This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
What with 'austerity' and public spending cuts, I wondered what you guys think of the UK penal system?
I had a very interesting chat with an ex con yesterday.
Seeing as the government seems to be making cost savings everywhere, in what ways do you think could they reduce spending in the prison service?
How about removal of TV's and playstations to start with? Is that a draconion move?
Thoughts please...
I had a very interesting chat with an ex con yesterday.
Seeing as the government seems to be making cost savings everywhere, in what ways do you think could they reduce spending in the prison service?
How about removal of TV's and playstations to start with? Is that a draconion move?
Thoughts please...
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
more training to reduce re-offending and treat what you might call white collar crime, financial frauds etc.. differently.
more training to reduce re-offending and treat what you might call white collar crime, financial frauds etc.. differently.
5
1
In reply to summo:
That's an interesting one, because I think the margins are blurred.
For example how would you treat someone with an otherwise clean record who causes death by dangerous driving?
In the 18th Century we tried to solve the problem over overcrowded prisons by transporting criminals to Australia. Maybe before long we could send ours to Mars?
> treat what you might call white collar crime, financial frauds etc.. differently.
That's an interesting one, because I think the margins are blurred.
For example how would you treat someone with an otherwise clean record who causes death by dangerous driving?
In the 18th Century we tried to solve the problem over overcrowded prisons by transporting criminals to Australia. Maybe before long we could send ours to Mars?
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Removal of cheap entertainment sounds like a very expensive way to increase the cost of managing troublesome bored prisoners. The private companies running prisons will balk at that in their prisons.
Removal of cheap entertainment sounds like a very expensive way to increase the cost of managing troublesome bored prisoners. The private companies running prisons will balk at that in their prisons.
10
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
have we been a bit naughty over the weekend?
How about some of your thoughts too? Given the considerable degree of overdrowding in many jails removing entertainments does seem draconian. Why might you do that?
have we been a bit naughty over the weekend?
How about some of your thoughts too? Given the considerable degree of overdrowding in many jails removing entertainments does seem draconian. Why might you do that?
Post edited at 08:34
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
In cell TV is part of the punishment and reward system in prisons and prisoners have to pay for access.
It is actually a cost saving as, for better or worse it reduces the need for association and has been one of a number of things that have allowed prisons to be run with fewer prison officers.
In cell TV is part of the punishment and reward system in prisons and prisoners have to pay for access.
It is actually a cost saving as, for better or worse it reduces the need for association and has been one of a number of things that have allowed prisons to be run with fewer prison officers.
4
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I think it's possible to make prisons more active with convicts doing work (Sewing mail bags or whatever) and paying the prisoners minimum wage which they receive on release to help with deposit for accommodation, clothing etc i.e. to help them get back on their feet rather than straight back to reoffending because they have little other option. Mrs C did a stint in PPO (Prolific, Persistent Offenders) and one of the main things she noticed was the released prisoners would come out without even their benefits being sorted out, so they had no cash, so first stop was the local shopping Mall for a bit of lifting and flog it on for cash.
I think it's possible to make prisons more active with convicts doing work (Sewing mail bags or whatever) and paying the prisoners minimum wage which they receive on release to help with deposit for accommodation, clothing etc i.e. to help them get back on their feet rather than straight back to reoffending because they have little other option. Mrs C did a stint in PPO (Prolific, Persistent Offenders) and one of the main things she noticed was the released prisoners would come out without even their benefits being sorted out, so they had no cash, so first stop was the local shopping Mall for a bit of lifting and flog it on for cash.
9
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Convicts doing more productive community work with a proper pay structure (minimum wage) such as litter picking, path maintenance (how about in the mountains?), etc. might be a more enlightened regime. They'd receive a small allowance for use in prison shops, with the bulk going into a savings scheme to be given to them on discharge so that they re enter the real world with some capital behind them. This could be backed up by lectures, whilst in prison, on money management, budgeting and investment.
Someone serving say a 20 year sentence would come out with a capital savings fund in the region of £250,000 and the knowledge that due to their efforts folk can now walk up the Ben in flip flops......
Convicts doing more productive community work with a proper pay structure (minimum wage) such as litter picking, path maintenance (how about in the mountains?), etc. might be a more enlightened regime. They'd receive a small allowance for use in prison shops, with the bulk going into a savings scheme to be given to them on discharge so that they re enter the real world with some capital behind them. This could be backed up by lectures, whilst in prison, on money management, budgeting and investment.
Someone serving say a 20 year sentence would come out with a capital savings fund in the region of £250,000 and the knowledge that due to their efforts folk can now walk up the Ben in flip flops......
