"Lenient" Sentences- rubbish

Former Member

I'm not asking for a lowest common denominator type of debate, but there could be a level of helpfulness that isn't currently common. For example, when asked to clarify something, they could just do it, rather than directing someone to attempt to construct a perspective from the convoluted debate. Sometimes the debate decends into unnecessary semantics. Generally many on here would rather make life difficult than have a good debate.

There are other ways of going about it too...

Former Member

I see what youre saying, but as I said - not that it makes it any better - that just tends to be this site as a whole, and it might be a tall order asking the whole way this site seems to be, to change, and also Fiend, for what its worth, I think youre as guilty of that attitude in general as anyone is.

Former Member

yes, you're probably right, though i have been making recent attempts to address that, specifically with helping Luke clarify his arguements.

Former Member

most crims who know they are going to to jail will plead not guilty ...to drag ot the case as long as possible before getting sent down. ...especialy if you are being remanded in custody while the trial runs.
the reason being ...a man who is in jail that has not yet been found guilty of any crime gets certain benefits a convicted man doesn't.
like visits every day instead of half an hour a month.
outside food and money coming in ...wear your own clothes and much more.
plus ...this much better prison lifestyle comes off your sentence.
you can be remanded for maybe twelve months so ...twelve months of your sentence has been much more comfortable.
meaning ...offering you time off your sentence for a straight guilty plea ...does stop people using the system for their own ends at your expense.

if ten years meant ten years ...not one prisoner would have any incentive to behave himself ...the officers would be working in a very very dangerous place ...recruitment would be almost impossible,
if your doing three years but only have to serve two ...that gives the officers a whole year they can chip away at as punishment.
get caught fighting ...you will be thrown in solitary confinement for a while ...and have a month of that spare twelve months to do.
get in more trouble ...you loose some more of that twelve months.
there are many complete twats in there who actualy take pride in doing the whole sentence ...'i'm 'ard i am ...fuck your rules and your parole' ...you'd be surprised how many people there are like this in our jails.
the system cannot work if ten years means ten years.

Former Member

That's absolutely right- the whole system works based on giving prisoners an incentive to get some time of their sentence if they behave well inside. It makes the guards job more doable as people have an incentive to keep out of trouble and get released that bit earlier. Here in Ireland things are a bit more definite and you can only get 25% of your sentence for good behaviour and there is no other early release/tagging etc. It is also the reason that prisoners get some basic priviliges like TV etc. as these too can be taken away for pretty minor trouble.

Former Member

But behaving good inside doesn't necessarily mean you'll behave good outside. Criminals have very little say in job opportunities when they're released and hence go back into crime in a lot of cases. Though the system does work on what you're saying rolly, it would be chaos if everyone had to do their time and had no incentive to behave.

Former Member

No it doesn't but it makes things easier inside. You're right about what you say abou how hard it is to get a job afterwards and that's one reason why so many people end up going back to crime. I was determined as hell to get a job but it took a long time and I had to lie to get that - it's not a great job or anything. I still think that the best thing that could be done would be for people coming out of prison to get a guaranteed job and guaranteed accomodation for the first 3 months with a decent wage to get them back on their feet if they want to. It would cost money but you would save money in the long run.

Former Member

I'm not sure about this good behaviour thing.

They misbehaved that's why they're in prison in the first place - we need to emphaise that a lot more. You're in prison because you can't abide by the laws outside.
This would be a better way of dealing with the good behaved and the bad behaved and will store crediability in the justice system.

If one person gets 10 years in prison and only does 5... often the setence of 10 years doesn't fit the crime never mind 5 years.

Give them 10 years in prison... if they are well behaved then rthey only do the ten years, if they cause trouble, fight, drugs etc... keep adding on months or even years to their sentence.

Former Member

shane999 wrote:

No it doesn't but it makes things easier inside. You're right about what you say abou how hard it is to get a job afterwards and that's one reason why so many people end up going back to crime. I was determined as hell to get a job but it took a long time and I had to lie to get that - it's not a great job or anything. I still think that the best thing that could be done would be for people coming out of prison to get a guaranteed job and guaranteed accomodation for the first 3 months with a decent wage to get them back on their feet if they want to. It would cost money but you would save money in the long run.

What would happen after the 3 months are up? The employer may sack them? etc etc It would cause resentment, the pex con has been failed by the system. Not sure about that mate.

Former Member

But if a person just sees their sentence getting longer and longer then you'll end up with the kind of riots seen in South America wouldn't you? Mass hostage taking, guards being murdered mostly by people who never see an end to their jail term.

Former Member

Jim V wrote:

But if a person just sees their sentence getting longer and longer then you'll end up with the kind of riots seen in South America wouldn't you? Mass hostage taking, guards being murdered mostly by people who never see an end to their jail term.

If they don't their sentence to get longer, then behave, it's as simple as that.

Get it firmly drawn up that being well behaved brings benefits.... out of jail... and not early either as you've broken the law.
Carry on braking the law and you won't get out.

Former Member

luke88 wrote:

If they don't their sentence to get longer, then behave, it's as simple as that.

