At what point do you lock 'em up and throw away the key?

[StuartO]

James Bulger's murderer, Jon Venables, 10 yrs old when he killed but now 35 and on his third new identity, is back in prison having been found with child pornography images (again) on his computer while he was free on licence.

 

At what point does society abandon attempts to rehabilitate and reform criminals and protect the public by keeping him in custody indefinitely?

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Never according the excuse merchants :-| .........

 

No matter how many more victims they cause *-) .......

 

Just so long as they can keep polishing their dam halo's >:-( ......

 

 

[RogerC]

Too many 'liberal' do gooders in positions of influence these days means, in answer to your question.........never.

Had we a few more persons of backbone and a stronger sense of justice as opposed to those who can not see the 'injustice' perpetrated by the softening down of our judicial system, in positions of influence then maybe, just maybe we would have a sufficiently robust system of punishment which would deter.  Instead we have a system that does little to reinforce the strength of the law, to make prison, all prisons, somewhere it is seriously deemed not the place to be, but prefers to pander to those who are apologists and prefer kid gloves and rehabilitation. 

Rehabilitation is clearly the desired outcome for those criminals determined to follow a life outside of the law.  However IMO deterrent should come before rehabilitation....and we have insufficient deterrent strength in our legal system.

   

[Violet1956]

There seems to be a public ground swell for tougher sentencing based on a belief that crime would be reduced. However, most criminals don’t think of what their sentence is likely to be if they are caught before they commit crimes. Many are so out of control that they don’t give a fig and there are those that weigh up the degree to which it is likely they will get caught. Sadly, the odds are often in the favour of the latter. So, whilst calls for longer sentences and indeterminate sentences are popular, I would not assume that they would achieve a reduction in crime generally.

 

I would agree however that there are those whose crimes are so heinous that they should never be released.

 

As for Venables, he has proved to be quite obviously one sick individual from the off and the degree to which he persists in his unhealthy preoccupations suggests he is beyond hope as far as rehabilitation is concerned. I would be happy if we threw away the key in his case.

 

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-23 6:38 PM

 

There seems to be a public ground swell for tougher sentencing based on a belief that crime would be reduced. However, most criminals don’t think of what their sentence is likely to be if they are caught before they commit crimes. Many are so out of control that they don’t give a fig and there are those that weigh up the degree to which it is likely they will get caught. Sadly, the odds are often in the favour of the latter. So, whilst calls for longer sentences and indeterminate sentences are popular, I would not assume that they would achieve a reduction in crime generally.

 

I would agree however that there are those whose crimes are so heinous that they should never be released.

 

As for Venables, he has proved to be quite obviously one sick individual from the off and the degree to which he persists in his unhealthy preoccupations suggests he is beyond hope as far as rehabilitation is concerned. I would be happy if we threw away the key in his case.

He's not just a danger to society he's a danger to himself and it's obvious time spent in custody didn't work with him. I seem to remember he once disclosed his true identity on social media which got him in trouble as the authorities had previously changed it so had to again.

 

Thompson on the other hand seems to have sorted himself and not re-offended in any way yet at the time of the murder he was reported as being the main ring leader of the two.

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-23 6:38 PM

 

There seems to be a public ground swell for tougher sentencing based on a belief that crime would be reduced. However, most criminals don’t think of what their sentence is likely to be if they are caught before they commit crimes. Many are so out of control that they don’t give a fig and there are those that weigh up the degree to which it is likely they will get caught. Sadly, the odds are often in the favour of the latter. So, whilst calls for longer sentences and indeterminate sentences are popular, I would not assume that they would achieve a reduction in crime generally.

 

 

If criminals are locked up for longer......then it follows they will not be able to commit crimes? ;-) .......

 

I'm more than happy for our prison population to more than treble due to longer sentencing, I also reckon the savings in police, judiciary, lawyer and insurance costs will outweigh the cost of incarceration :-| ......

 

Considering we only spend 6 billion a year on locking up criminals yet violent crime alone costs 124 billion a year 8-) .......

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10013830/Violent-crime-costs-the-UK-economy-124-billion-report-suggests.html

 

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 8:40 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-11-23 6:38 PM

 

There seems to be a public ground swell for tougher sentencing based on a belief that crime would be reduced. However, most criminals don’t think of what their sentence is likely to be if they are caught before they commit crimes. Many are so out of control that they don’t give a fig and there are those that weigh up the degree to which it is likely they will get caught. Sadly, the odds are often in the favour of the latter. So, whilst calls for longer sentences and indeterminate sentences are popular, I would not assume that they would achieve a reduction in crime generally.

 

 

If criminals are locked up for longer......then it follows they will not be able to commit crimes? ;-) .......

 

 

 

Of course. The more serious a risk they pose to the public the longer the sentence should be.

[StuartO]

pelmetman - 2017-11-24 11:40 PM....Considering we only spend 6 billion a year on locking up criminals yet violent crime alone costs 124 billion a year 8-) ....

 

The problem with that line of argument is that while it might be costing a mixture of all sorts of people £124 billion in total (i.e. the victims of crime etc) because of the crime, it is the Government which would have to find the money to pay for an increase of the £6 billion to lock up more criminals, so it won't happen.

 

[StuartO]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 9:38 AM There seems to be a public ground swell for tougher sentencing based on a belief that crime would be reduced. However, most criminals don’t think of what their sentence is likely to be if they are caught before they commit crimes. Many are so out of control that they don’t give a fig and there are those that weigh up the degree to which it is likely they will get caught. Sadly, the odds are often in the favour of the latter. So, whilst calls for longer sentences and indeterminate sentences are popular, I would not assume that they would achieve a reduction in crime generally. I would agree however that there are those whose crimes are so heinous that they should never be released.As for Venables, he has proved to be quite obviously one sick individual from the off and the degree to which he persists in his unhealthy preoccupations suggests he is beyond hope as far as rehabilitation is concerned. I would be happy if we threw away the key in his case.

If the proposition is for longer sentences simply to keep the criminals out of circulation then it doesn't matter whether they would be detered from further offending outside prison because they won't get the chance.

 

Our justice system seems to operate on the basis that no one is a lost cause for rehabilitation and everyone who is in prison deserves rehabilitation efforts from the outset but some people must be lost causes, mustn't they?

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2017-11-24 10:27 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 9:38 AM There seems to be a public ground swell for tougher sentencing based on a belief that crime would be reduced. However, most criminals don’t think of what their sentence is likely to be if they are caught before they commit crimes. Many are so out of control that they don’t give a fig and there are those that weigh up the degree to which it is likely they will get caught. Sadly, the odds are often in the favour of the latter. So, whilst calls for longer sentences and indeterminate sentences are popular, I would not assume that they would achieve a reduction in crime generally. I would agree however that there are those whose crimes are so heinous that they should never be released.As for Venables, he has proved to be quite obviously one sick individual from the off and the degree to which he persists in his unhealthy preoccupations suggests he is beyond hope as far as rehabilitation is concerned. I would be happy if we threw away the key in his case.

If the proposition is for longer sentences simply to keep the criminals out of circulation then it doesn't matter whether they would be detered from further offending outside prison because they won't get the chance.

 

Our justice system likes to think that no one is a lost cause for rehabilitation but some people must be, mustn't they?

I believe there are people who are a lost cause as far as rehabilitation is concerned. People like Ian Brady for example. However, "lifers" once released have very low re-conviction rates- only 2.2% of those sentenced to a mandatory life sentence and 4.8% of those serving other life sentences re-offend compared to the 46.9% re-offending rate of other prisoners according to this report from the 2013 stats.https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/Life-sentence-prisoners.pdf

[tonyishuk]

The problem usually is inbred from grandparents generation and before, changing the genetic and social structures are inherently difficult. Sometimes society wins and can produce a sensible citizen, more often it's just interference in an established pattern of behaviour.

 

Rgds

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 10:40 AM

StuartO - 2017-11-24 10:27 AM

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 9:38 AM There seems to be a public ground swell for tougher sentencing based on a belief that crime would be reduced. However, most criminals don’t think of what their sentence is likely to be if they are caught before they commit crimes. Many are so out of control that they don’t give a fig and there are those that weigh up the degree to which it is likely they will get caught. Sadly, the odds are often in the favour of the latter. So, whilst calls for longer sentences and indeterminate sentences are popular, I would not assume that they would achieve a reduction in crime generally. I would agree however that there are those whose crimes are so heinous that they should never be released.As for Venables, he has proved to be quite obviously one sick individual from the off and the degree to which he persists in his unhealthy preoccupations suggests he is beyond hope as far as rehabilitation is concerned. I would be happy if we threw away the key in his case.

If the proposition is for longer sentences simply to keep the criminals out of circulation then it doesn't matter whether they would be detered from further offending outside prison because they won't get the chance.

 

Our justice system likes to think that no one is a lost cause for rehabilitation but some people must be, mustn't they?

