Is there any point to concurrent sentencing?
Discussion
Allsmokeandmirrors said:
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.
Not really.Lock up a prolific burglar/ car thief, etc. etc and you may see a drop in a specific type of crime in an area for a short time.
However, lock up a middle/ high level drug dealer, for example, and you can have a turf war with subordinates jockying for position/ territory with the resultant murders/ shootings/ assaults/ general unpleasantness.
This tends to focus police resources and can have a knock-on effect to lower level crime.
Simply put - someone else will take their place, whether that be low level or serious crime.
Comparing the 50’s to now isn’t particularly easy to do, but these things will have an impact, and help soften the tint on the rosey spectacles...
Serious crimes- deterrence of things like the death penalty
Advancement in forensics- lots of people were not sent to prison because they weren’t identified or convicted. Transpose the same crime and circs to today and they would be.
Society- This is generally more liberal and less authoritarian. We don’t have some forms of punishment we did have as society simply doesn’t accept it as appropriate/humane/effective
Crime levels- You just cannot under estimate the growth in crime figures caused by ease of contact. You’ve only got to go back 25 years or so and a mobile phone (never mind the internet) was a rarity. People would witness a crime and simply not bother to report it as it would involve finding a phone box etc. Nowadays that’s not an issue.
Serious crimes- deterrence of things like the death penalty
Advancement in forensics- lots of people were not sent to prison because they weren’t identified or convicted. Transpose the same crime and circs to today and they would be.
Society- This is generally more liberal and less authoritarian. We don’t have some forms of punishment we did have as society simply doesn’t accept it as appropriate/humane/effective
Crime levels- You just cannot under estimate the growth in crime figures caused by ease of contact. You’ve only got to go back 25 years or so and a mobile phone (never mind the internet) was a rarity. People would witness a crime and simply not bother to report it as it would involve finding a phone box etc. Nowadays that’s not an issue.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I was interested in the claim made that there were less murders in the 50's and I looked into some data that does seem to show a real decline in murders from WW1 until the seventies (caveats not ignored of course). Could this actually be because there was a much higher ratio of females to males during this period?anonymous said:
[redacted]
That is just an out and out lie, what liberals do best.http://www.blog.murdermap.co.uk/statistics/homicid...
When was the death penalty abolished for murder?
Murders in 1950 about 300, murders in 2012 about 500. How is that a fall, it might have fell from its peak but its still far higher than it was years ago and why should having more people in the Country affect the murder rate, its just more people that have gone from wanting to murder someone to actually doing it. There are plenty of people I could stick a knife in today and not loose one second of sleep over it but I wont because I don't fancy 5 years in prison, same as in the 50s, they didn't fancy swinging from a rope.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So what was the murder rate per million people in the 50s and 60s? and why did you pick those figures, yes the number of murders had doubled as you stated but has the population gone up 10 fold? that would be from about 50 million to 500 million or has it not really increased that much in real terms when the murder rate started shooting up? I quote this era because its probably this sort of time things improved for the public, jobs were plentiful, NHS was born, you got welfare payments etc. You cant compare things to the 1800s where you got nothing and had to kill just for a loaf of bread, in the 50s and beyond you had no reason to murder anyone.
La Liga said:
He didn't say the population has gone up tenfold, he was using it as an example to try and spoon-feed proportionality to you 
You must be trolling, surely?
What point are you actually making?
He was trying to be sensationalist. The point I'm making is as soon as the death penalty was abolished the murder rate shot up, therefore its safe to assume that the deterrent of the death penalty directly affected the murder rate. Or did the population suddenly shoot up dramatically at that exact moment as well.You must be trolling, surely?
What point are you actually making?
So the point is, deterrent's work, they just have to be the right sort of deterrent.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There was a report some time ago suggesting that the murder (not homicide) rate during the second word war, especially the first three years, was the highest that century. It's an estimate as reporting was somewhat iffy in those days. The serious crime in London in the war years and subsequently was much higher than it is today. There were armed robberies every week in the 70s and 80s. When was the last time you heard of a firearm being used? The good old days were, well, murder. There was corruption all through the legal system, with offenders going unpunished. The good old days or what?
There were organised gangs running the clubs and pubs, the taxi ranks and car sales, and much else of life in London. Krays and Richardsons is not a film.
McP mentioned bodies to be discovered. There are hundreds of bodies missing from those days. Gang members used to just disappear. If you were in one of the gangs and falling out of favour with the boss, it was best to take your holidays when there were flyovers being built or massive foundations being laid. There was lots of building projects in the post war good old days.
There were professional hit men, well known, but well organised as well. There are lots of bodies out there from the good old days.
It didn't do to upset one of the big gangs in those days, even it you didn't mean to. Saying sorry just didn't cut it, not in the good old days.
I'm sure that similar things go on today. I'm sure that it is not at the same rate as it was in the good old days.
mickmcpaddy said:
He was trying to be sensationalist.
No, he was using it as part of an example to explain. mickmcpaddy said:
The point I'm making is as soon as the death penalty was abolished the murder rate shot up, therefore its safe to assume that the deterrent of the death penalty directly affected the murder rate. Or did the population suddenly shoot up dramatically at that exact moment as well.
It's not safe to assume a direct relationship at all. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
How can there be no evidence, all the evidence is in this graph I posted.
Its pretty static round 300 murders a year all the way to about 1965 when they abolished the death penalty, it then climbs almost vertically to over 700 murders a year in a short time frame, thats over double in just a few years. For you to be right there would have to been over 2 million people extra arriving annually each and every year to keep the murder rate in check pro capita, did that happen?
Its pretty static round 300 murders a year all the way to about 1965 when they abolished the death penalty, it then climbs almost vertically to over 700 murders a year in a short time frame, thats over double in just a few years. For you to be right there would have to been over 2 million people extra arriving annually each and every year to keep the murder rate in check pro capita, did that happen?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ok then lets put it another way, in 1967 your graph shows about 7 murders per million people (52 million population in 1967) whicj is 364 million, mine shows just over 300 murders. In 1994 you graph shows about 13 murders per million people (58 million in 1994) or 754 murders, my graph shows just over 700 murders. In 2015 it was 573 apparently, still nearly double from when we had the death penalty.Yep I can see now, totally different. Whichever way you cut it the murder rate has doubled since the death penalty was abolished, why is that.
BTW for the hard of thinking I've used those dates 1967/1994 as its the crossover points between the two graphs.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: If it has gone up I'm not sure it's as simple as bring back the death penalty and it'll go back down.
Mick - how many innocent people are you happy to see hang?
How many people have been wrongly convicted of serious crimes just lately with the forensic evidence we have now I'd think its pretty safe to hang guilty murderers, and if it saves just one person from being murdered or one child being raped is it not worth it.Mick - how many innocent people are you happy to see hang?
mickmcpaddy said:
How many people have been wrongly convicted of serious crimes just lately with the forensic evidence we have now I'd think its pretty safe to hang guilty murderers, and if it saves just one person from being murdered or one child being raped is it not worth it.
Here's a couple of links from 30 seconds Googlinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Which ones would you have been happy to execute based on the evidence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff