Is there any point to concurrent sentencing?
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Here's a couple of links from 30 seconds Googling
https://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?
The last wrongful conviction for murder was 12 years ago, so keep them in a squalid cell for a decade and then hang them. Should be enough for the doubters out there. https://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?
Edited by mickmcpaddy on Friday 29th December 17:57
mickmcpaddy said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Here's a couple of links from 30 seconds Googling
https://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?
The last wrongful conviction for murder was 12 years ago, so keep them in a squalid cell for a decade and then hang them. Should be enough for the doubters out there. https://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?
Why not 16?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Mol...
mickmcpaddy said:
La Liga said:
"The graphs show exactly the same."
Brilliant!
Of course it shows the same, any idiot can see that with a bit of working out. In all the encounters with the police I've had everyone of them has been a condescending dick head.Brilliant!
It doesn't show 'exactly the same', as you wrote.
One takes into account population growth, the other doesn't.
It's not hard.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: OK so any particular reason you picked 10 years?
Why not 16?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Mol...
Because with today's forensics its a lot more clear cut, 10 years is more than enough.Why not 16?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Mol...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Homicide, for the purposes of recording crime statistics, includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide. It means, more or less, unlawful killing.Manslaughter being included in the stats and considered interchangeable with murder makes any suggestion of the numbers proving correlation between murder rates and penalties is nonsensical. Manslaughter normally excludes the intent to kill. Most such offences are spontaneous, an unconscious reaction to stimuli.
mickmcpaddy said:
Because with today's forensics its a lot more clear cut, 10 years is more than enough.
Forensics are better but mistakes (or worse) can still happenhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/21/fo...
Of course, you'd like to think that in a murder case there would be more scrutiny but again how many innocent people would you be prepared to see hang in the name of "deterrence"?
You said it's "pretty safe" but can you put a number on it?
As someone who's served a multi year prison sentence a long time ago I simply don't beklieve TVR is correct in his talk of most people in there wanting to go straight if they have the option. All I ever heard was people talking about the big scores they're planning for when they go out 
. And relatively few people taking advantage of the options available to them even if they are a load of crap. What else are you going to do with your day otherwise, watch Jeremy Kyle or Loose Women? You might as well get stuck into the training courses, even if they are mostly junk.
I think I would pretty much divide prisoners up in the main into 3 groups, and you probably need to deal with them all in drastically different ways.
Junkies - probably the most difficult to deal with. Does anyone honestly think a 15 month sentence rather than 3 x 5 month ones served concurrently is going to make a blind bit of difference to their decision whether to go out and burgle 3 old ladies tonight? They need some heroin right now, to hell with the consequences. Likewise they aren't concerned whether they'd have a tv or get a hot lunch. I think for this group you need to force them off of drugs. I'd keep them all in Solitary for 6 months, no visits that didnt involve a plate of glass and a phone etc. OR just accept they're going to use, and give them it all via a prescription. I bet you'd almost never see a story about an old lady having her house burgled if you could get a prescription for heroin or coke. I don't think there will ever be the political wlll to do do this though.
"unlucky" or one off dumb people - the group who don't particularly live a criminal lifestyle as such. Say someone who just got drunk and glassed smeone in a bar. Or fell asleep on the motorray and caused a crash. Or found their wife in bed with a neighbour and murdered the pair of them. These people had no intention to offend in the first place, or they did but it was an immediate decision because of the red mist decending. Again how you treat them inside will have zero effect on whether the offence took place in the first place. I spoke to a bunch if guys who were in because of driving offences where someone died... I haven't checked but I'd be amazed if any of them landed back inside in the last 10 years or so. Their punishment was loss of liberty and it was devastating to 100% of them, it just seems cruel to feed them slops and have them stare at a wall 24/7. And I think if you did go beyond normal punishment you might mess them up in the head enough you cause further issues when they get back out.
last group I'd call 'real' criminals. The big boys in for serious offending, living a criminal lifestyle but not one driven by the needle or crack pipe. I would say I was in that group and for me there was some level of risk/reward calculation. I never intended to go down in the first place so whether (as example) you were going to give me 2 x 3 year sentences concurrently or consequetively, likely wouldn't have played much (or any) factor in whether I worked on that job that week.