12
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Apparently - and this isn't something that I'd say lightly - Michael Gove is actually doing a pretty decent job at the Ministry of Justice. The impression seems to be that whereas at Education he had Opinions and hence tried to push stuff through regardless of what the people who actually knew what they were talking about said, at the MoJ he knows that he knows sweet FA about running prisons and hence is taking the radical step of listening to experts and looking at evidence to work out what would actually be sensible and cost-effective.
Apparently - and this isn't something that I'd say lightly - Michael Gove is actually doing a pretty decent job at the Ministry of Justice. The impression seems to be that whereas at Education he had Opinions and hence tried to push stuff through regardless of what the people who actually knew what they were talking about said, at the MoJ he knows that he knows sweet FA about running prisons and hence is taking the radical step of listening to experts and looking at evidence to work out what would actually be sensible and cost-effective.
1
In reply to Trangia:
that's not really a white collar or intellectual crime though. Send them down!
> For example how would you treat someone with an otherwise clean record who causes death by dangerous driving?
that's not really a white collar or intellectual crime though. Send them down!
3
In reply to Trangia:
Will said chain gangs also be dispensing water from a barrel with a ladle? This would mean I could carry less if we were aware of where they might be.
Instead of rednecks with a shotgun, mirrored sunglasses and chewing tobacco we could employ the services of those that would like to ride to hounds for chasing absconders and kill two birds with one stone.
Will said chain gangs also be dispensing water from a barrel with a ladle? This would mean I could carry less if we were aware of where they might be.
Instead of rednecks with a shotgun, mirrored sunglasses and chewing tobacco we could employ the services of those that would like to ride to hounds for chasing absconders and kill two birds with one stone.
4
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I think it's reasonable to say that a goal of the prison service is to prevent re-offending hopefully by rehabilitation.
Unfortunately there needs to be a desire from within the individual to genuinely reform.
Opportunities within prison may spark that desire, but they need to be followed up with support on release.
The privatisation of various successful probation schemes appeared to suffer from selective bias - cherry picking prisoners who would succeed in rehab in order to hit targets.
The partial privatisation of the prison system doesn't appear to have improved rehab - running a prison in order to top slice a profit doesn't seem like a way to save money.
Increasing age of prisoners as well as increasing number of those with mental health problems don't make for any easy options to cut costs.
No easy answers or solutions. Always interesting to know what ex-cons think.
I think it's reasonable to say that a goal of the prison service is to prevent re-offending hopefully by rehabilitation.
Unfortunately there needs to be a desire from within the individual to genuinely reform.
Opportunities within prison may spark that desire, but they need to be followed up with support on release.
The privatisation of various successful probation schemes appeared to suffer from selective bias - cherry picking prisoners who would succeed in rehab in order to hit targets.
The partial privatisation of the prison system doesn't appear to have improved rehab - running a prison in order to top slice a profit doesn't seem like a way to save money.
Increasing age of prisoners as well as increasing number of those with mental health problems don't make for any easy options to cut costs.
No easy answers or solutions. Always interesting to know what ex-cons think.
6
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Sadly, I think the prison service needs more funds, not more cuts. The level of drugs (mainly NPS) and violence is huge and the shortfall in resources, staff plus infrastructure, doesn't help.
There is a massive problem with mental health in prisons and whilst they are all tucked up nicely self harming or hurting each other the rest of society can ignore the problem and suggest daft ideas like take away the TVs or go and pick up litter.
Except that they then come out.
When we all get very upset that a mentally disturbed ex-con might be somewhere in our vicinity.
Proper rehabilitation to break the cycle isn't bleeding heart liberalism, its sound common sense to make society safer and better for all of us. But it needs political commitment, time and resources.
> Seeing as the government seems to be making cost savings everywhere, in what ways do you think could they reduce spending in the prison service?
Sadly, I think the prison service needs more funds, not more cuts. The level of drugs (mainly NPS) and violence is huge and the shortfall in resources, staff plus infrastructure, doesn't help.
There is a massive problem with mental health in prisons and whilst they are all tucked up nicely self harming or hurting each other the rest of society can ignore the problem and suggest daft ideas like take away the TVs or go and pick up litter.
Except that they then come out.
When we all get very upset that a mentally disturbed ex-con might be somewhere in our vicinity.
Proper rehabilitation to break the cycle isn't bleeding heart liberalism, its sound common sense to make society safer and better for all of us. But it needs political commitment, time and resources.
11
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
How about reducing crime, it's a pretty big incentive not to commit crime if you know there's a very high probability of being caught. At the moment with police budgets being squeezed, people committing crimes at the lower end of the scale for getting time behind bars stand a good chance of not getting apprehended, for example the arrest rate (not even conviction rate) for burglaries is roughly 14%. It is estimated that between one third and one half of crimes like shoplifting, burglary, and robbery are related to drug use, stealing to buy drugs. Over half of offenders given a prison sentence of less than a year reoffend, over one third of offenders given a prison sentence between of one and four years reoffend.
So I favour a long term strategy:
Increasing funding for the police to a point where the majority of crimes are solved - I realise in the short term that would be very expensive. decriminalising drug use, with better support for addicts and creating a licensed or state operated scheme for the supply of drugs to addicts to drive pushers out of the market. Better funding for programs supporting prisoners inside and once they are released.
more expensive to start with but I reckon it would save a lot of money in the long run, not just through government spending but reducing the costs of crime borne by the rest of us, e.g. a reduction in the price of insurance.
> Seeing as the government seems to be making cost savings everywhere, in what ways do you think could they reduce spending in the prison service?
How about reducing crime, it's a pretty big incentive not to commit crime if you know there's a very high probability of being caught. At the moment with police budgets being squeezed, people committing crimes at the lower end of the scale for getting time behind bars stand a good chance of not getting apprehended, for example the arrest rate (not even conviction rate) for burglaries is roughly 14%. It is estimated that between one third and one half of crimes like shoplifting, burglary, and robbery are related to drug use, stealing to buy drugs. Over half of offenders given a prison sentence of less than a year reoffend, over one third of offenders given a prison sentence between of one and four years reoffend.
So I favour a long term strategy:
more expensive to start with but I reckon it would save a lot of money in the long run, not just through government spending but reducing the costs of crime borne by the rest of us, e.g. a reduction in the price of insurance.
5
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I'd prefer we reconsidered the fundamental purpose of prison, reserved it's use primarily for public protection rather than political posturing and warehousing the mentally ill.
Less dramatic we could reduce the availability of drugs in prison and provide meaningful education and rehabilitation services. Without reducing populations first that of course requires significant investment that would in time yield a worthwhile return.
I couldn't give a f*** whether they have TVs and games.
jk
> Seeing as the government seems to be making cost savings everywhere, in what ways do you think could they reduce spending in the prison service?
> How about removal of TV's and playstations to start with? Is that a draconion move?
> How about removal of TV's and playstations to start with? Is that a draconion move?
I'd prefer we reconsidered the fundamental purpose of prison, reserved it's use primarily for public protection rather than political posturing and warehousing the mentally ill.
Less dramatic we could reduce the availability of drugs in prison and provide meaningful education and rehabilitation services. Without reducing populations first that of course requires significant investment that would in time yield a worthwhile return.
I couldn't give a f*** whether they have TVs and games.
jk
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I'm interested - do you still think the answer is reduced spending after headline BBC news tonight?
I'm interested - do you still think the answer is reduced spending after headline BBC news tonight?
In reply to Trangia:
Add in being 2.5 times over the legal limit and last Friday the guy who killed my mate got 4 years and 8 months. Not even close to long enough in my opinion.
> For example how would you treat someone with an otherwise clean record who causes death by dangerous driving?
Add in being 2.5 times over the legal limit and last Friday the guy who killed my mate got 4 years and 8 months. Not even close to long enough in my opinion.
2
In reply to off-duty:
We are talking about the prison officers' reluctance to reform the prison service here, yes?
> Unfortunately there needs to be a desire from within the individual to genuinely reform.
We are talking about the prison officers' reluctance to reform the prison service here, yes?
1
In reply to Mike Highbury:
I'm not aware of the reforms within the prison service in any detail.
I suspect they are probably the same as the government reforms of the police which are "do it cheaper" without even specifying what "it" is.
But in response to your question - no I am (obviously ) referring to prisoners.
> We are talking about the prison officers' reluctance to reform the prison service here, yes?
I'm not aware of the reforms within the prison service in any detail.
I suspect they are probably the same as the government reforms of the police which are "do it cheaper" without even specifying what "it" is.
But in response to your question - no I am (obviously ) referring to prisoners.
In reply to Babika:
What was the headline?
Some very interesting food for thought. I am unsure re education is enough, as the problem lies with social groups ex criminals then reconnect with upon release, and breaking habitual maladative behaviour is very hard.
Agree some changes to criminalization of drugs might help.
Cures for mental illness? Is a thread subject that stands on it own.
I accept its a complex issue, bear in mind all public spending is being cut across the board.
This thread was a reaction to words spoken to me by an ex con, who thought prison was too 'soft'
What was the headline?
Some very interesting food for thought. I am unsure re education is enough, as the problem lies with social groups ex criminals then reconnect with upon release, and breaking habitual maladative behaviour is very hard.
Agree some changes to criminalization of drugs might help.
Cures for mental illness? Is a thread subject that stands on it own.
I accept its a complex issue, bear in mind all public spending is being cut across the board.
This thread was a reaction to words spoken to me by an ex con, who thought prison was too 'soft'
In reply to Dax H:
I agree with you, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a driver who makes a terrible mistake/misjudgement. I'm sure we've all done stupid things on the road, and got away with it. But every now and again a terrible tragedy occurs. We are all human with human failings. I'm no saying such drivers shouldn't be punished, but except for cases of malice or total disregard for the lives of others eg drunk driving, excessive speeding on a crowded road, aggressive driving etc. is prison the right punishment for someone who has a momentary lapse or terrible judgement which results in death?
