| Non-motoring > 25% AND OUT FREE | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: MD | Replies: 48 |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 09:58
25% AND OUT FREE - MD
|
| Chris Huhne and the creature are freed today after serving just a quarter or their sentences. Shameful really. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 10:50
25% AND OUT FREE - FocalPoint
|
|
"Shameful really." Not if you're one of those (and there were plenty in another thread) who thought that imprisonment in this case was wrong/inappropriate/a waste of money or that the original offence was little more than a trivial one, its insignificance ramped up by the high profile of the people involved. If you subscribed to one or other of these views presumably the quicker this charming couple are out of jail the better. Last edited by: FocalPoint on Mon 13 May 13 at 10:50
|
|
New Mon 13 May 13 10:51
25% AND OUT FREE - Meldrew
|
| They are out of prison but are "Tagged" |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 11:07
25% AND OUT FREE - No FM2R
|
|
I thought prison was inappropriate. But not as inappropriate as no punishment. I'd be very supportive of them leaving prison if they were then being given Community Service or similar instead. But i suspect that is not the case. Further showing how inappropriate the given penalty was. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 11:11
25% AND OUT FREE - Roger.
|
|
order-order.com/2013/05/13/huhne-out/ Look at the smug grin on his face! |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 11:21
25% AND OUT FREE - Dutchie
|
| He always has a smug arrogant grin,he is the type we used to have at school when I was a kid who knew it all. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 11:59
25% AND OUT FREE - Londoner
|
|
I'm not going to enter into a debate about whether "imprisonment in this case was wrong/inappropriate/a waste of money". Nor do I care whether the Huhnes are "likeable" people or not. Call me old-fashioned, but when a judge sentences someone to "x" months, then that is exactly what I expect them to serve (taking time in remand into due consideration, of course). Never mind the argument about time-off for good behaviour. "Good behaviour" means that "x" months is all that you serve. "Bad behaviour" gets you time added on. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 12:03
25% AND OUT FREE - sooty123
|
| I assume one of the main reasons we don't do that is because of cost. Hugely expensive I would have thought. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 12:23
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
>> Call me old-fashioned, but when a judge sentences someone to "x" months, then that is >> exactly what I expect them to serve (taking time in remand into due consideration, of >> course). I would agree with you, but x months is never appropriate in my view, its either too much or too little. They should certainly drop the title "life sentence" if you mean 25 - 30 years. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 20:48
25% AND OUT FREE - Woodster
|
| Call me pedantic Zero, but if x months is never appropriate and either too much or too little, what sentence would satisfy you??!! |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 20:55
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
Impossible to say as you know, because each case on its merits, but say for example, community service for a repeated mugging is too little, and jail of any term too much for lying about a poxy speeding offence. Both were handed out in the same week. And as for life, it should mean life. Not a 30 year tariff. Be interesting to see what the scumbag who killed Tia Sharp gets. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 20:59
25% AND OUT FREE - MD
|
| Ripped to bits by the local Women would be too good for the Bastar. |
|
New Mon 13 May 13 21:04
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
| Actually, if they let him out back into the community, thats likely. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 09:00
25% AND OUT FREE - Dave_
|
| Read the Magistrate's Blog, by a fellow called Bystander. Can't link to it from here but it should come up on a search easily enough. It sheds some light on the sentencing guidelines our judiciary have to work with, and the circumstances in which time can be added on and taken off. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 09:35
25% AND OUT FREE - Crankcase
|
|
Or indeed sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/sentencing-myths.htm |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 09:48
25% AND OUT FREE - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> And as for life, it should mean life. Not a 30 year tariff. Be interesting >> to see what the scumbag who killed Tia Sharp gets. Life is mandatory for murder. There are though, realistically, different degrees of murder ranging from over enthusiastic self defence to mass slaughter by terror or the sexually motivated killing of children*. The sentence should reflect that. The tariff set by the Judge is the period that must be served before release on parole can be considered. Even after that period the killer will have to convince the parole board he's reformed. Out on parole he can still be recalled if he breaks conditions - as in the James Bulger case. There are a few cases, and Tia Sharpe's murderer may be one, where the judge orders a whole of life tariff - no prospect of release. *The option of US style 'degrees' of murder has been advocated but rejected by Ministers. I make that point apolitically lest anybody thinks my left leaning affects my view. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 14 May 13 at 09:49