. And relatively few people taking advantage of the options available to them even if they are a load of crap. What else are you going to do with your day otherwise, watch Jeremy Kyle or Loose Women? You might as well get stuck into the training courses, even if they are mostly junk. I think I would pretty much divide prisoners up in the main into 3 groups, and you probably need to deal with them all in drastically different ways.
Junkies - probably the most difficult to deal with. Does anyone honestly think a 15 month sentence rather than 3 x 5 month ones served concurrently is going to make a blind bit of difference to their decision whether to go out and burgle 3 old ladies tonight? They need some heroin right now, to hell with the consequences. Likewise they aren't concerned whether they'd have a tv or get a hot lunch. I think for this group you need to force them off of drugs. I'd keep them all in Solitary for 6 months, no visits that didnt involve a plate of glass and a phone etc. OR just accept they're going to use, and give them it all via a prescription. I bet you'd almost never see a story about an old lady having her house burgled if you could get a prescription for heroin or coke. I don't think there will ever be the political wlll to do do this though.
"unlucky" or one off dumb people - the group who don't particularly live a criminal lifestyle as such. Say someone who just got drunk and glassed smeone in a bar. Or fell asleep on the motorray and caused a crash. Or found their wife in bed with a neighbour and murdered the pair of them. These people had no intention to offend in the first place, or they did but it was an immediate decision because of the red mist decending. Again how you treat them inside will have zero effect on whether the offence took place in the first place. I spoke to a bunch if guys who were in because of driving offences where someone died... I haven't checked but I'd be amazed if any of them landed back inside in the last 10 years or so. Their punishment was loss of liberty and it was devastating to 100% of them, it just seems cruel to feed them slops and have them stare at a wall 24/7. And I think if you did go beyond normal punishment you might mess them up in the head enough you cause further issues when they get back out.
last group I'd call 'real' criminals. The big boys in for serious offending, living a criminal lifestyle but not one driven by the needle or crack pipe. I would say I was in that group and for me there was some level of risk/reward calculation. I never intended to go down in the first place so whether (as example) you were going to give me 2 x 3 year sentences concurrently or consequetively, likely wouldn't have played much (or any) factor in whether I worked on that job that week.
Algarve said:
As someone who's served a multi year prison sentence a long time ago I simply don't beklieve TVR is correct in his talk of most people in there wanting to go straight if they have the option. All I ever heard was people talking about the big scores they're planning for when they go out . And relatively few people taking advantage of the options available to them even if they are a load of crap. What else are you going to do with your day otherwise, watch Jeremy Kyle or Loose Women? You might as well get stuck into the training courses, even if they are mostly junk.
I think I would pretty much divide prisoners up in the main into 3 groups, and you probably need to deal with them all in drastically different ways.
Junkies - probably the most difficult to deal with. Does anyone honestly think a 15 month sentence rather than 3 x 5 month ones served concurrently is going to make a blind bit of difference to their decision whether to go out and burgle 3 old ladies tonight? They need some heroin right now, to hell with the consequences. Likewise they aren't concerned whether they'd have a tv or get a hot lunch. I think for this group you need to force them off of drugs. I'd keep them all in Solitary for 6 months, no visits that didnt involve a plate of glass and a phone etc. OR just accept they're going to use, and give them it all via a prescription. I bet you'd almost never see a story about an old lady having her house burgled if you could get a prescription for heroin or coke. I don't think there will ever be the political wlll to do do this though.