> Add in being 2.5 times over the legal limit and last Friday the guy who killed my mate got 4 years and 8 months. Not even close to long enough in my opinion.
I agree with you, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a driver who makes a terrible mistake/misjudgement. I'm sure we've all done stupid things on the road, and got away with it. But every now and again a terrible tragedy occurs. We are all human with human failings. I'm no saying such drivers shouldn't be punished, but except for cases of malice or total disregard for the lives of others eg drunk driving, excessive speeding on a crowded road, aggressive driving etc. is prison the right punishment for someone who has a momentary lapse or terrible judgement which results in death?
4
1
In reply to Trangia:
I understand what you are getting at. A friend of a friend killed a cyclist. He came around a corner on a country road and hit a cyclist head on (cyclist on the wrong side of the road). He ended up spending a couple of years in prison. I'm not sure that this is justice. Obviously a man died but is sending a young man with no prior convictions to prison the answer?
I understand what you are getting at. A friend of a friend killed a cyclist. He came around a corner on a country road and hit a cyclist head on (cyclist on the wrong side of the road). He ended up spending a couple of years in prison. I'm not sure that this is justice. Obviously a man died but is sending a young man with no prior convictions to prison the answer?
4
4
In reply to stella1:
I don't believe you (your story must be missing key details of dangerous driving). The sentencing of someone who caused death on a road is as follows.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_dri...
I don't believe you (your story must be missing key details of dangerous driving). The sentencing of someone who caused death on a road is as follows.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_dri...
4
1
In reply to Offwidth:
What don't you believe? Stella makes no mention of dangerous driving but, rather, gestures towards a far more intelligent point about the purpose of sentencing and punishment in the rehabilitation of offenders.
> I don't believe you (your story must be missing key details of dangerous driving). The sentencing of someone who caused death on a road is as follows.
What don't you believe? Stella makes no mention of dangerous driving but, rather, gestures towards a far more intelligent point about the purpose of sentencing and punishment in the rehabilitation of offenders.
2
In reply to Mike Highbury:
The key point in the crime simply isn't age of the driver nor is it especially time related, its about criminal responsibility for dangerous actions leading to an unnecessary fatality. A lack of previous offences is to be taken into account in the guidelines. On the other hand, someone has been deprived of their life (and their friends and family have lost a loved one for ever) all because of the proven beyond reasonable doubt irresponsible dangerous driving necessary for a custodial sentence of that length. Sentencing is part prevention of crime, part protecting the public, part punishment and part rehabilitation. The law has made judgements on the balance of these and I think on death by dangerous drivng they are about right.
The CPS give some general advice on the subject here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/going_to_court/sentencing.html
The key point in the crime simply isn't age of the driver nor is it especially time related, its about criminal responsibility for dangerous actions leading to an unnecessary fatality. A lack of previous offences is to be taken into account in the guidelines. On the other hand, someone has been deprived of their life (and their friends and family have lost a loved one for ever) all because of the proven beyond reasonable doubt irresponsible dangerous driving necessary for a custodial sentence of that length. Sentencing is part prevention of crime, part protecting the public, part punishment and part rehabilitation. The law has made judgements on the balance of these and I think on death by dangerous drivng they are about right.
The CPS give some general advice on the subject here:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/going_to_court/sentencing.html
Post edited at 11:00
1
In reply to Offwidth:
They argued that he wasn't paying attention because earlier in the journey he had made a phonecall while driving. Also that he was going too fast. A witness at the scene said that there was nothing he could have done, but he appeared to be driving quickly.
I'm not saying the driver was without blame. Just that I don't see how sending him to prison benefited anyone. Not making light of the fact that someone died but it ruined his career. If anything it may have made someone who previously was very unlikely to commit crime more likely to, or at least be more of a drain on society through claiming benefits. Since getting out I know he has struggled with finding work and depression.
Anyway, in general I'm for tougher sentencing but when reading the prior comments it struck a chord with me. It's the lack of intent in cases like this. No one would set out to kill someone on the roads but who can honestly say they have never been distracted, driven a bit quickly, misread a situation and done something they shouldn't have etc.
Prison sentences in some cases seem much more towards punishment than rehabilitation. That was my point.
They argued that he wasn't paying attention because earlier in the journey he had made a phonecall while driving. Also that he was going too fast. A witness at the scene said that there was nothing he could have done, but he appeared to be driving quickly.
I'm not saying the driver was without blame. Just that I don't see how sending him to prison benefited anyone. Not making light of the fact that someone died but it ruined his career. If anything it may have made someone who previously was very unlikely to commit crime more likely to, or at least be more of a drain on society through claiming benefits. Since getting out I know he has struggled with finding work and depression.