I believe there are people who are a lost cause as far as rehabilitation is concerned. People like Ian Brady for example. However, "lifers" once released have very low re-conviction rates- only 2.2% of those sentenced to a mandatory life sentence and 4.8% of those serving other life sentences re-offend compared to the 46.9% re-offending rate of other prisoners according to this report from the 2013 stats.https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/cjji/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/04/Life-sentence-prisoners.pdf

Certainly the likes of Brady and Hindley were 'lost causes' though Hindley was the only one determined to get release. Brady accepted his fate even though he proved an awkward arrogant prisoner. There's been some interesting documentaries recently on prisons and prisoners.....not sure if you saw any? One concerned Barlinnie and Shotts, both high security prisons in Scotland with 'lifers' and long term prisoners. It's not my idea of living though there's always those who think it 'paradise'. Idle talk is cheap. As one prisoner remarked, he's well familiar with that view from people who've never set foot in a prison and as he said, they should try it. They are among very serious criminals serving sentences for armed robbery to murder who would think nothing of killing you if they take a dislike to you so you're constantly 'on guard'. They have nothing to lose by killing another prisoner and there are some extremely violent men inside.One chap released from Shotts after serving 18 years seemed to have sorted himself out whilst inside. Stayed away from drugs, drink and trouble and kept himself occupied building models of NASA space shuttles etc from cardboard. The film crew followed him through to his actual release day which felt pretty weird and must have felt even more so for him. He had no concept of the outside world.....lots of cars on the road, people walking around glued to smartphones.....everyone seemed to be in a hurry.I think he lasted a couple of weeks or so before he was back inside after breaking his bail conditions. As he said, even though he'd been released, the only difference was he was serving a sentence on the outside and he couldn't cope.Rehabilitation seems to be a major problem with the UK prison system though there has been successes, perhaps one of the best known being John McVicar sentenced to 26 years for armed robbery, who now writes books and articles for media. Never re-offended since.

[Brian Kirby]

Just two things.

 

1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.

 

2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 5:53 PM

 

Just two things.

 

1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.

 

2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

Next door to you Brian ???

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 8:53 AMJust two things.1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

It doesn't follow that offenders will automatically or usually become more difficult to handle if they lose hope, they might actually become easier to manage.

 

I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off.  We might also sack the reformer who fails too.

 

[Brian Kirby]

antony1969 - 2017-11-24 5:56 PM.......................

Next door to you Brian ???

Of course not Snowflake, why would they do that? :-D

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2017-11-24 6:10 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 8:53 AMJust two things.1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

1 It doesn't follow that offenders will automatically or usually become more difficult to handle if they lose hope, they might actually become easier to manage.

 

2 I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off.  We might also sack the reformer who fails too.

 

1 I have always understood the prisons service to be uneasy about removing the incentive of early release for good behaviour for exactly that reason. Could be different types of offender, of course, but if we're talking about violent offenders, it must surely be a factor to consider?

 

2 Yes, that's one way to do it. But, each case is tried on its merits, is it not? So, I assume the cheapest remedies will be tried first, on the basis that this reduces cost in the interests of minimising public expenditure. Since predicting and re-directing human behaviour is inherently unpredictable, it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed.

 

It is a perennial problem with offenders that the great majority seem to be habitual re-offenders. The prison population seems to comprise mainly "regulars" who are released only to return again and again. So, what about three stripes and you're in? :-)

 

Those who can reform already do. Now, if one could accurately identify the potential habitual offenders and correct their behaviour, we should have fewer, smaller prisons, and could concentrate all our resources on the habituals to straighten them out. But how to do that? Problem with us rational folk is that we don't properly understand the irrational, and the habitual offenders don't respond to rationality.

 

Ever read "A Clockwork Orange"? The film was good, but the book is far more, IMO, unsettling.

[antony1969]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 6:32 PM

 

antony1969 - 2017-11-24 5:56 PM.......................

Next door to you Brian ???

Of course not Snowflake, why would they do that? :-D

 

Of course not

[Violet1956]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 6:58 PM

 

StuartO - 2017-11-24 6:10 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 8:53 AMJust two things.1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

1 It doesn't follow that offenders will automatically or usually become more difficult to handle if they lose hope, they might actually become easier to manage.

 

2 I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off.  We might also sack the reformer who fails too.

 

1 I have always understood the prisons service to be uneasy about removing the incentive of early release for good behaviour for exactly that reason. Could be different types of offender, of course, but if we're talking about violent offenders, it must surely be a factor to consider?

