If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Our prisons are full - what to do?!
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
No, not build fucking prison ships, as the Tories wanted to do a few months ago...
The answer is much simpler according to the Howard League For Penal Reform. Says the Beeb:
"Short prison sentences serve no purpose and should be scrapped, according to the Howard League and the probation officers' union, Napo. [They] said 74% of prisoners serving terms of less than 12 months were reconvicted within two years. It wants money saved on prisons to go on supervising offenders in the community and setting up programmes to deal with drug abuse or violence. The government said it was conducting a full assessment of sentencing policy."
At fucking last! I've never understood the point of sending people into jail for short sentences in the first place. There's already a ridiculous number of people in prison who shouldn't even be there in the first place, thanks to deficiencies elsewhere. (for example, people with mental health problems who can't get the healthcare they need often end up doing porridge instead) Leave prisons to people who have committed serious crimes - particularly if they involve violence towards other people.
Now then, who's going to argue that the current system is fine, or that it actually needs toughening up even further? This thread could be very dull if you all agree with me.
Over to you...
The answer is much simpler according to the Howard League For Penal Reform. Says the Beeb:
"Short prison sentences serve no purpose and should be scrapped, according to the Howard League and the probation officers' union, Napo. [They] said 74% of prisoners serving terms of less than 12 months were reconvicted within two years. It wants money saved on prisons to go on supervising offenders in the community and setting up programmes to deal with drug abuse or violence. The government said it was conducting a full assessment of sentencing policy."
At fucking last! I've never understood the point of sending people into jail for short sentences in the first place. There's already a ridiculous number of people in prison who shouldn't even be there in the first place, thanks to deficiencies elsewhere. (for example, people with mental health problems who can't get the healthcare they need often end up doing porridge instead) Leave prisons to people who have committed serious crimes - particularly if they involve violence towards other people.
Now then, who's going to argue that the current system is fine, or that it actually needs toughening up even further? This thread could be very dull if you all agree with me.
Over to you...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I think short term prison sentences of less than 6 months, doesnt seem to deter the serious offenders, well the ones who commit the less serious crimes obviously.
I would still agree with short term jail sentences as for some it can do them a world of good. i mean, how else will you learn?
I'm not an advocate of being soft, and I am definitely in favour of sentences being meaningful and being consistent, but just pouring people into the prison system does little but cost a huge amount of taxpayer's money and overfill the prison system. Executions aren't the way forward either, due to the many miscarriages of justice that keep on happening.
I really think that the work needs to be done upfront. I appreciate that some people just seem to be bad to the core and will slip through any net thrown over them, but there are plenty who could and can be saved from the wrong path.
** Yes, they do know how much you have in your bank, current and savings. It's tied in with your national insurance number. I know this because when I was applying for housing benefits last year, they knew exactly what I had in each bank account.
That could clear out a fair amount of space.
So long as we don't kill them the Halal way, it won't be cruel.
this
Unfortunately, being a museli-eating immigrant-hugger from Islington doesn't mean you're going to be wrong about everything. Even if you're a female columnist who gets paid a six figure sum to write a load of toss for a newspaper each week and you have a villa in Tuscany, you might just be right about something.
Make some room for politicians and bishops.
this
Not to worry ...the clergy the police and the politicians somehow manage to avoid being put in front of a judge mostly.
An apology for raping your children stealing your money or pumping bullets into your dads head is usually enough.
Er, what the fuck has being female got to do with anything?
I think sometimes some people get that worked up about sexism, they try to inflame a situation when it doesnt need to be. However not that SG is innocent of never inflamed a situation.
Without saying female it wouldn't be so obvious that it's Polly Toynbee...
Back on topic.....
I think there should be far more community service and supervision orders. Unless someone is a threat to others by walking the streets then nice big fines AND hefty community service orders. I'm all in favour of seriously long term community service orders. 20 hours a week for 10 years would be far better than jail. (Obviously 20 hours a week on top of a full time job)
Jamelia - the gift that just keeps on giving.
It's just there are loads of ways you could describe her so that we would know who she is, so picking on her gender struck me as strange - the turn of phrase really jumped out at me as odd. Like "female columnist" is some important distinction, rather than all the other identifying features of her. Nobody would ever refer to men by their gender, so it's kinda odd to me that someone would do that about women.
It makes me think of this cartoon: http://www.xkcd.com/385/
I'm not saying there's overt sexism going on, it's just an odd way of seeing the world, where men are the norm and femaleness is an aberration. Anyway, I'll leave you to get back on topic.
If I did type/say something like that, it would be having a discussion about a theif who happened to be black, not anything along the lines of he/she was a thief because of the colour. Much as you might talk about the "white/black young/old employed/unemployed person etc" in any situation.
I could see how SG's comment could have been taken in the wrong way, regardless of whether it was meant to be inflammatory or not, sometimes the flying daggers in here are peoples reactions (rightly or wrongly) to SG and not what he is actually saying.
People need to chill sometimes.
Tagged and huge community service order - the kind that means they are occupied at least 80 hours a week.
I think I'd rather that then they spent time in jail, less cost to me as a tax payer and actually makes them pay something back to society.
Now let's see everyone kick off at how I'm now allegedly insulting Geordies, like good little children. The lack of independent thought amongst people on this board terrifies me sometimes.
As for Whowhere, you may have a point. I'd personally leave the option open of a spell in prison for repeat offenders, but it would be entirely at the discretion of judges. I wouldn't want politicians ruining, sorry I mean, running the justice system.
And if they continue comitting crimes? You can only burgle so many peoples' houses or steal so much from shops before the courts realise you don't really give a toss about your community service.
Most people think of prison as a punishment, I think of it as respite for the law abiding. Got some little arse that keeps breaching his asbo abusing people on the street, stealing their stuff and smashing their windows? He may not be bothered about going to prison but at least his victims will have a few months of peace.