Anyway, in general I'm for tougher sentencing but when reading the prior comments it struck a chord with me. It's the lack of intent in cases like this. No one would set out to kill someone on the roads but who can honestly say they have never been distracted, driven a bit quickly, misread a situation and done something they shouldn't have etc.
Prison sentences in some cases seem much more towards punishment than rehabilitation. That was my point.
Post edited at 12:34
3
1
In reply to Trangia:
The bar for a dangerous driving charge is very high. Someone convicted of Death By Dangerous Driving has not just made the sort of mistakes that we all make and been unlucky to kill someone as a consequence.
The bar for a dangerous driving charge is very high. Someone convicted of Death By Dangerous Driving has not just made the sort of mistakes that we all make and been unlucky to kill someone as a consequence.
Post edited at 12:32
4
In reply to stella1:
There must be much more to the case than that. You don't go to jail unless clear dangerous driving is proven beyond reasonable doubt. As for intent, dangerous driving is just that if it leads to a fatal accident. No one found guilty of manslaughter is said to have set out to kill, that would be murder.
There must be much more to the case than that. You don't go to jail unless clear dangerous driving is proven beyond reasonable doubt. As for intent, dangerous driving is just that if it leads to a fatal accident. No one found guilty of manslaughter is said to have set out to kill, that would be murder.
4
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I wasn't in the court room, I'm repeating what I have been told from the lad himself (not much) and what I have heard from other friends who know him better. I think he was given a sentence of two and a half years, the charge may have been death by careless driving.
There are plenty of cases though where drivers have been imprisoned having killed people following being distracted, using a mobile phone (even when using hands free kits which are legal ), fiddling with satnavs or simply going too fast for a corner and losing control.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phon...
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-04-11/lorry-driver-distracted-by-sat-nav...
http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/southport-west-lancs/dangerous-drive...
My point though is that it is the actions that lead to the accidents are things which could be considered relatively minor but due to bad luck/timing/whatever, they had serious consequences. How many millions of people have fiddled with satnavs and got away with it? Or gone too fast and veered onto the wrong side of the road on a corner?
If anything I think that the punishment for say using your phone behind the wheel or similar offences should be much more severe. It shouldn't just be that if you are that person who does it at the wrong moment and kills someone you get a severe punishment. The attitude of a number of people seems to be "it will never happen to me".
Anyway, this is straying away from the original topic. My point was meant to be about the purpose of custodial sentences and the balance between punishment and making a positive impact through rehabilitation.
I wasn't in the court room, I'm repeating what I have been told from the lad himself (not much) and what I have heard from other friends who know him better. I think he was given a sentence of two and a half years, the charge may have been death by careless driving.
There are plenty of cases though where drivers have been imprisoned having killed people following being distracted, using a mobile phone (even when using hands free kits which are legal ), fiddling with satnavs or simply going too fast for a corner and losing control.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2201008/Driver-using-hands-free-phon...
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-04-11/lorry-driver-distracted-by-sat-nav...
http://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/southport-west-lancs/dangerous-drive...
My point though is that it is the actions that lead to the accidents are things which could be considered relatively minor but due to bad luck/timing/whatever, they had serious consequences. How many millions of people have fiddled with satnavs and got away with it? Or gone too fast and veered onto the wrong side of the road on a corner?
If anything I think that the punishment for say using your phone behind the wheel or similar offences should be much more severe. It shouldn't just be that if you are that person who does it at the wrong moment and kills someone you get a severe punishment. The attitude of a number of people seems to be "it will never happen to me".
Anyway, this is straying away from the original topic. My point was meant to be about the purpose of custodial sentences and the balance between punishment and making a positive impact through rehabilitation.
5
3
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Removal where? To a prison all of their own, a bit like the H Block maybe?
The iman at the prison where I work is a pragmatic, sensible caring chap who deals with prisoners of any faith who want to talk to him.
Removal where? To a prison all of their own, a bit like the H Block maybe?
The iman at the prison where I work is a pragmatic, sensible caring chap who deals with prisoners of any faith who want to talk to him.
1
In reply to stella1:
What you regard as distracted clearly isn't the same as me. Distraction to me implies slightly reduced reaction tiimes. The first case involves not paying any attention to the road ahead, the second similar but in a situation of warning signs being ignored ,the third driving on the wrong side of the road taking a bend too fast. These are not unlicky slightly careless people they are people who caused death by borderline or actual dangerous driving.
What would be accidemts under distractions seems to me to come under case 3 in the following guidance and has no custodial sentence.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_carel...
