Jail and taxes
Discussion
I read in a local newspaper (over the course of a number of weeks over summer time) that the following occurred...
- A woman avoided jail for causing GBH with the use of a glass bottle that cut the neck and face of another woman. (Not her first offence, she has numerous previous ABH charges against her - apparently).
- A drunk/drug driver avoided jail after causing life changing injuries to a cyclist.
- A drug dealer on his n-th conviction for dealing avoided a jail sentence.
- A guy was convicted of burglary and also threatening people with a knife after being 'disturbed' in the act - avoided jail.
- A serial car thief was caught and charged (for the n-th time) and avoided a jail term.
Yet a guy who didn't pay his council tax was jailed for a few months (first offence).
In the balance of things, is this what jail is for?
- A woman avoided jail for causing GBH with the use of a glass bottle that cut the neck and face of another woman. (Not her first offence, she has numerous previous ABH charges against her - apparently).
- A drunk/drug driver avoided jail after causing life changing injuries to a cyclist.
- A drug dealer on his n-th conviction for dealing avoided a jail sentence.
- A guy was convicted of burglary and also threatening people with a knife after being 'disturbed' in the act - avoided jail.
- A serial car thief was caught and charged (for the n-th time) and avoided a jail term.
Yet a guy who didn't pay his council tax was jailed for a few months (first offence).
In the balance of things, is this what jail is for?
Edited by AA999 on Monday 15th September 13:13
There may be some unjust / more extreme leniency in those examples, and punishments should "satisfy" (to a degree) those who support and fund the system to a degree. But it's important to remember it's a handful of examples.
There are 85,413 in prison (as of 12/09/2014). Operational capacity is 87,719. That's a fundamental problem there; there's very little room.
It's interesting to note, since 1993 the prison population has increased an average of 3.9% each year, which is much higher than the population increase. Soft on justice? Crime has reduced since the mid 1990s, too. Are they linked?
Here's the breakdown of what people are in prison for:
VATP = Violence Against The Person.
It's easy to by cynical about people put in prison for something like council tax over, for example, violence, but there'll only likely be a few absolute piss-takers when it comes to being in prison for not paying council tax. There has to be a threshold in which the actual prohibitive punishment is enforced, or what's the point of it? Make it fine-only which they won't pay?
There are 85,413 in prison (as of 12/09/2014). Operational capacity is 87,719. That's a fundamental problem there; there's very little room.
It's interesting to note, since 1993 the prison population has increased an average of 3.9% each year, which is much higher than the population increase. Soft on justice? Crime has reduced since the mid 1990s, too. Are they linked?
Here's the breakdown of what people are in prison for:
VATP = Violence Against The Person.
It's easy to by cynical about people put in prison for something like council tax over, for example, violence, but there'll only likely be a few absolute piss-takers when it comes to being in prison for not paying council tax. There has to be a threshold in which the actual prohibitive punishment is enforced, or what's the point of it? Make it fine-only which they won't pay?
It's easy to draw conclusions based on a series of anecdotes but in reality it actually tells you very little, other than people can go to prison for non payment of council tax and people who commit the other offences will not necessarily go to prison. What it doesn't tell you is what typically happens to people who are convicted those kinds of offences.
It's a bit like getting worked up about the welfare state because a news paper reports a story about a woman with 5 kids living in a big house and getting £30k a year of benefits.
It's a bit like getting worked up about the welfare state because a news paper reports a story about a woman with 5 kids living in a big house and getting £30k a year of benefits.
Tribal Chestnut said:
Yes, as it is a crime against the state. The others are simply crimes against individuals, albeit with a cost to the state, however this cost needs to be offset by the fear that is engendered in the general population.
However, we should in fact see greater sanctions against those who commit crimes against the civilians. The population consent to not taking revenge themselves in exchange for the police and "justice" system taking the appropriate action. For the state the uphold its end of the bargain it should do so.La Liga said:
Here's the breakdown of what people are in prison for:
Seemed at first glance that a large proportion of people are locked up for sharing images via Thumbsnap.Sorry, just amused me...
Doh, beaten to it! Glad to know I'm not the only silly sod on here
Edited by 57Ford on Monday 15th September 14:43
AA999 said:
Yet a guy who didn't pay his council tax was jailed for a few months (first offence).
I'd like to see a link to that case too, but it's probably more about refusing to obey the court than not paying the tax, same as you'd eventually end up in prison if you didn't pay a speeding fine.Something I felt really strongly about some years ago.
Jail should be used as a punishment of last resort or in order to protect the public. For everything else it is an expensive option.
The prison reform trust used to produce some quite stunning statistics and even allowing for their bias in the matter, the basics convinced me.