|
|
New Tue 14 May 13 10:26
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
>> >> And as for life, it should mean life. Not a 30 year tariff. Be >> interesting >> >> to see what the scumbag who killed Tia Sharp gets. >> >> Life is mandatory for murder. There are though, realistically, different degrees of murder ranging from >> over enthusiastic self defence to mass slaughter by terror or the sexually motivated killing of >> children*. The sentence should reflect that. >> >> The tariff set by the Judge is the period that must be served before release >> on parole can be considered. If any form of tariff or parole is considered, the term "life" should not be used. Life cant be mandatory for murder when it has a range of tariffs most of them not "life". |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 10:47
25% AND OUT FREE - Londoner
|
|
>> If any form of tariff or parole is considered, the term "life" should not be >> used. Life cant be mandatory for murder when it has a range of tariffs most >> of them not "life". >> Perfectly put! |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 10:47
25% AND OUT FREE - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If any form of tariff or parole is considered, the term "life" should not be >> used. Life cant be mandatory for murder when it has a range of tariffs most >> of them not "life". The sentence is life. If they behave etc they're eventually paroled but they're not free; recall is a real possibility for breach of conditions or even minor recidivism. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 10:59
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
>> >> If any form of tariff or parole is considered, the term "life" should not >> be >> >> used. Life cant be mandatory for murder when it has a range of tariffs >> most >> >> of them not "life". >> >> The sentence is life. If they behave etc they're eventually paroled but they're not free; >> recall is a real possibility for breach of conditions or even minor recidivism. If they are out, under any circumstances, the sentence is not Life. Life means being locked up till you die with no possibility of parole. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:08
25% AND OUT FREE - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If they are out, under any circumstances, the sentence is not Life. Life means being >> locked up till you die with no possibility of parole. Whatever, I merely seek to explain how it works. My colleague tells me Hazzell has got a tariff of 38yrs. At 37 he's no chance of being out before his mid seventies. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:45
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
>> My colleague tells me Hazzell has got a tariff of 38yrs. At 37 he's no >> chance of being out before his mid seventies. Quote from BBC website The court heard Hazell sexually assaulted and murdered Tia, 12, at her grandmother's house in south London. Judge Justice Nicol said he could not impose a whole life tariff as he was not sure Hazell's motivation was sexual or that it was pre-meditated. I really want to see how the judge justifies that last remark. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:56
25% AND OUT FREE - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Judge Justice Nicol said he could not impose a whole life tariff as he was >> not sure Hazell's motivation was sexual or that it was pre-meditated. >> >> >> I really want to see how the judge justifies that last remark. Basically the judge he says cannot be sure whether the murder was part of the sexual activity Hazell imposed on Tia or whether he killed her afterwards to ensure her silence. The full sentencing remarks are on the Judiciary website: www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-stuart-hazell-sentencing.pdf WARNING: The evidence recited in the judgement is sickeningly graphic in it's detail. I don't know if this stuff was reported when prosecution was giving evidence but if it was I missed it. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 13:12
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
>> Basically the judge he says cannot be sure whether the murder was part of the >> sexual activity Hazell imposed on Tia or whether he killed her afterwards to ensure her >> silence. basically, what difference does it make. Each is equally heinous and not worthy of differentiation. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 13:27