What you regard as distracted clearly isn't the same as me. Distraction to me implies slightly reduced reaction tiimes. The first case involves not paying any attention to the road ahead, the second similar but in a situation of warning signs being ignored ,the third driving on the wrong side of the road taking a bend too fast. These are not unlicky slightly careless people they are people who caused death by borderline or actual dangerous driving.
What would be accidemts under distractions seems to me to come under case 3 in the following guidance and has no custodial sentence.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_carel...
3
In reply to Babika:
Good heavens, where did you get an idea like that? Certainly not from me. To clarify, by removal I meant sacked for unprofessional conduct, not imprisoned on ideological grounds. That's the sort of thing that happens in Muslim majority nations. Radicalising prisoners and preaching jihad (which I understand is a problem in some prisons) should be more than sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Re you knowing a pragmatic, sensible, caring imam, I have no reason to doubt it. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I specified *radical* imams. And I didn't mention or even hint at imprisoning them. That ugly fascistic idea came from you, not I.
Good heavens, where did you get an idea like that? Certainly not from me. To clarify, by removal I meant sacked for unprofessional conduct, not imprisoned on ideological grounds. That's the sort of thing that happens in Muslim majority nations. Radicalising prisoners and preaching jihad (which I understand is a problem in some prisons) should be more than sufficient grounds for dismissal.
Re you knowing a pragmatic, sensible, caring imam, I have no reason to doubt it. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I specified *radical* imams. And I didn't mention or even hint at imprisoning them. That ugly fascistic idea came from you, not I.
In reply to Offwidth:
You can get jail for less than dangerous driving.
The charge against the killer of my mate was dropped from death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence to death by careless driving whilst under the influence.
The reason for the drop was no evidence of speeding, lots of witnesses saying he was driving fast and erratically but no skid marks at the impact point.
The limit was 60mph but on that section 50mph would have been very fast.
> There must be much more to the case than that. You don't go to jail unless clear dangerous driving is proven beyond reasonable doubt. As for intent, dangerous driving is just that if it leads to a fatal accident. No one found guilty of manslaughter is said to have set out to kill, that would be murder.
You can get jail for less than dangerous driving.
The charge against the killer of my mate was dropped from death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence to death by careless driving whilst under the influence.
The reason for the drop was no evidence of speeding, lots of witnesses saying he was driving fast and erratically but no skid marks at the impact point.
The limit was 60mph but on that section 50mph would have been very fast.
In reply to Tony Naylor:
The thread was asking for suggestions for saving money in the prison service. You suggested removal of radical imans.
I'm not sure how sacking unprofessional imams working in the community would answer the OP.
Hence my assumption you were talking about imans in prison and coming up with a bizarre idea to remove them away from other prisoners.
> Good heavens, where did you get an idea like that? Certainly not from me. To clarify, by removal I meant sacked for unprofessional conduct.
And I didn't mention or even hint at imprisoning them. That ugly fascistic idea came from you, not I.The thread was asking for suggestions for saving money in the prison service. You suggested removal of radical imans.
I'm not sure how sacking unprofessional imams working in the community would answer the OP.
Hence my assumption you were talking about imans in prison and coming up with a bizarre idea to remove them away from other prisoners.
1
In reply to Dax H:
Yes as the CPS guidelines I linked for death due to Careless Driving clearly show. However, only if the evidence is clear enough for a conviction and if Careless Driving was almost at the level of Dangerous Driving and/or there have been significant aggravating factors. The sentence length described by stella was at the level of a Dangerous Driving conviction or a combination of factors that amount to that. People do not go to jail for momentary lapses in concentration for first time offences as has been implied in this thread. The tests are strict judgements on very clear rules.
Yes as the CPS guidelines I linked for death due to Careless Driving clearly show. However, only if the evidence is clear enough for a conviction and if Careless Driving was almost at the level of Dangerous Driving and/or there have been significant aggravating factors. The sentence length described by stella was at the level of a Dangerous Driving conviction or a combination of factors that amount to that. People do not go to jail for momentary lapses in concentration for first time offences as has been implied in this thread. The tests are strict judgements on very clear rules.
Post edited at 08:44
2
In reply to Babika:
Aha, now I see the confusion. Apologies for not being clear - I was referring to radical imams employed as imams by the government. Admittedly, sacking them wouldn't be a huge saving, but it would be something. And it would kill two birds with one stone.
Aha, now I see the confusion. Apologies for not being clear - I was referring to radical imams employed as imams by the government. Admittedly, sacking them wouldn't be a huge saving, but it would be something. And it would kill two birds with one stone.
In reply to summo:
It may not make a big difference to the prison population, but I do question the need to imprison anyone who is not considered to be a danger to the rest of us. In the death by dangerous driving example, the court would need to assess the likelihood of the offender doing so again. But in the Chris Huhne and Vicki Price case, for example, I do think that imprisoning them was an un-necessary public expense. Better to fine them an appreciable percentage of their assessed wealth (which I understand was considerable) and combine that with some appropriately humbling community service. They hardly needed rehabilitation - they knew what they did was wrong.
