tezza

The Lord Chief Justice has urged judges to stop imposing unnecessary jail sentences.
His quote ""We trust all courts will heed the message which the court is giving today. That message is: imprisonment only when necessary and for no longer than necessary," said Lord Woolf in the Court of Appeal.
Wonder if this means car theives etc getting "slap on the wrist and told don't do it again"
For full info see:
http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_536448.html

Nathan L

This is absoloute b0ll0x.

Just another reason for me to think about emigrating. I am sick and tired of this countrys court system. More and more people are taking the **** knowing full well that they will get away with it time after time.

Do the government and Lord Chief Justice honestly believe that criminals are afraid of going to prison.

I can tell you now that if sentences were 10 times more harsh than they are today criminals would not want to run the risk of getting caught and crime would drop. I cannot undersatnd these do bl00dy gooders telling people that punishment by prison is not a deterrent. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Nathan

jon hill

the uk has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the developed world, and the prisons have more guests now than ever before

it seems pretty obvious to me that sticking folk behind bars is not an effective deterent and doesnt reduce crime

Consider - if you put an 18 year old joy rider in prison for 6 months or 2 years, do you think he comes out a reformed man never to commit another crime or a hardened crim ?


I'm not professing to know the answer to this one, but I feel that many people think that car crime is a simple issue solved somehow by reducing the number of speed cameras and loading more people into jails

Brendan Hughes

Jon - not exactly. That honour goes to the US. The UK certainly has one of the highest prison rates in Europe though. The US imprison FIVE TIMES more people than we do, as a proportion of their population. Anyone want to claim that the US has a lower crime problem than us?

Sorry to say that prison is not the answer, it is more a Crime University than any form of deterrent. Sounds facetious, but I would far prefer punishments that REALLY deterred. Force the 19-yr-old Jack the Lad to walk around in front of his mates holding his mum's hand for two weeks and wearing a skirt. I don't think he'd ever offend again I also like the sentences where muggers have to do community service in old folks' homes, I hear they change the mentality quite a bit.

I prepare to be flamed as a Guardian reader, but I've done about 7 yrs of law study, and the only thing prison is good for is locking up those who are a long-term danger to society. Otherwise it just turns the amateur crooks into professionals. Is that what you want?

BJH

shippd

Brendan, jon - good points well made !

jon hill

with that encouragement, i'll continue

First off - why is 10 years a deterent when 2 years is not ? Second, what are the practicalities of locking folk up for that amount of time ? costs, number prisons, the effect of large numbers of 28 year olds who've spent a large fraction of their lifes in jail hitting the streets in 10 years time.

To continue; speed cameras & initiatives such as having civilians staff cameras free up police from traffic duties allowing them to spend more time on other crimes. If we're all so concerned about these crimes why dont we support cameras and the like ?

ok, rhetorical question to some extent, but the point is that many views are repeated on this board without any real thought behind them (IMHO of course).

Brendan Hughes

Bravo 2zero - The US has the death penalty, we don't.

The US has, ISTR, five times the homicide rate of the UK.

So stronger sentences are not necessarily a deterrent.

It's a very long argument, and there are a whole bunch of specialists out there trying to sort it out. Unfortunately, there are also a whole bunch of politicians holding the purse-strings, who are after a quick-fix solution to please the average Sun / Daily Mail reader.

shippd

OK a direct question to Bravo: what is your view of the US experience ?
They have now for some time had the "three strikes and you're out" rule: after three convictions for any offences (however minor) you're automatically banged up for life. Sounds like a pretty tough deterrent to me !
Does the US have lower crime rates than us as a result of imprisoning more people for longer periods ?

shippd

Bravo let's try some simple logic here:

1. You believe sentencing policy is responsible for crime rates.
2. The US has much harsher sentencing policies than UK.
3. The US demonstrably has much higher crime rates than UK.
4. Therefore harsher sentencing = higher crime rates.

That's on your logic, not mine !

jon hill

bravo

but the evidence says that trying to keep folk off the street by locking them up _increases_ the crime rate


I guess this was my original point - you see so many of these one dimensional posts along the lines of the justice system in the UK is too lax, lock them up and throw away the key and watch the crime rates tumble. Its what you're Sun & Mirror reader want to hear.

But when you consider the reality of the situation, is actually a bloody difficult question to answer. Accepting there is no easy solution is the first step.

boomer

I am with Bravo on this one - lock the bsatards up for a significant time - and straight away - not after the fiftieth offence!!!!

Sure it costs money to keep a crim in prison, but when they are outside it costs us all in their dole, benefit etc - plus the increase threat to society if (WHEN) they re-offend.

How many houses had burglar alarms twenty years ago compared with today? Did trackers or immobilisers exist even ten years ago?? NO, they didn't - so this is all an extra cost that society had to bear because less than honest people are allowed to roam the streets.

Oh, and introduce US style bail, where the money has to be paid UP FRONT before a suspect is released on remand. How often do we hear about criminals (re-)offending whilst on bail (the Tony Martin fiasco springs to mind [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] ). Where is the dis-incentive if they supposedly have to pay (which they can't and won't anyway) the bail bond?