25% AND OUT FREE - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> basically, what difference does it make. Each is equally heinous and not worthy of differentiation. >> The sentencing guidelines presumably do see a difference. If there is a sexual motivation for the murder then that would be a factor for a 'whole life' tarrif. Murder to secure the silence of a child victim/witness is heinous too but a notch less on the sentencing guidance. A tariff of 38yrs means that he cannot even be considered for licence until 2051. In practice lifers, even model prisoners, usually need to apply more than once before licence so he'll be pushing 80 before there's even the chance of him smelling fresh air. If he lives that long. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 13:34
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
>> >> basically, what difference does it make. Each is equally heinous and not worthy of >> differentiation. >> >> >> >> The sentencing guidelines presumably do see a difference. If there is a sexual motivation for >> the murder then that would be a factor for a 'whole life' tarrif. Murder to >> secure the silence of a child victim/witness is heinous too but a notch less on >> the sentencing guidance. I see no difference, I doubt most people can accept a difference, only the law seems to find one. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:10
25% AND OUT FREE - Alanovich
|
|
>> Life means being >> locked up till you die with no possibility of parole. >> Yes, if you're speaking English. However, courts don't speak English. They speak Legalese. In that language, "Life" means whatever the judge describes it as being in any given case. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 09:50
25% AND OUT FREE - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Call me old-fashioned, but when a judge sentences someone to "x" months, then that is >> exactly what I expect them to serve (taking time in remand into due consideration, of >> course). >> >> Never mind the argument about time-off for good behaviour. "Good behaviour" means that "x" months >> is all that you serve. "Bad behaviour" gets you time added on. How are you planning to pay for all of this extra prison time and the extra prisons we'll have to build? I imagine that the sentencing guidelines (and the judges) already take into account that the prisoner will (with good behaviour) only normally spend X% of the time inside. So the intention of the guidelines/judges is implemented. It's just that some people, salivating over the idea of the wrongdoer doing the full time, end up being disappointed. Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 14 May 13 at 09:53
|
|
New Tue 14 May 13 10:38
25% AND OUT FREE - Cliff Pope
|
|
For many people I would imagine a short "prison awareness course" would be sufficient. One day locked up with a bucket and a psychpathic cell-mate would probably cure me of ever breaking another law. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 10:46
25% AND OUT FREE - Londoner
|
|
>> How are you planning to pay for all of this extra prison time and the extra prisons we'll have to build? By decriminalising some current crimes, and freeing up space by removing people from prison who should not be there in the first place. Prison is wholly inappropriate for many offenders. (These kind of views tend to get me labelled as soft on crime - certainly not someone "salivating over the idea of the wrongdoer doing the full time".) Even with these measures however, I think that you will agree that a hard core of offenders still need to be sent to prison. Now please answer the obvious counter-question from me. Since you are opposed to building extra prison capacity, if we found ourselves in a situation where we had more offenders than we had prison places then which ones would you let off? All I am after is clarity and consistency. If someone gets banned from driving for 12 months, or given 100 hours community service, they don't get let off part of the sentence due to "good behaviour"! I see no logical reason why the same principle cannot apply to custodial sentences as well. The prisons won't be any more or less full if the judge sentences an offender to six months AND MEANS SIX MONTHS, than if he/she sentences them to 18 months BUT ONLY REALLY MEANS SIX! |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:07
25% AND OUT FREE - SteelSpark
|
|
>> >> How are you planning to pay for all of this extra prison time and >> the extra prisons we'll have to build? >> By decriminalising some current crimes, and freeing up space by removing people from prison who >> should not be there in the first place. Prison is wholly inappropriate for many offenders. I certainly agree with the sentiment that prison is wholly inappropriate for many. >> Now please answer the obvious counter-question from me. Since you are opposed to building extra >> prison capacity, if we found ourselves in a situation where we had more offenders than >> we had prison places then which ones would you let off? Well, the simple answer is "the less serious ones". It's a complex subject, of course. To sum up, I think that prison should be used very sparingly, but when it is used then sentences should be very heavy, and outside of that there should be as little impact as possible on an offender resuming a normal life (e.g. no need to declare a criminal record in most cases). >> All I am after is clarity and consistency. >> The prisons won't be any more or less full if the judge sentences an offender >> to six months AND MEANS SIX MONTHS, than if he/she sentences them to 18 months >> BUT ONLY REALLY MEANS SIX! Ah, so it's transparency you're after. There may, I think, be logistical problems with sentencing for 6 months and then extending it to 18 months (using your example). What you really want, and I think that I have seen this done on occasion, is for the judge to say, "your sentence is 8 months, so you will normally be out (on a tag) in 4, but you may be out in as little as 2 if you behave, and if there's overcrowding, you could be out in a week". If judges always had to phrase it that way, I'm not really sure what difference it would make. The papers will still report "X gets 8 months in prison", and I think that most people know that many offenders get out much earlier. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:23