Martin
> For example how would you treat someone with an otherwise clean record who causes death by dangerous driving?
> that's not really a white collar or intellectual crime though. Send them down!
It may not make a big difference to the prison population, but I do question the need to imprison anyone who is not considered to be a danger to the rest of us. In the death by dangerous driving example, the court would need to assess the likelihood of the offender doing so again. But in the Chris Huhne and Vicki Price case, for example, I do think that imprisoning them was an un-necessary public expense. Better to fine them an appreciable percentage of their assessed wealth (which I understand was considerable) and combine that with some appropriately humbling community service. They hardly needed rehabilitation - they knew what they did was wrong.
Martin
6
In reply to Martin Hore:
I agree, there is an obsession with punishment meaning time, rather than financial. Some rather well off political type people have been known to make a lot of money writing books inside, whilst the taxpayer picks up the fee for keeping them there.
I agree, there is an obsession with punishment meaning time, rather than financial. Some rather well off political type people have been known to make a lot of money writing books inside, whilst the taxpayer picks up the fee for keeping them there.
In reply to Martin Hore:
Instead of freeing 'harmless' white collar criminals (socially comfortable people making excusss about killing someone by reckless action or finaciers who caused untold misery by their fraud) lets maybe start with decriminalising drugs and freeing those in on drug offences with no aggravating factors. Or a focus on proper support in prison for those in life who made bad choices in hapless lives in sink estates, so at least they dont come out and reoffend.
Or go further as Will Self suggests:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15196517
Whatever we do it needs to be fair and consistent and affordable. To me the Chris Hulme case seems to fail on all three but sentencing for deaths by dangerous driving dont fail any.
Instead of freeing 'harmless' white collar criminals (socially comfortable people making excusss about killing someone by reckless action or finaciers who caused untold misery by their fraud) lets maybe start with decriminalising drugs and freeing those in on drug offences with no aggravating factors. Or a focus on proper support in prison for those in life who made bad choices in hapless lives in sink estates, so at least they dont come out and reoffend.
Or go further as Will Self suggests:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15196517
Whatever we do it needs to be fair and consistent and affordable. To me the Chris Hulme case seems to fail on all three but sentencing for deaths by dangerous driving dont fail any.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Are there many (any ? ) in prison for drugs offences with no aggravating factors ?
> lets maybe start with decriminalising drugs and freeing those in on drug offences with no aggravating factors.
Are there many (any ? ) in prison for drugs offences with no aggravating factors ?
1
1
In reply to off-duty:
According to guidelines its possible but I meant persistent drug use only (an aggravating factor but nothing otherwise that makes the user a danger to the public). It amount to locking someone up for being addicted and unlucky enough to be caught.
According to guidelines its possible but I meant persistent drug use only (an aggravating factor but nothing otherwise that makes the user a danger to the public). It amount to locking someone up for being addicted and unlucky enough to be caught.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
For repeated possession ? I'd be surprised. For shoplifting, robbery, dealing, child neglect, less so.
> According to guidelines its possible but I meant persistent drug use only (an aggravating factor but nothing otherwise that makes the user a danger to the public). It amount to locking someone up for being addicted and unlucky enough to be caught.
For repeated possession ? I'd be surprised. For shoplifting, robbery, dealing, child neglect, less so.
In reply to off-duty:
How do poor desperate people fund addiction? What happens to their kids when high? Jail isn't the place to solve such problems and the drugs are readily available so they return to society with the same issues pretty soon. The other horrific aspsct of criminalisation is the inevitable funding of gangs who are way more a blight on society than the addicts.
How do poor desperate people fund addiction? What happens to their kids when high? Jail isn't the place to solve such problems and the drugs are readily available so they return to society with the same issues pretty soon. The other horrific aspsct of criminalisation is the inevitable funding of gangs who are way more a blight on society than the addicts.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Which is a very different argument to the suggestion of "freeing those in on drugs offences with no aggravating factors"
> How do poor desperate people fund addiction? What happens to their kids when high? Jail isn't the place to solve such problems and the drugs are readily available so they return to society with the same issues pretty soon. The other horrific aspsct of criminalisation is the inevitable funding of gangs who are way more a blight on society than the addicts.
Which is a very different argument to the suggestion of "freeing those in on drugs offences with no aggravating factors"
1
In reply to off-duty:
Sure. My first point was about people who just shouldn't be in jail by any reasonable logic. The second is about society being serious about rehabilitation and recognising criminal behaviour can be related to a health issue and dealing with the health issue appropriately (the number of people with mental health difficulties inappropriately in jail would be another example). I also think poor criminals get a rougher deal than rich criminals in the system. We are a long way from the scandalous position in the US (there have been some good reports on US jails on the news this week) but we can improve and almost certainly save money as a result.
