>> >> 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.
|