 

2 Yes, that's one way to do it. But, each case is tried on its merits, is it not? So, I assume the cheapest remedies will be tried first, on the basis that this reduces cost in the interests of minimising public expenditure. Since predicting and re-directing human behaviour is inherently unpredictable, it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed.

 

It is a perennial problem with offenders that the great majority seem to be habitual re-offenders. The prison population seems to comprise mainly "regulars" who are released only to return again and again. So, what about three stripes and you're in? :-)

 

Those who can reform already do. Now, if one could accurately identify the potential habitual offenders and correct their behaviour, we should have fewer, smaller prisons, and could concentrate all our resources on the habituals to straighten them out. But how to do that? Problem with us rational folk is that we don't properly understand the irrational, and the habitual offenders don't respond to rationality.

 

Ever read "A Clockwork Orange"? The film was good, but the book is far more, IMO, unsettling.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the "three stripes and you're in" policy would not lead to the tripling of the prison estate and do nothing to tackle the crime rate because most prisoners have to be released at some stage as their punishment "has to fit the crime" as well as protect the public. 'Twould satisfy Dave P perhaps but I wonder if his support for the necessary expenditure on tripling the prison estate is governed by the degree to which he personally would have to contribute. Foregoing one or two bottles of Rioja a week perhaps? That would be too much wouldn't it?

 

;-)

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 7:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 6:58 PM

 

StuartO - 2017-11-24 6:10 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 8:53 AMJust two things.1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

1 It doesn't follow that offenders will automatically or usually become more difficult to handle if they lose hope, they might actually become easier to manage.

 

2 I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off.  We might also sack the reformer who fails too.

 

1 I have always understood the prisons service to be uneasy about removing the incentive of early release for good behaviour for exactly that reason. Could be different types of offender, of course, but if we're talking about violent offenders, it must surely be a factor to consider?

 

2 Yes, that's one way to do it. But, each case is tried on its merits, is it not? So, I assume the cheapest remedies will be tried first, on the basis that this reduces cost in the interests of minimising public expenditure. Since predicting and re-directing human behaviour is inherently unpredictable, it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed.

 

It is a perennial problem with offenders that the great majority seem to be habitual re-offenders. The prison population seems to comprise mainly "regulars" who are released only to return again and again. So, what about three stripes and you're in? :-)

 

Those who can reform already do. Now, if one could accurately identify the potential habitual offenders and correct their behaviour, we should have fewer, smaller prisons, and could concentrate all our resources on the habituals to straighten them out. But how to do that? Problem with us rational folk is that we don't properly understand the irrational, and the habitual offenders don't respond to rationality.

 

Ever read "A Clockwork Orange"? The film was good, but the book is far more, IMO, unsettling.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the "three stripes and you're in" policy would not lead to the tripling of the prison estate and do nothing to tackle the crime rate because most prisoners have to be released at some stage as their punishment "has to fit the crime" as well as protect the public. 'Twould satisfy Dave P perhaps but I wonder if his support for the necessary expenditure on tripling the prison estate is governed by the degree to which he personally would have to contribute. Foregoing one or two bottles of Rioja a week perhaps? That would be too much wouldn't it?

 

;-)

You'll give him an aneurysm.......and he's already choking on his cornflakes at the thought of 20 years more austerity and deprivation as the cost of a £40+ billion divorce bill becomes reality.

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 9:58 AM.... it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed.

 

You're a great one for non sequiturs Brian - of course it's the offender's fault if he offends again, so he pays the price, but his failure may also indicate failure by the reformer who passed him as ready for release, so he comes under the microscope too. 

 

And why are you assuming it's necessary for repeat failures to have occured before we can take remedial action - isn't one failure enough for a reviewing judgement to be justified?

 

If you overlay your liberal ideas of giving people the benefit of multiple mistakes (as if they were somehow fundamental things) before we protect the public from these offenders, we put innocent lives and lifestyles at risk. 

 

I don't accept that offenders have rights to liberty at all.  My argument is that once an individual becomes an offender (arguably for any non-trivial offence, at any age) society has the right to make risk-management judgements about protecting members of society from them.  We are entitled to make judgements (or to use judges and/or probabtion officers to make judgements for us) and if in doubt, we can lock 'em up for our own protection anytime we want to.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 7:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 6:58 PM

 

StuartO - 2017-11-24 6:10 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 8:53 AMJust two things.1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

1 It doesn't follow that offenders will automatically or usually become more difficult to handle if they lose hope, they might actually become easier to manage.