"unlucky" or one off dumb people - the group who don't particularly live a criminal lifestyle as such. Say someone who just got drunk and glassed smeone in a bar. Or fell asleep on the motorray and caused a crash. Or found their wife in bed with a neighbour and murdered the pair of them. These people had no intention to offend in the first place, or they did but it was an immediate decision because of the red mist decending. Again how you treat them inside will have zero effect on whether the offence took place in the first place. I spoke to a bunch if guys who were in because of driving offences where someone died... I haven't checked but I'd be amazed if any of them landed back inside in the last 10 years or so. Their punishment was loss of liberty and it was devastating to 100% of them, it just seems cruel to feed them slops and have them stare at a wall 24/7. And I think if you did go beyond normal punishment you might mess them up in the head enough you cause further issues when they get back out.
last group I'd call 'real' criminals. The big boys in for serious offending, living a criminal lifestyle but not one driven by the needle or crack pipe. I would say I was in that group and for me there was some level of risk/reward calculation. I never intended to go down in the first place so whether (as example) you were going to give me 2 x 3 year sentences concurrently or consequetively, likely wouldn't have played much (or any) factor in whether I worked on that job that week.
Wot 'e said. . And relatively few people taking advantage of the options available to them even if they are a load of crap. What else are you going to do with your day otherwise, watch Jeremy Kyle or Loose Women? You might as well get stuck into the training courses, even if they are mostly junk. I think I would pretty much divide prisoners up in the main into 3 groups, and you probably need to deal with them all in drastically different ways.
Junkies - probably the most difficult to deal with. Does anyone honestly think a 15 month sentence rather than 3 x 5 month ones served concurrently is going to make a blind bit of difference to their decision whether to go out and burgle 3 old ladies tonight? They need some heroin right now, to hell with the consequences. Likewise they aren't concerned whether they'd have a tv or get a hot lunch. I think for this group you need to force them off of drugs. I'd keep them all in Solitary for 6 months, no visits that didnt involve a plate of glass and a phone etc. OR just accept they're going to use, and give them it all via a prescription. I bet you'd almost never see a story about an old lady having her house burgled if you could get a prescription for heroin or coke. I don't think there will ever be the political wlll to do do this though.
"unlucky" or one off dumb people - the group who don't particularly live a criminal lifestyle as such. Say someone who just got drunk and glassed smeone in a bar. Or fell asleep on the motorray and caused a crash. Or found their wife in bed with a neighbour and murdered the pair of them. These people had no intention to offend in the first place, or they did but it was an immediate decision because of the red mist decending. Again how you treat them inside will have zero effect on whether the offence took place in the first place. I spoke to a bunch if guys who were in because of driving offences where someone died... I haven't checked but I'd be amazed if any of them landed back inside in the last 10 years or so. Their punishment was loss of liberty and it was devastating to 100% of them, it just seems cruel to feed them slops and have them stare at a wall 24/7. And I think if you did go beyond normal punishment you might mess them up in the head enough you cause further issues when they get back out.
last group I'd call 'real' criminals. The big boys in for serious offending, living a criminal lifestyle but not one driven by the needle or crack pipe. I would say I was in that group and for me there was some level of risk/reward calculation. I never intended to go down in the first place so whether (as example) you were going to give me 2 x 3 year sentences concurrently or consequetively, likely wouldn't have played much (or any) factor in whether I worked on that job that week.
Algarve is spot on. A very good and accurate breakdown of the majority of the prison population.
I’d only add one thing.
The rate of growth in the prison population with ideological offenders is a real concern (think Isis inspired etc), and I feel sadly no matter what you did with regards to sentencing length, the prison regime, sentencing options and so on that’s going to be a tough nut to crack.
I’d only add one thing.
The rate of growth in the prison population with ideological offenders is a real concern (think Isis inspired etc), and I feel sadly no matter what you did with regards to sentencing length, the prison regime, sentencing options and so on that’s going to be a tough nut to crack.
I think the Nordic societies do rehabilitation better than we do, but I am wary of the idea that we can blindly adopt pieces of Nordic systems and drop them into very different societies with very different systems and expect to get the same outcomes.
For example, I think that the focus on doing with the offender what is optimal for society with little consideration for how those who are wronged feel about it only works in a strongly collectivist society. It takes a particular mindset to say “he murdered my family, but the important thing is to ensure that he becomes a productive member of society”. Distasteful as it seems to many, it is a function of a penal system that those who have wronged others are made to suffer to an extent that those who are wronged accept that they got what they deserved. The importance of that factor depends upon how much that society is able to suppress the desire for personal revenge.