25% AND OUT FREE - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> What you really want, and I think that I have seen this done on occasion, >> is for the judge to say, "your sentence is 8 months, so you will normally >> be out (on a tag) in 4, but you may be out in as little >> as 2 if you behave, and if there's overcrowding, you could be out in a >> week". The sentencing remarks for Pryce were as follows: Having weighed all the various features, including the fact that CH was somewhat more culpable than you but his sentence was discounted to reflect his plea, the sentence that I impose on you is also one of 8 months’ imprisonment. Unless released earlier under supervision you will serve half that sentence. Your release will not, however, bring the sentence to an end. If after your release and before the end of your sentence you commit any further offence you may be ordered to return to custody to serve the balance of the original sentence outstanding at the date of the new offence, as well as being punished for that offence. More or less same for Huhne see: www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/r-v-pryce-huhne-sentencing-remarks |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:23
25% AND OUT FREE - Crankcase
|
|
Judges are "not allowed" to take into account the fact that release will automatically be at the 50% mark or less when sentencing, in most circumstances. So they can't (or shouldn't) think "I want him to do eight years inside so I'll sentence sixteen". The appeals process would sort out those who did it anyway. That also emphasizes the fact that the "only half the sentence served is in prison" thing is a political, not a judicial decision. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:45
25% AND OUT FREE - Runfer D'Hills
|
| I've often thought that sex offenders and murderers could be given a different sentence option. Either do the time or have the alternative at the court's discretion of spending a day in a locked, unmonitored and unsupervised gym with a couple of nominated members of the family of their victim with a temporary suspension of all laws within that room for the duration... |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 11:48
25% AND OUT FREE - Zero
|
|
>> I've often thought that sex offenders and murderers could be given a different sentence option. >> Either do the time or have the alternative at the court's discretion of spending a >> day in a locked, unmonitored and unsupervised gym with a couple of nominated members of >> the family of their victim with a temporary suspension of all laws within that room >> for the duration... Given however that Tia Sharpes family introduced Hazel to, and allowed continued access to Tia, despite his known violent and abusive behaviour, I don't think they have the right to complain about anything. Morally they should be next in court. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 12:43
25% AND OUT FREE - FocalPoint
|
|
Stuart Hazell jailed for life and must serve a minimum of 38 years. The judge said he could not be sure that Tia's murder was sexually motivated, which would have meant a whole life jail term. Last edited by: FocalPoint on Tue 14 May 13 at 12:44
|
|
New Tue 14 May 13 15:50
25% AND OUT FREE - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> must serve a minimum of 38 years. So he'll be about my age when he comes out. But since from his mugshots he looks 20 years older than his reported age, perhaps he'll be dead by then. Zero does have a point about this and similar cases, moronic and perhaps perverse women taking up with these evil toerags - with records to prove it - and imagining that somehow their own families won't suffer. It's sad, but more than that: despicable and horrible. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 15:13
25% AND OUT FREE - Londoner
|
| Excellent reply, Steelspark! After starting out somewhat at cross purposes, I find myself in "violent agreement"! :-) |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 18:56
25% AND OUT FREE - Westpig
|
|
if we found ourselves in a situation where we had more offenders >> than >> >> we had prison places then which ones would you let off? >> >> Well, the simple answer is "the less serious ones". It's more complex than that. Driving with no insurance is considerably less serious than the murder of a child (obviously). If someone persists in doing this.....and doesn't give two hoots about any of the punishments dished out, prior to a prison sentence...are you saying that person should never go to prison? What does that say to other people who think, 'sod it, i'll do the same then'. We already have that sort of thing going on, in reality. Disqualified drivers. There are plenty of people at the lower echelons of society who think any kind of punishment less than prison is a let off. What do you do with them? Let them carry on regardless? |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 20:04