 

2 I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off.  We might also sack the reformer who fails too.

 

1 I have always understood the prisons service to be uneasy about removing the incentive of early release for good behaviour for exactly that reason. Could be different types of offender, of course, but if we're talking about violent offenders, it must surely be a factor to consider?

 

2 Yes, that's one way to do it. But, each case is tried on its merits, is it not? So, I assume the cheapest remedies will be tried first, on the basis that this reduces cost in the interests of minimising public expenditure. Since predicting and re-directing human behaviour is inherently unpredictable, it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed.

 

It is a perennial problem with offenders that the great majority seem to be habitual re-offenders. The prison population seems to comprise mainly "regulars" who are released only to return again and again. So, what about three stripes and you're in? :-)

 

Those who can reform already do. Now, if one could accurately identify the potential habitual offenders and correct their behaviour, we should have fewer, smaller prisons, and could concentrate all our resources on the habituals to straighten them out. But how to do that? Problem with us rational folk is that we don't properly understand the irrational, and the habitual offenders don't respond to rationality.

 

Ever read "A Clockwork Orange"? The film was good, but the book is far more, IMO, unsettling.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the "three stripes and you're in" policy would not lead to the tripling of the prison estate and do nothing to tackle the crime rate because most prisoners have to be released at some stage as their punishment "has to fit the crime" as well as protect the public. 'Twould satisfy Dave P perhaps but I wonder if his support for the necessary expenditure on tripling the prison estate is governed by the degree to which he personally would have to contribute. Foregoing one or two bottles of Rioja a week perhaps? That would be too much wouldn't it?

 

;-)

 

We could help mitigate the numbers by sending foreign criminals home to serve their sentence rather than allowing them to stay in British prisons coz they're much nicer than their own *-) .......

 

Plus we could give all the 1st degree murderers like Huntley and terrorists a suspended sentence......from a piece of Chatham hemp >:-) .......

 

Its time to change the "R" word from rehabilitation to retribution :-| .......

 

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-11-25 9:20 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 7:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 6:58 PM

 

StuartO - 2017-11-24 6:10 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 8:53 AMJust two things.1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

1 It doesn't follow that offenders will automatically or usually become more difficult to handle if they lose hope, they might actually become easier to manage.

 

2 I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off.  We might also sack the reformer who fails too.

 

1 I have always understood the prisons service to be uneasy about removing the incentive of early release for good behaviour for exactly that reason. Could be different types of offender, of course, but if we're talking about violent offenders, it must surely be a factor to consider?

 

2 Yes, that's one way to do it. But, each case is tried on its merits, is it not? So, I assume the cheapest remedies will be tried first, on the basis that this reduces cost in the interests of minimising public expenditure. Since predicting and re-directing human behaviour is inherently unpredictable, it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed.

 

It is a perennial problem with offenders that the great majority seem to be habitual re-offenders. The prison population seems to comprise mainly "regulars" who are released only to return again and again. So, what about three stripes and you're in? :-)

 

Those who can reform already do. Now, if one could accurately identify the potential habitual offenders and correct their behaviour, we should have fewer, smaller prisons, and could concentrate all our resources on the habituals to straighten them out. But how to do that? Problem with us rational folk is that we don't properly understand the irrational, and the habitual offenders don't respond to rationality.

 

Ever read "A Clockwork Orange"? The film was good, but the book is far more, IMO, unsettling.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the "three stripes and you're in" policy would not lead to the tripling of the prison estate and do nothing to tackle the crime rate because most prisoners have to be released at some stage as their punishment "has to fit the crime" as well as protect the public. 'Twould satisfy Dave P perhaps but I wonder if his support for the necessary expenditure on tripling the prison estate is governed by the degree to which he personally would have to contribute. Foregoing one or two bottles of Rioja a week perhaps? That would be too much wouldn't it?

 

;-)

 

1. a. We could help mitigate the numbers by sending foreign criminals home to serve their sentence b. rather than allowing them to stay in British prisons coz they're much nicer than their own *-) .......

 

2. Plus we could give all the 1st degree murderers like Huntley and terrorists a suspended sentence......from a piece of Chatham hemp >:-) .......

 

3. Its time to change the "R" word from rehabilitation to retribution :-| .......

 

 

1a. agree there needs to be a concerted effort to remove more foreign prisoners

 

1b. A mythical representation of why not everyone can be sent back. There was (for once) a very good debate in Parliament on the subject of removal of foreign prisoners it can be found in the link below. The deal with Poland not to transfer prisoners ended in December 2016 for example.

