warrenm2

The latest figures released show that over 100,000 offenders have 15 previous convictions or cautions, over 1 in 3 dealt with by the courts. Over 156,000 had 7 or more. The thing this article fails to mention is that these are the people that are actually caught, factor in the ones where for whatever reason, resources, competence or luck, the offender gets away and the true scale of the crime problem is shocking and showing a year on year growth.

Rehabilitation and community service is failing, and it seems, is merely adding fuel to the fire. The simple fact is that criminals can't commit crimes against the public whilst behind bars. Three strikes and you're out, lock them up. Why is this such a hard lesson and why does the public have to suffer?

Read this and weep for the death of justice in this country

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-cautions.html

ScoobyWon't

Let's wait for your friend, Martin2005, to come along and tell you that you're wrong

I say lock them up. We'll need to build more prisons and that will call for more construction workers etc, reducing unemployment in that sector, call for prison guards etc, hopefully again reducing unemployment, giving these employees more disposable income to spend, hence fueling the economy and best of all, the criminals wouldn't be getting the dole and any other benefits.

warrenm2

On past form he won't add anything useful, merely snipe and fence sit saying it's complicated, while the country burns... One can hope that he might change

I'm broadly with you there but be careful of Bastiat's broken window fallacy, building prisons, and employing prison guards is a cost which needs to be paid from taxation. However in this case it is clearly needed so the money needs to be spent to protect the public. (I've seen figures saying that the cost of a prisoner is around 35K pa but the typical cost of the crime spree if they were out is around 100K pa, so a clear benefit to locking them up)

David Lock

OK so you think longer sentences are the answer and, of course, that would bring the crime numbers down.

But in fact the article you quote doesn't really talk about longer sentences and directs its comments about the failure of rehabilitation.

It strikes me that society in general is breaking down and you get these (mostly) kids who have given up on life. They couldn't care less who they damage or if they end up in clink for the umpteenth time.

One could argue that society has failed them - parents, schools, all the usual suspects.

So is this reversible? I rather doubt it but I don't think locking them up for longer really achieves anything aside from a marginally safer society.

dl

TelBoy

I was watching People Like Us the other evening, now that's an eye-opener. Ultra deprived suburb of Manchester, Harpurhey. One of the landlords was talking about how burglary was basically a way of life there. "It's not because they want it" he said "it's just so that you don't have it". It took me a few moments to try and conceptualise that mentality.

magepaster

iTrader: (2)

The actual cost of keeping a criminal in prison is closer to £45,000

Fantom

No need for more prisons really, or longer sentences.......
Just severe punishments.

Crime and Punishment for commoners during the Elizabethan era included the following:

Hanging

Burning

The Pillory and the Stocks

Whipping

Branding

Pressing

Ducking stools

The Wheel

Boiling in oil water or lead (usually reserved for poisoners )

Starvation in a public place

Cutting off various items of the anatomy - hands, ears etc

The Gossip's Bridle or the Brank

The Drunkards Cloak

Leslie

I agree with you completely. If you commit a crime than you should expect the full force of the law upon yourself and a significant sentence which is enough to make you think twice next time.

Now we can stand back for Martin to castigate us.

Les

Dirk Diggler 75

Tougher sentences are needed to curb crime whoever said" crime doesn't pay" is full of shat because it clearly does .............

warrenm2

That surely is the whole point!

Again, another good reason to sentence them to long sentences

Well that would certainly be a step forward from where we are now. As for incentivising people properly, that would need to be on several fronts, there isn't a one size fits all because there are so many factors involved

22BUK

Forget new prisons.
Subcontract the prison service to third world countries.
See how many re-offend after six months or so in a third world jail.

DYK

Won't happen though,you'll have the human rights and pc lot up in arms over it..

Martin2005

I agree sentencing should continue to get tougher.

The 'bald facts' that were mysteriously left out of this post were that crime has been falling for years, one of the key reasons is tougher sentencing.

What the figures show is that there is a hard core of criminals who are responsible for a huge % crimes, these people need to be dealt with with even harsher sentencing

It is of course true that some crimes are just harder to committ these days, and other just are as economically rewarding, this has had an impact too on crime figures

Long may this trend continue.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

There's always one sucker who actually believes the government's figures

Dirk Diggler 75

Two if you include Mr.Cameron ......

Martin2005

I'm more than aware of the limitations of the crime stats and surveys thank you. And I'm absolutely certain that crime is much higher than actually reported.

What is clear is the trend in the data over the past 20 years, it's going down, just like in pretty much every developed country in the world

Martin2005

No hyperbole here

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No it's not clear, not clear at all....are you absolutely sure you aren't an MP in disguise?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Martin2005

You have some information to share?

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Do you? You made the statement after just saying you are sure it's higher than stated As for me I just use my eyes thanks!

warrenm2

It was a backhanded reference to the riots 18 months ago. Sorry you didn't make the connection, although I'm pleased to hear you support tougher sentencing. It definitely earns a

warrenm2

Do you have a link to this data?

RA Dunk

Me personally I can't see how it is, just seeing the amount of scummy ba$tards walking the streets nowadays tells me different. I would put money on it those figures have been doctored or tweeked somewhere along the lines.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Me too!

Then there are all the crimes that go unrecorded. My business partner witnessed some pissed up raging idiot who lives a few doors down the road from him kicking a large dent in his car door a few Fridays ago at around 1am whilst the guy was involved in some fracas over his 'woman'.

He tried to report it to the police, but they more or less told him to do one until he got stroppy with them. They didn't want it recording as a crime basically!

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Since almost no actual rehabilitation is being done (due to mix of budget cuts and whinging by right-wing newspapers), how can you argue that it isn't working? They go into prison, then the come out. That's about it. Except that now they have a criminal record, and thus no chance of a job. They also get no help finding one. What exactly did you think was going to happen? Even if you lock them up longer, all you do is delay the inevitable - they will be released (only later), they still can't get a job, they still aren't getting any help, so they will still re-offend. All evidence points to actual rehabilitation working far better than prison. But since it's not 100% effective (nothing is) then as soon as a few prisoners who have been through it ro-offend the red-tops scream like little girls, and the government cuts the budget claiming that it's a "failure". So it is, but not half as much as prison.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

According to these hotly debated figures out this week, there was just as big a rise in the number of repeat offenders with 15 or more previous convictions between 2001 and 2006 as there was since the Tories came in. So does that mean Labour were cutting those budgets at just as big a rate, or could it be closer to the truth that short sentences combined with inadequate rehabilitation give you the worst of both worlds: no punitive or positive disincentive to stop offending, and less time locked away from society where it's physically impossible to commit any crime.

Leslie

We were unfair on you Martin.

Les

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

In case you had forgotten, the Labour Party was competing with the Tories over being "Tough on Law and Order", so yes, they did the majority of the cutting.

There is no evidence that prison has any deterrent effect. Nor is it likely to, with conviction rates from most offences except murder below 10%. Mind you, there's little evidence that higher conviction rates work either: most criminals are convinced that they won't get caught, so aren't deterred by what might happen if they are. Only when they are actually in the police cells do they start caring. And once release, a) they stop caring, and b) they have little choice. There's endless evidence that what does work is:

1) Getting them a proper job.
2) Moving them a long way fro their old stamping grounds.
3) Having a wife/GF and children.
4) Training and/or education: a large majority of criminals are functionally (or actually) illiterate.
5) Sorting out the foster-care system: fostered children are vastly more likely to end up in prison.
6) Getting them off drugs.

All reduce offending more than prison, except in the narrow sense that while inside they are only committing offences against other prisoners and warders.

Martin2005

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280


discuss...