25% AND OUT FREE - SteelSpark
|
|
>> >> Well, the simple answer is "the less serious ones". >> >> It's more complex than that. >> >> If someone persists in doing this.....and doesn't give two hoots about any of the punishments >> dished out, prior to a prison sentence...are you saying that person should never go to >> prison? >> >> There are plenty of people at the lower echelons of society who think any kind >> of punishment less than prison is a let off. What do you do with them? >> Let them carry on regardless? Perhaps slightly unfair editing of my comment WP, especially given that in the next line I stated that it was a complex issue, and then went on to give some insight into my thinking. It is not about never using prison, it is about not using it unless you have to. When it is used for serious crimes (or, perhaps when all other means have been exhausted), it should be used as a very strong deterrent, in the sense of very long sentences. It should generally not be used for short term punishments for less serious offences. It is too complex to go into every details, but some key ideas might be. 1) Avoid labelling criminals (e.g. usually no need to disclose previous convictions) 2) Use non-custodial punishments were possible (the whole range, restorative, community service, etc, etc) 3) Use the threat of prison as a final solution, or for very serious crimes. Unless you really are going to lock somebody up and throw away the key, you need to think about what treatment of them best serves society in the long run. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 20:41
25% AND OUT FREE - Armel Coussine
|
|
Why not do without prison altogether? The stocks for people like the Huhnes - people of substance who would be humiliated by it - and vigilante justice for petty gangsters, muggers etc. - mutilation, or death and chucked into the nearest wheelie bin. For people like this ghastly Tia Sharp chap and others like him, formal organized lynchings as recommended by Sharia law. It would save billions and make us all rich again, while keeping large segments of the population happy and cheerful. People dearly love a nice messy execution. Of course the bleeding hearts would wail, but who cares about them? Humanitarianism gone mad. Snigger. |
|
New Tue 14 May 13 22:34
25% AND OUT FREE - Westpig
|
|
>> Perhaps slightly unfair editing of my comment WP, especially given that in the next line >> I stated that it was a complex issue, and then went on to give some >> insight into my thinking. I'd accept that....trouble is, it's a subject dear to my heart. >> >> It is not about never using prison, it is about not using it unless you >> have to. We've already got that. Some people seem to live a charmed life. In reality a thief lives a life of eternal 'get out of jail free' cards. So do disqual drivers, no insurance and many, many, more. >> >> It is too complex to go into every details, but some key ideas might be. >> >> 1) Avoid labelling criminals (e.g. usually no need to disclose previous convictions) I strongly disagree with that. If it walks like a duck...etc. >> 2) Use non-custodial punishments were possible (the whole range, restorative, community service, etc, etc) That would work for people like you or me....trouble is, there's an underclass of awful people that the average person cannot comprehend...and it DOES NOT WORK for them. >> 3) Use the threat of prison as a final solution, or for very serious crimes. Blimey, you advocating Adolf Hitler's ideas? Sorry, just my inappropriate humour................ We've already got this system. >> Unless you really are going to lock somebody up and throw away the key, you >> need to think about what treatment of them best serves society in the long run. Yes, very true...but with that must come the knowledge that to the low life in our society...and they are out there....anything other than prison is a let off. All the good ideas are just that when you are dealing with people who just don't give a monkeys. |
|
New Wed 15 May 13 08:05
25% AND OUT FREE - SteelSpark
|
|
>> >> It is not about never using prison, it is about not using it unless >> you >> >> have to. >> >> We've already got that. Some people seem to live a charmed life. In reality a >> thief lives a life of eternal 'get out of jail free' cards. So do disqual >> drivers, no insurance and many, many, more. It's a matter of degree, I think. Certainly there may be other systems that lock people up more readily (the US?). >> >> 1) Avoid labelling criminals (e.g. usually no need to disclose previous convictions) >> >> I strongly disagree with that. If it walks like a duck...etc. I think this is a key point, probably more so than the prison aspect. You have somebody who is convicted of, say, a burglary. When all is said and done about the "rights" of an employer to know who they are hiring, is society better served by that person stacking shelves at Tesco, or hanging around the streets, looking for easy money. >> >> 2) Use non-custodial punishments were possible (the whole range, restorative, community service, etc, etc) >> >> That would work for people like you or me....trouble is, there's an underclass of awful >> people that the average person cannot comprehend...and it DOES NOT WORK for them. Again, it's a matter of degree. You could equally argue that a few weeks or months in prison doesn't work for them either. Combined with the ability to turn themselves around, and the final consequence of a long prison term, the results might be better. As for comprehending them, I think that it is fairly easy in many cases. Different people will react to their situation in different ways. It wouldn't seek to excuse the behaviour of somebody who steals, because it's easier than working, but I can understand why they do it. Likewise, I wouldn't excuse the little rich girl who steals for a thrill, but I can understand why they do it. >> >> 3) Use the threat of prison as a final solution, or for very serious >> crimes. >> >> We've already got this system. Not really. Yes, I again agree that people are not locked up as frequently here, but it is not the case that the prisons are just full of people serving long sentences after all other avenues have failed. There are plenty on short term sentences, who are almost certain to be out in a few months and back to their old habits. |
|
New Wed 15 May 13 16:02
25% AND OUT FREE - Westpig
|
|
>> When all is said and done about the "rights" of an employer to know who >> they are hiring, is society better served by that person stacking shelves at Tesco, or >> hanging around the streets, looking for easy money. Depends. If you were foolish in your youth, have now matured...and deserve a break etc...then fair enough. If you are a thieving piece of crap...no. >> Again, it's a matter of degree. You could equally argue that a few weeks or >> months in prison doesn't work for them either. Very true. However, whilst they are in there, they are not inflicting their low morals, standards and more importantly, criminal behaviour..on the rest of us. If they cannot stop thieving or whatever it is they do....have ever increasing sentences to spare the rest of us*. * bearing in mind it's usually the vulnerable that are the victims >> >> We've already got this system. >> >> Not really. Yes, I again agree that people are not locked up as frequently here, >> but it is not the case that the prisons are just full of people serving >> long sentences after all other avenues have failed. There are plenty on short term sentences, >> who are almost certain to be out in a few months and back to their >> old habits. Ultimately. What do you do with someone who refuses to comply with the laws the rest of us do? What's the bottom line? |
|
New Wed 15 May 13 16:56
25% AND OUT FREE - SteelSpark
|
|
>> Depends. If you were foolish in your youth, have now matured...and deserve a break etc...then >> fair enough. >> >> If you are a thieving piece of crap...no. I don't think it's a question of morality or what the person deserves, it's about what is best for society. If a criminal record excludes somebody from society (including from work), then it makes it much more likely that they will re-offend. A criminal justice system that makes people more likely to re-offend, would seem to be failing in its role of protecting the public. I would say that the public is better protected if criminals are not excluded from it. There are exceptions, of course. You'd need to keep certain offenders away from children, and you should probably be allowed to filter out serious sex offenders from many other roles. >> Very true. However, whilst they are in there, they are not inflicting their low morals, >> standards and more importantly, criminal behaviour..on the rest of us. >> >> If they cannot stop thieving or whatever it is they do....have ever increasing sentences to >> spare the rest of us. It's a fair point. Trying to break the cycle would seem to be better though. >> Ultimately. What do you do with someone who refuses to comply with the laws the >> rest of us do? What's the bottom line? The bottom line would have to be prison, I agree, and a long prison sentence at that. If you have an individual who has committed crimes but has avoided the stigma of having to declare a criminal record, and if they have initially been punished (maybe a few times) with an alternative method, and (ideally) if they have had mental health issues addressed where possible, but they continue to offend, then a substantial prison sentence may have to be the final act. I saw a case of retail fraud reported a few weeks back, the amount was in five figures, but seemed to be a first offence. Two years imprisonment if I remember correctly. Perhaps fair from the point of view of morality, but a good outcome for society? Probably not. Probably a dose of mental health issues for the family, and a great incentive to get back into crime when he gets out with a criminal record. Perhaps all "deserved", but not good for you and me. Likewise, I remember reading a few months back about the numbers of teenage mothers getting started on their criminal records, after stealing formula milk. Now, lot's of teenage mothers don't steal, so I'm not condoning it, but how many of those with records will spend the next few years sliding further and further away from society, and committing more and more crimes. |