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-06-06/debates/1606066000003/RemovalOfForeignNationalOffendersAndEUPrisoners

 

2. Even if we did that I doubt the prison population would fall significantly-you'd gain little more than a sip in a third glass. For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back.

 

3. Both rehabilitation and retribution are cornerstones of sentencing policy but rehabilitation comes up so often in debates that there is an impression that it takes precedence over everything else.

 

I, like you probably, abhor the phrase "prison doesn't work" makes me cringe every time I hear someone say it. The recidivism rate show that it works to prevent some offenders committing crime but not enough and of course once inside criminals are preventing from doing more harm for the duration of their sentence..

 

 

 

 

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2017-11-25 9:20 AM

 

Violet1956 - 2017-11-24 7:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-24 6:58 PM

 

StuartO - 2017-11-24 6:10 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 8:53 AMJust two things.1 When someone is literally locked up for a full life term (which is what I assume this is about) we remove all hope from them, so they have nothing further to lose, so little incentive to try to reform. Makes prisoner management a lot more difficult.2 At what point in someone's offending trajectory does one say they are a hopeless case, and must be detained indefinitely? Do they not have to le released at some point to see if they have reformed? Do we refuse to accept that risk? Are we all snowflakes? :-D

 

1 It doesn't follow that offenders will automatically or usually become more difficult to handle if they lose hope, they might actually become easier to manage.

 

2 I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off.  We might also sack the reformer who fails too.

 

1 I have always understood the prisons service to be uneasy about removing the incentive of early release for good behaviour for exactly that reason. Could be different types of offender, of course, but if we're talking about violent offenders, it must surely be a factor to consider?

 

2 Yes, that's one way to do it. But, each case is tried on its merits, is it not? So, I assume the cheapest remedies will be tried first, on the basis that this reduces cost in the interests of minimising public expenditure. Since predicting and re-directing human behaviour is inherently unpredictable, it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed.

 

It is a perennial problem with offenders that the great majority seem to be habitual re-offenders. The prison population seems to comprise mainly "regulars" who are released only to return again and again. So, what about three stripes and you're in? :-)

 

Those who can reform already do. Now, if one could accurately identify the potential habitual offenders and correct their behaviour, we should have fewer, smaller prisons, and could concentrate all our resources on the habituals to straighten them out. But how to do that? Problem with us rational folk is that we don't properly understand the irrational, and the habitual offenders don't respond to rationality.

 

Ever read "A Clockwork Orange"? The film was good, but the book is far more, IMO, unsettling.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the "three stripes and you're in" policy would not lead to the tripling of the prison estate and do nothing to tackle the crime rate because most prisoners have to be released at some stage as their punishment "has to fit the crime" as well as protect the public. 'Twould satisfy Dave P perhaps but I wonder if his support for the necessary expenditure on tripling the prison estate is governed by the degree to which he personally would have to contribute. Foregoing one or two bottles of Rioja a week perhaps? That would be too much wouldn't it?

 

;-)

 

1. a. We could help mitigate the numbers by sending foreign criminals home to serve their sentence b. rather than allowing them to stay in British prisons coz they're much nicer than their own *-) .......

 

2. Plus we could give all the 1st degree murderers like Huntley and terrorists a suspended sentence......from a piece of Chatham hemp >:-) .......

 

3. Its time to change the "R" word from rehabilitation to retribution :-| .......

 

 

1a. agree there needs to be a concerted effort to remove more foreign prisoners

 

1b. A mythical representation of why not everyone can be sent back. There was (for once) a very good debate in Parliament on the subject of removal of foreign prisoners it can be found in the link below. The deal with Poland not to transfer prisoners ended in December 2016 for example.

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-06-06/debates/1606066000003/RemovalOfForeignNationalOffendersAndEUPrisoners

 

2. Even if we did that I doubt the prison population would fall significantly-you'd gain little more than a sip in a third glass. For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back.

 

3. Both rehabilitation and retribution are cornerstones of sentencing policy but rehabilitation comes up so often in debates that there is an impression that it takes precedence over everything else.

 

I, like you probably, abhor the phrase "prison doesn't work" makes me cringe every time I hear someone say it. The recidivism rate show that it works to prevent some offenders committing crime but not enough and of course once inside criminals are preventing from doing more harm for the duration of their sentence. With one qualification there are still some who appear to be able to commit crimes whilst in jail and under-staffing and the heaving prison population are contributing to that.

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM

 

For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back.

 

 

How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| .........

 

Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) .........