Sure. My first point was about people who just shouldn't be in jail by any reasonable logic. The second is about society being serious about rehabilitation and recognising criminal behaviour can be related to a health issue and dealing with the health issue appropriately (the number of people with mental health difficulties inappropriately in jail would be another example). I also think poor criminals get a rougher deal than rich criminals in the system. We are a long way from the scandalous position in the US (there have been some good reports on US jails on the news this week) but we can improve and almost certainly save money as a result.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
As long as you accept "by any reasonable logic " does not particularly cover simple drugs offences .
As for people with mental health problems being in prison "inappropriately" I think there is a misconception/misunderstanding around that as well.
Just because you have a mental health problem does not give you a get out of jail free card to commit crime. Not all with mental health problems commit crime.
What seems to be forgotten is that there are some very nasty people in prison, who hopefully will stay there for significant lengths of time, because the longer they are there the less harm they do to the rest of us.
As long as you accept "by any reasonable logic " does not particularly cover simple drugs offences .
As for people with mental health problems being in prison "inappropriately" I think there is a misconception/misunderstanding around that as well.
Just because you have a mental health problem does not give you a get out of jail free card to commit crime. Not all with mental health problems commit crime.
What seems to be forgotten is that there are some very nasty people in prison, who hopefully will stay there for significant lengths of time, because the longer they are there the less harm they do to the rest of us.
2
In reply to off-duty:
There is nothing stopping both of us being right. Your point is true but gets us nowhere given the current problems; mine leads to a route to treat some people more fairly and improve their chances of genuine rehabilitation and save money in a system hit hard by austerity. I know people who work in the service and in the education and health support for the service so I know things could be a lot better.
There is nothing stopping both of us being right. Your point is true but gets us nowhere given the current problems; mine leads to a route to treat some people more fairly and improve their chances of genuine rehabilitation and save money in a system hit hard by austerity. I know people who work in the service and in the education and health support for the service so I know things could be a lot better.
In reply to Martin Hore:
And what if you don't have any wealth to take?
On the face of it it seems like a good idea but it will be seen as being rich is a get out if jail card whilst if you are poor you get a greater punishment.
> But in the Chris Huhne and Vicki Price case, for example, I do think that imprisoning them was an un-necessary public expense. Better to fine them an appreciable percentage of their assessed wealth (which I understand was considerable) and combine that with some appropriately humbling community service. They hardly needed rehabilitation - they knew what they did was wrong.
And what if you don't have any wealth to take?
On the face of it it seems like a good idea but it will be seen as being rich is a get out if jail card whilst if you are poor you get a greater punishment.
1
In reply to Dax H:
I'm more worried about poor people getting harsher treatment but an 8 month custodial sentence for anyone that situation is pointless, it should have been community service. Add the 100 or so people jailed for not paying for a TV licence. Plus all the other daft minor financial related fines like Council Tax non payment
I'm more worried about poor people getting harsher treatment but an 8 month custodial sentence for anyone that situation is pointless, it should have been community service. Add the 100 or so people jailed for not paying for a TV licence. Plus all the other daft minor financial related fines like Council Tax non payment
In reply to Offwidth:
I disagree that the sentence for Huhne / Price was pointless.
Fine would have been relatively painless, community service is likely to have been "fiddled" into some sort of "charidee " work.
Imprisonment must have been a daunting if not terrifying prospect. It demonstrated that no-one is above the law, perhaps making others in their position conscious that their actions really will have consequences.
I'm sure now they can look back on it and dine out on anecdotes, in a similar way that any ex-con can talk about prison (as per the OP) - but despite many suspects professing not to care about jail, I've never seen anyone who hasn't squirmed, twisted and done their best to avoid any further jail time - despite earlier boasts about "easy time".
Prison is about punishment too.
I disagree that the sentence for Huhne / Price was pointless.
Fine would have been relatively painless, community service is likely to have been "fiddled" into some sort of "charidee " work.
Imprisonment must have been a daunting if not terrifying prospect. It demonstrated that no-one is above the law, perhaps making others in their position conscious that their actions really will have consequences.
I'm sure now they can look back on it and dine out on anecdotes, in a similar way that any ex-con can talk about prison (as per the OP) - but despite many suspects professing not to care about jail, I've never seen anyone who hasn't squirmed, twisted and done their best to avoid any further jail time - despite earlier boasts about "easy time".
Prison is about punishment too.
In reply to off-duty:
But who suffers most, us or the offender? Vicki Price wrote that book, remember?
> I disagree that the sentence for Huhne / Price was pointless.
> Prison is about punishment too.
But who suffers most, us or the offender? Vicki Price wrote that book, remember?
1
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Fair point
> But who suffers most, us or the offender? Vicki Price wrote that book, remember?
Fair point
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...