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.
Options
"Lenient" Sentences- rubbish
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Tony Blair condemns the judiciary for following the laws he set down, which I suppose is about right for that moral vacuum.
But I don't understand why people get so upset about things like 30% discounts and early release. We need them to operate the system.
Take the 30% discount. That's to give people an incentive to plead guilty at the earliest stage. That's because it makes the court proceedings a lot cheaper and, more importantly, it means the victims don't have to be a witness in court. Taking the recent rape of the toddler, the benefit of the 30% discount is that that toddler doesn't have to go into a room and tell everyone about what that nasty man did to her. Without these discounts, the man would make her do that, as there's always a 0.0001% chance the jury might believe him.
And as MR has said countless times before, you need a bit of stick and carrot in prison in order to make them function. If you don't get released early for good behaviour, there's no incentive to behave well. If that doesn't make prison ungovernable, nothing will.
The stupidest point though is that "10 years must mean 10 years". Why? The judge chooses 10 years knowing that it means 5- what would happen is that sentences would drop to 5 years, and you wouldn't then have the benefit of rehabilitating people under strict licence conditions. Even if you only spend half the time in prison, you are still usually subject to many restrictions- curfews and bans on entering licensed premises, normally.
Does anyone think that the carrot-and-tick approach could be improved by removing these things? And does anyone seriously think people will plead guilty and spare their victims having to recount their rape if there is no benefit to pleading guilty?
But I don't understand why people get so upset about things like 30% discounts and early release. We need them to operate the system.
Take the 30% discount. That's to give people an incentive to plead guilty at the earliest stage. That's because it makes the court proceedings a lot cheaper and, more importantly, it means the victims don't have to be a witness in court. Taking the recent rape of the toddler, the benefit of the 30% discount is that that toddler doesn't have to go into a room and tell everyone about what that nasty man did to her. Without these discounts, the man would make her do that, as there's always a 0.0001% chance the jury might believe him.
And as MR has said countless times before, you need a bit of stick and carrot in prison in order to make them function. If you don't get released early for good behaviour, there's no incentive to behave well. If that doesn't make prison ungovernable, nothing will.
The stupidest point though is that "10 years must mean 10 years". Why? The judge chooses 10 years knowing that it means 5- what would happen is that sentences would drop to 5 years, and you wouldn't then have the benefit of rehabilitating people under strict licence conditions. Even if you only spend half the time in prison, you are still usually subject to many restrictions- curfews and bans on entering licensed premises, normally.
Does anyone think that the carrot-and-tick approach could be improved by removing these things? And does anyone seriously think people will plead guilty and spare their victims having to recount their rape if there is no benefit to pleading guilty?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
What I'd like to see is dangerous people in jail properly, and jail that is good for them, that teaches them life skills and denies them access to drugs, and makes them work for their upkeep rather than gives them an easy ride.
I'd then like to see all those who aren't dangerous on really grueling community service orders, ones that have an impact on their life rather than fit in round it.
Which prisons give prisoners an "easy ride", Scary Monster? Are you going to give us some examples?
And what do you mean by "gruelling"? Do you mean humiliation and physical labour, do you think that would help rehabilitation?
Those who have talents will use those talents as part of their CPO- those who can garden, for instance, will be sent to work on council gardens. Those who don't have talents will be educated as part of their CPO- and if they don't turn up, they will be sent to prison. Those with drug and alcohol problems will be given assistance and counselling about drugs or alcohol- far more useful than being in a chain gang, I'm sure you'd agree.
And if you don't obey your CPO you go to prison, don't forget that.
If somebody gets caught red handed in the act of a crime the 30% 'discount' still applies...Or so I heard Michael Gove saying on BBC News 24 a few days ago. If that's right it does seem to be taking the piss a bit.
As for the "10 years must mean 10 years", the reason for this is simple. Judges now have to lie every time they pass sentence. This is not intentional. I suspect even our most woolly, pathetic liberal judges (and there seem to be plenty about) know that when they say eight years, they'll probably be out in three to commit yet more crimes. Criminals let loose simply to save a duplicitous government money. Protecting the public? That can go rot as far as our legal establishment is concerned.
I've committed crimes (minor minor ones), I've done bad things, that doesn't mean I'd ever do it again. Some people (get this, right - it might be a new concept to you) LEARN from the mistakes they make. Just because they've committed one crime, and done time for it, doesn't mean that as soon as they step out of the door they're going to go straight out and do it again. And, if I am correct, repeat offenders get LONGER sentences, no?
Also, I suspect that Kermit knows more about this than you do. What with his Law degree and whatnot.
It's also no surprise to see you doing Kermit's bidding by trying to make a cheap shot at me. No, I don't have the advantage of having studied Law. Big deal. You don't have one either, so quite why you're jumping on the high horse is beyond me. However, to correct a misassumption here, I don't just get this information from reports in tabloid newspapers. I do read law every now and then, I keep an eye on law reports, I take an interest in how laws are made, how they're enforced, that sort of thing. Politics and law are inextrovably linked.
Yup. There are various rules (can't remember exactly what they're called) which mean that if an offender ommits a similar act (for example, if a peadohpile was to ill a child [crap example I knw]) then they will go back inside to srve the remainder of that previous sentence. (I think so, anyway)
It should be for dangerous, hardened maniacs like murderers, paedophiles, rapists and other scumbags who've committed heinous, abhorrent crimes. As far as I'm concerned, people like that don't deserve a chance of release and should spend the rest of their lives in prison. Those who've committed "minor" crimes, the question shouldn't even apply, as they shouldn't be locked up in the first place.
I can't even begin to imagine trying to re-enter a world I'd been removed from for 5 years. I'd probably , perhaps subconsciously, try to be sent back to the waiting room with bars.......
Just a brain fart.
However I think that a lot of sentences are too short a punishment for the crime. But my opinion on this is highly skewed by the fact that the only things I know about sentencing and the law is what I read in papers (no, not the Sun) and see on the news or online. I only see what the media wants us to see because let's face it I'm not doing a Law degree and where else would I get information from if not from the media? Which newspaper do you think is the most popular in England? Judging by what we sell at work, we sell about 5 tabloids for every broadsheet. I'm smart enough not to believe every sensationalist word the tabloids print, but so many people who read them aren't, and believe their loaded language and hyped up stories. Their opinions are based on this, not actual fact. So I'd say yes, your language is loaded and you do sound like a tabloid. I've never seen the Times or the Telegraph use phrases such as 'baby-raping scumbags' yet you see plenty of similar phrases in the Sun, Star and Mail. Ok maybe not the Star, that's mainly about boobs.
Oh I see you've changed your post now, but just to point out I'm not taking 'cheap shots' at you, no more so than you did with Franki anyway.
KHSS is so right, you talk in the same monotone constant loaded language that I would expect from an upper class Tory boy.
Learn to read plank.
He talks like a right wing taxi driver regurgitating crap he reads in whichever red top comic he gets from the newsagents. KHSS is right though.
"Guess who I had in the back the other week, AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT!!!"