Criminal Sentencing

[Guest]

its been in the news recently. and a recent ECHR court case.

what are your views re sentencing? is the current sentencing regime strong enough? or are we soft on sentencing?

should 'life' mean rest of life in prison? ie an eye for an eye? or is it ok for a crim to be out on licence in say around 10yrs after killing someone?

should the 'life' tariff be abolished for something like 100+ years subject to review?

given the apparent frequent repeat serious offenders, should crims be offered rehabilitation, and given 'hope'? or should a sentence, as used to be, be a strong deterrent? can it be combined?

etc. thoughts, post up

[king12345]

It should be a case by case review.

If someone kills strangers for the sake of it, they should be never let out.

Too many cases of early release or community service for serious crimes in my opinion.

To avoid this, they should built more prisons because clearly prisoners are let out early to solve overcrowding.

It's very difficult to be jailed in the first place nowadays.

There's simply not enough space.

Getting arrested is also very difficult due to lack of officers and cells alike.

Welcome to Britain!

[estellyn]

You have to first ask, what are you trying to achieve, or indeed want to achieve with your justice system? rehabilitation? punishment? revenge?

 

 

Personally, I believe our current system is not fit.

 

 

Firstly, only those with money get a decent defence.

 

 

Secondly, no attempt seems to be made to get to the root cause of the offence. A large percentage of people in prison suffer with mental health problems, and frankly, rather than prison need individual tailored community support and treatment, or inpatient mental health treatment or a combination of both. A large proportion or offenders are in prison due to drug offences or offences related to drug use (for instance burglary in order to fund drug habit), is prison really the right place for these people?

 

 

Thirdly and more controversially, some offences are due in part to either genetic conditions (psychopathy, sociopathy), or environmental triggers - for instance childhood abuse - the abused can sometimes in certain circumstances become an abuser, perpetuating the crimes committed against them.

 

 

What is the right balance between understanding the root causes of offending, treatment, rehabilitation, and protecting the public?

[Guest]

thats one thing i mean, can the right balance be achieved? seems atm the balance is in favour of the crim?

as king says, policy reasons (costs etc) seem to have too much to do with sentencing. the guidelines of which are set by Parliament!

as you suggest, a drug user is likely to reoffend unless their drug addiction can be controlled.

recall a fairly recent case in news where a driving texter went off road and crushed to death an elderly woman against a wall. she got around 2 yrs sentence! prob was out in around 18 mths. i know its not 'murder', but s/b akin to manslaughter (with the same sentence range) imo rather than just 'causing death by careless/reckless driving', or whatever it was, which has limited sentence. if the senetence was higher it might have more of a deterrent effect?

[Guest]

at least one of the Rigby murderers was given a whole life sentence, the other at least 45 yrs. no doubt there will be an (human rights) appeal though!

[EddieK]

I am a "hang em high" person. Some people can never be reintegrated in society after major crimes.

 

There should be a statute for all Judges to be able to put on the black cap in truly appalling crimes.

To keep the softies happy the Black cap should automatically be reduced to life imprisonment instead of the death sentence....LIFE meaning for LIFE.

if not then they should get Life +50 years as they do in the USA.

 

Too often the victim is paying for the crime and the perpetrator is out to do it again.

What about the (human rights) of an often innocent victim.

[rebel11]

There is no doubt in the future everyone will be chipped, crime will be negligible, even financial crime will be negligible as all financial transactions will be carried out through the chip. Any one that commits any type of crime will be excluded from society, they will be sent to a very inhospitable place. In some ways we will be returning to our past.

[renegadeimp]

Lets do what america does. Lock everyone up, throw away the key, then when questioned, go 'oops' and make up some random excuse. I mean have you seen their 3 strikes rule? I understand it's premise, but it is seriously messed up.

[Lawrence McGinty]

There is no doubt in the future everyone will be chipped, crime will be negligible, even financial crime will be negligible as all financial transactions will be carried out through the chip. Any one that commits any type of crime will be excluded from society, they will be sent to a very inhospitable place. In some ways we will be returning to our past.

 

"Emile Durkheim's Society of Saints", where even the most minor of transgressions in the future, like flicking a fag onto the pavement, would be the equivalent of a murder by today's standards if crime is reduced to almost zero.

 

Interesting concept.

[Guest]

'throw away the key'? for some offenders/offences, yes. (with the poss of appeal of course )

and for some others how about this? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/thieves-tied-fire-ant-trees-punishment-article-1.1756693

[rebel11]

By then people will be able to get their nicotine addiction in more sophisticated ways.

 

"Emile Durkheim's Society of Saints", where even the most minor of transgressions in the future, like flicking a fag onto the pavement, would be the equivalent of a murder by today's standards if crime is reduced to almost zero.

 

Interesting concept.