Vote for Ray Mallon/Bill Bratton

mb

chiark

See this article from the bbc news website about the commissioner of the Metropolitan police being equally annoyed...

Nick.

jon hill

I agree about the rate of detection and conviction being a major issue. However i'm less than convinced about putting someone away for 20 - 30 years for nicking a car

Are you prepared to accept a 1 year sentence for 45 in a 30 ?

I know we all have a thing about speeding on this board, but for the majority of people thats a very similar scenario to what you're suggesting. The folk that nick cars don't see it as a big deal; the folk that do 45 in 30 dont see it as a big deal.

If increasing prison terms dont work as a rule, assuming that BFO terms will solve the problem is at best non-scientific, and at worst self-delusion.

It feels to me a bit like desperate escalation - knives didnt stop them, guns didnt, bombs didnt, so, hey, the solution must be to nuke 'em all. That'll fix the problem.

First step is to decide whether you're on the right track - if you're not then there's little point in running to the end.

Sbradley

Local business gets broken into. Some damage done but not much, and they only had minimal security there. I don't want to give anyone who might be that way inclined ideas, but the gist of the advice from the Old Bill was that The only thing worth doing was to make it physically risky for someone breaking in, because the consequences of capture are so slight as to be no real deterrent.

That ain't right.

I don't have the answers. Maybe making prison a less pleasant place to be. Maybe bringing back chain gangs - community service is a joke because they don't turn up, but getting crims to do the crappy jobs no-one else wants might be a better idea. Maybe make the job related to the offence in someway. I'm winging it here, so don't ask me for specifics, but you get the general idea.

One thing I *do* know, though, is that we need to look at the way the system treats victims and witnesses of crime. While I appreciate that you're innocent until proven guilty, surely that doesn't mean the victim is guilty until proven innocent, as some lawyers seem to think...

shippd

jon - well said again ! I have a hazy memory there used to a cartoon in Viz subtitled "Why it became necessary to destroy the world in order to save it" !

boomer

jon,

What a ridiculous comparison [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Although it is against the law, doing 45 in a 30 does not necessarily harm anyone - unless you actually have an accident (sorry, incident, because it would not be a mistake).

Someone who steals a car, or mugs a pensioner, or shoots a mobile phone user, has a pre-meditated intention to cause harm and suffering to their victim. We cannot tolerate such behaviour in our society, and the best way of stopping them is to bang them up (for a long time). If the 45mph-er hits someone (or the 20mph-er, going past a school at throwing out time without looking) then they too should get a severe sentence.

Forget statistics about re-offending rates - at least if they are in prison they can't hurt us. And the longer they stay there, the less harm they can do.

mb

jon hill

Boomer - its an analogy which helps to make a point. The whole speeding / law thing is being done to death elsewhere

Bravo - again, you're not tackling the issue that larger sentances do not act as a deterant and do not reduce the crime rate. Understand that your average low life sees car theft in the same light as Boomer sees 45 / 30 i.e. No one gets hurt, its no big deal, it may be against the law but its not a "real" crime; maybe then begin to understand what you're dealing with.

Mr Big, long sentences, "tough on crime", etc, etc are the stuff of politicians looking for the middle england mirror vote. There are no simple solutions - even shipping them to austalia didnt work.

jon

boomer

I dispair

The reason why the "low life" don't treat their nasty business as a '"real" crime' is precisely because there is no longer any real punishment.

As for the 45/30 analogy - i would rather you had compared "real crime" with something like jumping a red traffic light, which is highly likely to cause injury and thus a cost to society (and not acceptable to most people on the BBS). Theft, whether via burglary, mugging, robbery or whatever has an IMMEDIATE impact on society, regardless as to whether the person responsible is caught. Speeding (yeh, done to death) only has a real impact when you hit someone (or get caught).

mb

jon hill

Boomer

You are saying that speeding is not a "real" crime.

At what point did laws become down to individual choice on whether they are accpetable ?

Understand that the low life have the same opinion on car theft as you have to speeding; Its not a real crime; they've got insurance; not my problem.


Bravo

I totally agree that the appalling catch & conviction rate is a major issue. However this discussion was as to whether putting people away for years will reduce the problem. The only evidence in existance (unless you can bring anything new to the table) is that countries with higher imprisonment rates have higher crime rates, so sticking folk in jail doesnt solve the problem.

Ok - personal opinion now. A major issue is the "individual is right" attitude as expressed by boomer above. I dont like, or agree with, a law, so I choose not to accept it even if the punishment is severe.

an example:

We have far harsher speeding penalties now than say 5 years ago. Do we (as performance car drivers) now accept that speeding is against the law, so therefore we shouldnt ever go above the limit ?

I think not

The same applies to your low life. They believe its ok to nick cars. If harsher penalties do not alter our (more reasonable) mind sets to speeding, why do you supose that harsher sentances will change theirs to their crimes ?

jon hill

good thread btw

made me actually think about my opinions rather than let rip with the usual bollox (integras are the best fwd, handlings better than power, etc, etc)