There are lots of alternative punishments to prison, some of which are 'worse', certainly than a month inside.
I've worked on jobs where the offenders were nothing more than stupid or, on some memorable occasions, mentally ill. Yet they went inside.
I once was involved in a case where a bloke subjected a woman to a series of sexual assaults, any one of which was repulsive, but together were shocking. He also told her he would kill her at the end of the assault, and held a knife to her throat. First offence, and got 7 years. There was talk of an appeal against the unduly harsh time, he having come up against a judge who was particularly strong on violence against women, but it didn't happen.
Talking to a psychiatrist and the SIO in the case, it was accepted that he would commit similar offences in the future but now that he had experience of investigative methods of the police, it was likely that he would have a ready excuse or there would be no forensic evidence. Given the circumstances today, he would be out in 3 years. To offend again.
To my way of thinking, the prisons are an expensive way of dealing with offenders in the main. We should use other methods of restricting freedom of movement and limiting their ability to reoffend. For the really serious offenders, the money saved, and the vacancies created, should be used to incarcerate them for a period to reflect the nature of the offence and to ensure that the public is protected.
This would help judges come to an informed opinion and limit the pressure from governments to limit penal penalties. Further, 7 years would then mean 7 years and any conduct inside which was unreasonable should extend the penalty.
Jail should be used as a punishment of last resort or in order to protect the public. For everything else it is an expensive option.
The prison reform trust used to produce some quite stunning statistics and even allowing for their bias in the matter, the basics convinced me.
There are lots of alternative punishments to prison, some of which are 'worse', certainly than a month inside.
I've worked on jobs where the offenders were nothing more than stupid or, on some memorable occasions, mentally ill. Yet they went inside.
I once was involved in a case where a bloke subjected a woman to a series of sexual assaults, any one of which was repulsive, but together were shocking. He also told her he would kill her at the end of the assault, and held a knife to her throat. First offence, and got 7 years. There was talk of an appeal against the unduly harsh time, he having come up against a judge who was particularly strong on violence against women, but it didn't happen.
Talking to a psychiatrist and the SIO in the case, it was accepted that he would commit similar offences in the future but now that he had experience of investigative methods of the police, it was likely that he would have a ready excuse or there would be no forensic evidence. Given the circumstances today, he would be out in 3 years. To offend again.
To my way of thinking, the prisons are an expensive way of dealing with offenders in the main. We should use other methods of restricting freedom of movement and limiting their ability to reoffend. For the really serious offenders, the money saved, and the vacancies created, should be used to incarcerate them for a period to reflect the nature of the offence and to ensure that the public is protected.
This would help judges come to an informed opinion and limit the pressure from governments to limit penal penalties. Further, 7 years would then mean 7 years and any conduct inside which was unreasonable should extend the penalty.
You have to try quite hard to get sent to prison for not paying your council tax. Some examples here, with only one non suspended sentence.
http://www.newforest.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=10...
http://www.newforest.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=10...
Derek Smith said:
To my way of thinking, the prisons are an expensive way of dealing with offenders in the main. We should use other methods of restricting freedom of movement and limiting their ability to reoffend. For the really serious offenders, the money saved, and the vacancies created, should be used to incarcerate them for a period to reflect the nature of the offence and to ensure that the public is protected.
This would help judges come to an informed opinion and limit the pressure from governments to limit penal penalties. Further, 7 years would then mean 7 years and any conduct inside which was unreasonable should extend the penalty.
I agree whole-heartedly with Derek. Prison time should not be used as a deterrent, as I don't believe for many re-offenders it is! There are many other deterrent methods that can be used. I should be reserved to protect the public only, and whatever sentence that is levied, should be just that! It is crazy that offenders get handed down a sentence only to find that in reality they only serve a fraction of it. Totally flies in the face of reason. Mine anyway!This would help judges come to an informed opinion and limit the pressure from governments to limit penal penalties. Further, 7 years would then mean 7 years and any conduct inside which was unreasonable should extend the penalty.
ultimately there needs to be some tough sentencing power behind tax laws, or no one would pay them
if everyone knew you'd only get up to a week in prison getting caught robbing and old lady for her life savings, i doubt it would make that many more people inclined to do it
if you're council tax reminders came with a notice saying failure to pay could result in up to a week in prison, i think a lot of people might be tempted take the weeks holiday, especially if it would be enough to write of a few years worth of council tax
if everyone knew you'd only get up to a week in prison getting caught robbing and old lady for her life savings, i doubt it would make that many more people inclined to do it
if you're council tax reminders came with a notice saying failure to pay could result in up to a week in prison, i think a lot of people might be tempted take the weeks holiday, especially if it would be enough to write of a few years worth of council tax
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff