Failings of the British Justice System part 164876

Former Member

A measurable benefit. A real benefit. Something proven to reduce reoffending rates, should always take precedent over something that feels like justice for the victim. Someone feeling better is all nicey nice, but when it comes to hard cash being spent, I think it should be about what works. Frequently what works, and what feels like justice for the victim is the same, but that doesn't mean that "justice" should ever be a factor in deciding the sentence.

Hypothetical situation: If something was proven 90% to work (cut reoffending rates, deter crime in the first place, etc), but offered no justice for the victim, whereas something else had 50% success rate, but offered a lot of justice for the victim, I would always pick the first. Whereas you seem to believe that because it offers no punishment for punishment's sake, it's not an adequate sentence. Well fair enough, but only one way will reduce crime, which is what I want from a system that I invest my money into. Punishment may work as a deterrent, in which case I would support it, but only because it would have an effect on crime, not because the person "needs to be punished".