Get it firmly drawn up that being well behaved brings benefits.... out of jail... and not early either as you've broken the law.
Carry on braking the law and you won't get out.

There has to be a carrot as well as a stick, if you purely use punishment (adding to their sentance) there comes a point where it doesnt work.

Unless of course you want to start using real sticks.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

There has to be a carrot as well as a stick, if you purely use punishment (adding to their sentance) there comes a point where it doesnt work.

Unless of course you want to start using real sticks.

The principle of being well behaved should not mean the sentence is lowered... as the victims heartache isn't lowered isn it. Think of the victim first, then the criminal.

Former Member

luke88 wrote:

If they don't their sentence to get longer, then behave, it's as simple as that.

Get it firmly drawn up that being well behaved brings benefits.... out of jail... and not early either as you've broken the law.
Carry on braking the law and you won't get out.

And if people were really nice to each other there would be no fights, arguments, thefts, killings...

Sadly that's not the case. And we have to behave realistically.

If you don't offer incentives for good behaviour then jails would be an infinitely worse place to be, and one from whom nobody would ever get out.

You cannot just 'behave' in a completely lawless place or resign yourself to daily beatings and rapes so you don't add extra time to your sentence, you know...

Former Member

luke88 wrote:

The principle of being well behaved should not mean the sentence is lowered... as the victims heartache isn't lowered isn it. Think of the victim first, then the criminal.

The point is justice, not revenge or satisfaction for the victimes. Believe it or not those are two different things.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

And if people were really nice to each other there would be no fights, arguments, thefts, killings...

Sadly that's not the case. And we have to behave realistically.

If you don't offer incentives for good behaviour then jails would be an infinitely worse place to be, and one from whom nobody would ever get out.

You cannot just 'behave' in a completely lawless place or resign yourself to daily beatings and rapes so you don't add extra time to your sentence, you know...

What about the victim? if they knew the criminal's sentence would be slashed then that's not fair on them is it. The victim is always forgotton pretty quickly.

Sorry but if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

The point is justice, not revenge or satisfaction for the victimes. Believe it or not those are two different things.

I supose there is. But justice slashed in half? The victims heartache isn't slashed is it?

Former Member

Nonsense. What if the victim wants the death penalty for simple burglary? Do you execute the criminal? At the end of the day, poor little victim not getting their wishes...

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Nonsense. What if the victim wants the death penalty for simple burglary? Do you execute the criminal? At the end of the day, poor little victim not getting their wishes...

The death penalty was abolished years ago, someone can't be sentenced to that.

What ever the courts give the criminal... the punishment should fit the crime, the crimianl should serve the full sentence. Justice served.

Former Member

luke88 wrote:

What ever the courts give the criminal... the punishment should fit the crime, the crimianl should serve the full sentence. Justice served.

Do you think judges dont know the sentance at the moment, do you think they dont know that they can get parole at half time?

If you force all prisoners to do full time then they'd just get half what they do now.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

Do you think judges dont know the sentance at the moment, do you think they dont know that they can get parole at half time?

If you force all prisoners to do full time then they'd just get half what they do now.

If the judges believes they will get parole then if they were going to sentence them to 10 years, give them 20 instead.

Former Member

luke88 wrote:

If the judges believes they will get parole then if they were going to sentence them to 10 years, give them 20 instead.

So you want every prisoner across the board to serve double time to now?

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

So you want every prisoner across the board to serve double time to now?

Yeah course I do :rolleyes:

No.

It's as simple as this...

if one is sentenced to 10 years, they do 10 years. I've said this a few times now. It's very easy to understand.

Former Member

It doesn't work like that Luke. Never has, and hopefully never will.

The entire justice system is structured around the principle of rehabilitation and reduced sentences for good behaviour. And it works just fine as it is.

Former Member

How about we give justice to the criminals but also to the victims by giving them councelling on the issues of forgiveness and reconciliation. A half way house maybe?

Former Member

turlough wrote:

How about we give justice to the criminals but also to the victims by giving them councelling on the issues of forgiveness and reconciliation. A half way house maybe?

We do, as far as I know, but its under funded and not as extensive as it should be.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

We do, as far as I know, but its under funded and not as extensive as it should be.

There's a scheme like that here, bombers and murderers get to meet their victims and victims' families and try and sort things out. Good idea I think if it got off the ground properly.

Former Member

luke88 wrote:

if one is sentenced to 10 years, they do 10 years. I've said this a few times now. It's very easy to understand.

And the fact that a practicing laywer, people who work with prisoners and people who've been inside disagree with you means nothing?

To run a prison on purely punishment terms can be done, but it costs a lot more, you need much higher levels of staff and much tighter control on the movement of prisoners.

Former Member

It's human psycology, punishment simply doesn't work that way. Which is why you often find that the most rebellious children are the ones who are the most harshly dealt with. The most well rounded those who get a combination of punishment and reward, and the most spoilt those that only get praise and never get a spanking.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

To run a prison on purely punishment terms can be done, but it costs a lot more, you need much higher levels of staff and much tighter control on the movement of prisoners.

I think the mass population won't mind.