For example, I think that the focus on doing with the offender what is optimal for society with little consideration for how those who are wronged feel about it only works in a strongly collectivist society. It takes a particular mindset to say “he murdered my family, but the important thing is to ensure that he becomes a productive member of society”. Distasteful as it seems to many, it is a function of a penal system that those who have wronged others are made to suffer to an extent that those who are wronged accept that they got what they deserved. The importance of that factor depends upon how much that society is able to suppress the desire for personal revenge.
It's not just the "copy bits piecemeal" aspect. I think we are often told to "look to" Nordic countries because they are visibly a people like us, yet they are far enough away that really we don't know them very well so we can be misled. Sweden has been a poster boy of the left for decades, when in reality what Sweden has been doing is destroying it's economy and, more recently, committing cultural suicide.
otolith said:
The point about the Nordic countries is that they are culturally different to the UK.
I wasn't disagreeing. The Nordic countries have historically had very low immigration, resulting in a very homogenous people more open to a collectivist view than us Anglo/Saxon/Celtic mongrels. Of course, the modern Socialist economic "miracle" has been at the usual cost (ever rising taxes, shrinking families) that has pushed Sweden to accept massive immigration. It's homogenous culture is not going to survive.No doubt the Gurdian et. al. will just move on to another "model Socialist country" for us to copy the bits they like the sound of.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If current breeding rates amomgst the imports is anything to go by, youll be proven wrong on that score very quickly.anonymous said:
[redacted]
What Pap! Just what is so great about your London multicultural paradigm? Four terror attacks in one year by the enriched population of the place isnt what I'd term a success, unless of course youre counting casualties.
But this is all a thread drift from the original subject, dont you think?
Yes, back on the original topic,
Junkies - I think we should legalize basically all drugs so people don't get shunted into criminality through losing their livelihoods. That's plain stupid.
One-off dumb people - probably don't need to worry about concurrent sentencing.
Career criminals - can be thrown in a pit of your choosing, with knives and no food.
Algarve said:
I think I would pretty much divide prisoners up in the main into 3 groups, and you probably need to deal with them all in drastically different ways.
Junkies - I think we should legalize basically all drugs so people don't get shunted into criminality through losing their livelihoods. That's plain stupid.
One-off dumb people - probably don't need to worry about concurrent sentencing.
Career criminals - can be thrown in a pit of your choosing, with knives and no food.
grumbledoak said:
Career criminals - can be thrown in a pit of your choosing, with knives and no food.
A lot of people seem to want to throw away the key on people for serious offending; nobody seems to want to consider the consequences of that. The trade off is dead cops and collateral damage... do you want to pay that price?If I've just run out of Lloyds with £500k in a rucksack, been pulled over on the m25 with 20 kilos of heroin or just been seen leaving the scene of a shooting, then fair cop I know the penalties aren't that bad so there isn't any sense in escalating it.
If you're going to give me an American style sentence then I've got absolutely nothing to lose. I'll take a hostage, I'll carjack someone. I'll shoot anyone trying to put cuffs on me. Whereas before I wouldn't even have been carrying a gun in the first place.
TVR Moneypit said:
I didn't say that 'most' wanted to go straight etc, merely that lots did. But there again, I also knew lots that didn't.
/quote]
I think the ones that want to go straight will pretty much do so, regardless of how you treat them in prison.
/quote]
I think the ones that want to go straight will pretty much do so, regardless of how you treat them in prison.
TVR Moneypit said:
You mentioned Junkies. I was a Wing Worker on a Drug Re-Hab wing for 21 months. During that time I'd say around 20-25% of the guys through that wing / programme, managed to get 'clean' and stay clean. I'd say that wasn't such a bad success rate.
How are you measuring staying clean? For me if they've been released and stayed off the drugs for 12 months I'd consider that a success. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff