
Or to put it into terms that you may more easily relate to, Mr (tax paying, middle class, middle management, wife and two kids), Average Joe travels along the M1 in his mid range Mondeo for 25 miles in light traffic and good weather at 80 mph. Under your rules, that would mean 25 x SP30's = 6 1/4 consecutive driving bans, which would likely mean loss of job, which would likely mean loss of home.
But the analogy is wrong, if Mr average tax payer triggered five speed cameras in that long single journey, he could get 15 points and be banned, they most definitely would not be judged concurrently.Or to put it into terms that you may more easily relate to, Mr (tax paying, middle class, middle management, wife and two kids), Average Joe travels along the M1 in his mid range Mondeo for 25 miles in light traffic and good weather at 80 mph. Under your rules, that would mean 25 x SP30's = 6 1/4 consecutive driving bans, which would likely mean loss of job, which would likely mean loss of home.
Mickmcpaddy is the ultimate pub-rant bore. Stumbling from one stupid suggestion to the next and willing to talk bobbins on any subject. If one needs an indication as to why politicians water things down to the lowest common denominator...
"Take their TVs away" - This'll cause more problems.
"Adopt the American system" - Obviously doesn't have a prohibitive effect.
"Liberal (as an insult)" - 'Liberal' prison systems are really the only real success stories.
"Chop their cocks off!"
"Take their TVs away" - This'll cause more problems.
"Adopt the American system" - Obviously doesn't have a prohibitive effect.
"Liberal (as an insult)" - 'Liberal' prison systems are really the only real success stories.
"Chop their cocks off!"
La Liga said:
Mickmcpaddy is the ultimate pub-rant bore. Stumbling from one stupid suggestion to the next and willing to talk bobbins on any subject. If one needs an indication as to why politicians water things down to the lowest common denominator...
"Take their TVs away" - This'll cause more problems.
"Adopt the American system" - Obviously doesn't have a prohibitive effect.
"Liberal (as an insult)" - 'Liberal' prison systems are really the only sucess stories.
"Chop their cocks off!"
So you say, so why was crime a lot lower years ago when we had things like the birch? Dont tell me, crime was just as bad, there were just as many murders in the 50s as there are now we just haven't located the bodies yet."Take their TVs away" - This'll cause more problems.
"Adopt the American system" - Obviously doesn't have a prohibitive effect.
"Liberal (as an insult)" - 'Liberal' prison systems are really the only sucess stories.
"Chop their cocks off!"
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff