dell12 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 What the people did in the op wasnt petty so really your argument holds no water. No it wasn't, I didn't say it was. I was commenting on the broader picture, rather than that specific case as others seem to be doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 From what they were charged with, it looks like 6 months was the maximum possible sentence? Then when you take off the guilty plea, and the "remorse" shown (yes i know, but if they show remorse the judge is legally bound to reduce the sentence) and their ages (same as remorse) this probably isn't far off teh maximum sentence that they could have been given. Then when you consider there are worse cases of ABH, for which the maximum sentence is used for.... But anyway, i think the sentence should have been more severe, but certainly not death. Being good is a bad thing? Besides which, death certainly does not fit this crime. What is confusing is that they basically tortured somebody with a disability, performed sexual acts on him AND repeatedly kicked and punched him in the head. They don't even face jail. In another case, 3 similar idiotic individuals punched a guy once, then kicked him in the head which caused fatal injuries. They are supposedly looking at life sentences. In each case, a totally innocent victim has either been killed or had his life totally ruined. Why is the punishment so vastly different? Does a person need to die to justify sending someone to prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2012 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Because you want someone killed for assault, that is why. Assault:confused:? My word you're dim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 There must be some figures somewhere comparing recidivist numbers in the two groups ie those that were locked up and those with community orders? There's plenty of small scale community rehabilitation programmes that have lowered re offending rates (see below). Whether there are any countrywide stats I don't know. http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/policing-and-crime/prison-rehabilitation-$366690.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 There's plenty of small scale community rehabilitation programmes that have lowered re offending rates (see below). Whether there are any countrywide stats I don't know. http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/policing-and-crime/prison-rehabilitation-$366690.htm Doesn't that just talk about rehabilitation when in prison rather than not going in at all..or have I mis-understood it..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 How much should society spend on prisons? (How many pence per prisoner per day?) An amount directly proportionate to the sum of direct and indirect costs (insurance claims, private and/or public healthcare costs, compensation, securisation, etc.) which the problem causes to that society. I'm reasonably sure this can be mathematically expressed and a viable proposal made. That said, the aeons-old three-strike system of a hand off for the first time, the other hand for the second time and the head off for the third time seems to work well, where this is implemented. Are you suggesting society should spend a sum equal to the amount the prisoner has cost society on the prisoner? (That may happen in the US - I don't remember the celebrity's name, but a certain millionnairess spent some time in prison for fraud and the cost of her accommodation would've kept me for a while ... she didn't exactly 'rough it' inside. ) Or are you suggesting that the time in prison should be proportional to the monetary cost to society? To some extent, that does seem to happen. Offences against the person seem to attract shorter sentences than offences against the property -particularly where that property is pounds sterling. I met a gentleman who had come up with a 'wizard wheeze'. His job involved handling significant amounts of money and on Friday afternoons - at about 1430 - he took all the cash to a bank and put it on 'overnight' deposit. On Monday mornings he went into the bank on the way to work, withdrew the money, put the capital back in his safe and kept the interest as his reward for his efforts. His actions didn't cost his employer a penny. The money was (arguably) safer in the bank over the weekend than it would have been in his safe. He got 2 years for theft. In some cases sentences do include hefty fines and confiscation of assets - which no doubt defray the costs of imprisonment. If prisoners were obliged to make (at least partial) repayment that might be a deterrent to some of them - though I doubt it. A first sentence in a 'rehabilitation' prison might provide rehabilitation - and act as a deterrent - in some cases. Should a repeat offender be given a 'short-term assured tenancy' in a basic warehouse prison, that might act as a more severe deterrent. Rehabilitation (the first time around) didn't work - Perhaps pure deterrence would be more successful. There are some offenders for whom neither rehabilitation nor deterrence seems to work. Warehousing them won't help them - but they won't commit too many crimes while they're locked up. I've met a few people who look on prison as an 'occupational hazard'. They commit crime because that's how they make a living. Perhaps the risk should be increased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Doesn't that just talk about rehabilitation when in prison rather than not going in at all..or have I mis-understood it..? Most rehabilitation programmes are in prisons, where they educate people and give them new skills for their life once their sentence is over. Then there's other community orders, such as community service, whereby people aren't locked up, but still have to do some sort of work, or education. Interesting example with statistics below. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/21/texas-offenders-reading-courses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted October 12, 2010 Author Share Posted October 12, 2010 All they did was torture. You're wanting to kill. Has anybody stopped to ask what purpose would be served by locking up these people? Are they likely to commit the same offence again? Would making them work for the benefit of society not be a more usefl sentence? ...and preferably, a hell of a lot more than 80 hours of it. Have them clearing litter and digging trenches for the next twelve months, and get some of the work done that we can't afford to pay people to do. Is that a joke, you think 12 month of digging and litter picking duty is punishment enough? Some people have to do that kind of work just for a living, not as punishment for Christ's sake. Sentances should tick several boxes. This sentance (and your suggested sentance) leaves the rehabilitation and punishment and retribution boxes empty. What about public protection? I'm not entirely sure the public will be safe from them either as they are still out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js2012 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 I guess I was right - you didn't read the article. You guessed wrong then didnt you. It was far more than assault. It was degredation, humiliation and thats just the start. If you cant see that then thats your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Say a young shoplifter gets locked up. When they're inside and they will mix with burglars and muggers. They have the potential to become a far more dangerous criminal by being locked up, rather than their behaviour being nipped in the bud by some sort of community service or meeting the victims of their crime. Clearly prison has to be an option, but i'm not convinced locking petty criminals up works. Are you suggesting that people who perform community service do not re-offend? Are you suggesting that people who meet their victims do not re-offend? Prison does not act as a deterrent (in many cases - though it does in a few.) Rehabilitation costs money. Money is (almost inevitably) in short supply. Consider a burglar who is charged with 15 counts of burglary and who has over 100 previous convictions for burglary. He is given an ASBO and told he will have to pick up litter every Satrurday afternoon for 6 months. Do you think he is going to re-offend? If you send him to prison for two years, then when he comes out he may well revert to his old ways. - But society will be protected from his depradations during the year he is in prison. Next time, if you give him 12, you'll get 8 years of peace ... unless he finds yet another revolving door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.