|
New Wed 15 May 13 17:46
25% AND OUT FREE - Westpig
|
|
>> I don't think it's a question of morality or what the person deserves, it's about >> what is best for society. If a criminal record excludes somebody from society (including from >> work), then it makes it much more likely that they will re-offend. I don't think we are too far off agreement....but...I do believe that there are those out there (in fact, it's not just my belief, it's fact, I've seen in it many times with my own eyes) who are just so anti-social and selfish...they are going to do what they want whatever the circumstances. So you need to differentiate between those who can and are willing to be helped e.g. hopeless drug addict....and those who you cannot. >> >> A criminal justice system that makes people more likely to re-offend, would seem to be >> failing in its role of protecting the public. It is, if you don't lock up the habitual criminals for long enough...and we don't. >> >> I saw a case of retail fraud reported a few weeks back, the amount was >> in five figures, but seemed to be a first offence. Two years imprisonment if I >> remember correctly. >> >> Perhaps fair from the point of view of morality, but a good outcome for society? >> Probably not. Probably a dose of mental health issues for the family, and a great >> incentive to get back into crime when he gets out with a criminal record. Perhaps >> all "deserved", but not good for you and me. I don't have a problem with it. I think you are forgetting the deterrent effect on others as well. If the general lowlife thought a decent fraud meant no bird, they'd all be at it. >> Likewise, I remember reading a few months back about the numbers of teenage mothers getting >> started on their criminal records, after stealing formula milk. Now, lot's of teenage mothers don't >> steal, so I'm not condoning it, but how many of those with records will spend >> the next few years sliding further and further away from society, and committing more and >> more crimes. ...but on the other hand, the young mum who is struggling and who does not commit crime. What does no punishment say to her? Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 15 May 13 at 17:46
|
|
New Wed 15 May 13 18:10
25% AND OUT FREE - Armel Coussine
|
|
Prison seldom does anyone any good and very often does them harm. Its only real purpose is to keep habitual criminals off the streets so that they can't make people's lives a misery. It isn't meant to do the criminals any good. Society has already written them off. Needless to say, the law being what it is, there are lots of people in prison who shouldn't really be there and lots outside prison who should. Nothing new about that, nor is it ever going to change. Sometimes criminals mature and become wiser. Some people are more intelligent than others and can rehabilitate themselves. This is laudable and should be rewarded. However, many more relatively innocent young folk who have landed there through misfortune come under bad influences inside and have their lives ruined. |
|
New Thu 16 May 13 11:03
25% AND OUT FREE - SteelSpark
|
|
>> I don't have a problem with it. I think you are forgetting the deterrent effect >> on others as well. If the general lowlife thought a decent fraud meant no bird, >> they'd all be at it. Yes, there is always going to be a risk/reward calculation going on. I suppose it depends on the alternative punishments. If you were talking about a massive fraud then prison might need to be the consequence because the potential reward is so high. The deterrent effect is important, no doubt, but the key thing is handling it so that the convicted person can get back into society. >> ...but on the other hand, the young mum who is struggling and who does not >> commit crime. What does no punishment say to her? I'm not advocating no punishment, just not a punishment which makes it extremely likely that the convicted person goes off on the wrong track for good. The alternative to all of this is immediate massive jail sentences for even minor infractions, to create a huge risk vs any reward. But it has its own serious problems, not least that people make silly rash judgement, even in the face of massive risk. But, what is perhaps more problematic is a system that too easily labels. Punish bad behaviour, but don't make it too hard for people to redeem themselves. |
|
New Thu 16 May 13 14:52
25% AND OUT FREE - Westpig
|
|
>> I'm not advocating no punishment, To a great big chunk of society...ANYTHING other than prison is a let off. I fear you are looking at this from a reasonable persons point of view. By all means do whatever is needed to first of all punish, then rehabilitate...but...have something up your sleeve for those that choose to ignore the probation, community service, etc ..... otherwise there's no real point in having them, because as ever the reasonable comply and those that really need sorting out, do not. There are those out there that only see kindness as a weakness. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
