Should we stop giving short jail terms?

[Alex C.]

So there's a new report out from the national association of probation officers.

 

They reckon that if we ditched short sentences* and instead rehabilitated prisoners in the community, in intensive programs, we could both cut re-offending rates, and also decrease the costs of the prison system by a large amount.

 

At the moment, 74% of prisoners on jail terms of 12 months or less reoffend within 2 years. Does that mean we're not giving them long enough jail terms, or does it mean we're overlooking rehabilitation in favour of punishment?

 

I think that despite all the evidence to the contrary, the general public will never accept reducing sentences for most crimes, even if there could be a massive benefit.

 

Would you support ditching short term jail sentences?

 

* Napo said offences given short custodial sentences could include actual bodily harm, theft, motoring offences and possession of indecent images.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Yes, but the conditions on which I would support ditching them would no doubt be unacceptable.

[NoddyHolder]

I think you'll find that short term when applied to the young ,translates as a college course in crime for most of them.

[Xt500]

Drugs are the root of many prison sentences.Deal with that and you will reduce crime and the prison population.If only drugs were dealt with with the same amount of funding as speeding has been and it might make a difference.

Going to prison doesnt remove the ability to obtain drugs it increases it,so yes the problems wont go away after a short stint,more likely increase the problem.

[cgksheff]

It would seem that, despite claims to the contrary, modern-day prison is no longer a deterrent to many.

 

Instead of saying 'prison doesn't work so don't send them there' why don't people say 'how can we change prison so as to make it a deterrent'?

[BettyBooHoo!]

It would seem that, despite claims to the contrary, modern-day prison is no longer a deterrent to many.

 

Instead of saying 'prison doesn't work so don't send them there' why don't people say 'how can we change prison so as to make it a deterrent'?

 

Very true. I know it's a crazy idea but perhaps we could try making prisons an unpleasant place to be, rather than a better standard of living than some of the crims have on the outside.

[Twiglet]

It would seem that, despite claims to the contrary, modern-day prison is no longer a deterrent to many.

 

Instead of saying 'prison doesn't work so don't send them there' why don't people say 'how can we change prison so as to make it a deterrent'?

 

I'd agree. Even now, you have to do something pretty serious, or be a repeat offender to end up with a custodial sentence (or be elderly and refuse to pay your council tax if you believe what you read in the tabloids ).

 

Given that it's likely there's often a repetitive cycle of offending (in 'minor' crime such as burglary, shoplifting, drug offences) by the time someone ends up in prison, a sentence of less than a year is unlikely to break it.

[Dogs Of War]

personally ,i feel very strongly that sentences are way too soft anyway , and the fact that 74% re offend upon release just proves this.

 

instead of scrapping short sentences , we should be imposing longer , harsher jail terms. #

 

afterall , if toerags are locked up they cant re offend, its quite simple.

[Rupert_Baehr]

...afterall , if toerags are locked up they cant re offend, its quite simple.

 

 

You cheat! You've been researching the reason behind prisons!

 

I was taught that the purposes of a sentence of confinement were:

 

1. Punishment/ Retribution

2. Rehabilitation

3. Deterrence

 

(Not necessarily in that order.)

 

Prison is indeed a punishment. - The person imprisoned is deprived of his/her liberty. - Not just the freedom to go to the pub/ go to the Mall/ go to a footy match, but also the freedom to eat when (s)he likes, to wear what (s)he likes (in some cases), to go outside when (s)he likes and many other freedoms most of us take for granted.

 

Society may consider that by being imprisoned a criminal has made retribution, but unless the judge orders seizure of assets (which does happen) then individual victims (and indeed society itself) don't receive much in the way of tangible retribution.

 

In many prisons there is little or no attempt to re-habilitate the prisoner because there is little or no money available to fund it. I met one individual who had been told that he was required to attend classes to improve his literacy and numeracy so that he would be able to get a job when he was released. His reply was that although he accepted that his shortcomings in those areas were likely to have an adverse effect on his employment prospects, that effect wouldn't be as great as the effect of a prison record. He was poorly educated, but that's not quite the same as stupid.

 

It seems that in most cases, deterrence doesn't work. There are a number of people who will never offend again, but given that there are a very large number who will be back inside in a very short time, it's difficult to argue that prison has a deterrent effect.

 

Nobody (and particularly not the government) seems to be willing to talk about the 4th reason for prisons:

 

They are really good warehouses! If Joe Scrote is banged-up for 3 years, then he isn't out on the streets committing crime.

 

Prisons are expensive to build and they are expensive to operate. There are 4 categories of prison from A(maximum security) to D('Open' Prisons.)

 

There is a 5th alternative. - a bit like 'Care in the Community on the Streets': Tagging.

 

It's not suitable for everybody and indeed, many inmates who are released early with a Tag re-offend or break the terms of their tagging agreement.

 

If some minor offenders were sentenced to (say) 5 years imprisonment suspended for (one or more) years provided they accepted a 'tagging' contract for that period (curfew, limits on where they could go, what they could do and perhaps a requirement to wear clothing which would identify them as 'inmates on licence') and if they were told that should they breach the terms of the tagging contract the suspended sentence would automatically come into force, then that might be a more effective sentence.

 

'You can't identify people as criminals, that's against their human rights'.

 

Tough! - They committed crimes against individuals and/or society. Individuals and society have rights too - and one of those rights is to be alerted to potential threats.

[flamingjimmy]

It would seem that, despite claims to the contrary, modern-day prison is no longer a deterrent to many.

 

Instead of saying 'prison doesn't work so don't send them there' why don't people say 'how can we change prison so as to make it a deterrent'?

 

Because your original reasoning is flawed. At what point was a 12 month or less prison sentence an effective deterrent?

 

Because I don't think it ever could be really, short of torturing inmates.