Are the courts too soft?

[Santo]

That's deterrence to committing a crime in the future?

 

Except that we've seen that people sent to jail are more likely to reoffend than those who are given different types of sentence.

 

It is indeed. So when Redfox smugly asked if I knew what deterrence was do you think he/she was referring to general or specific? Why didn't the expert specify? Is there a case for saying Huhne's prison sentence was a mixture of both? General to deter others, specific so he won't do that again - punishment is harsh. I think a mix of both.

 

Thusly whether I said as a deterrent (implying specific) or as a deterrent to others (implying general), both would be valid? No?

 

Redfox, care to clarify?

 

EDIT

Well, it's now been well over an hour and Redfox (who I could see was online at the time) hasn't replied so I can only conclude that he/she knows just as much about deterrence as I did, possibly less. Otherwise Redfox would not have asked such a question in such a smug way. I am only grateful for the fact that I didn't boast about having 25 years experience in criminal justice. I very much look forward to reading Redfox's next reply in an attempt to save face.

 

I also note LeMaquis has gone quiet since I pointed out he was putting words in my mouth.

 

Cyclone, here is the paragraph about effectiveness of deterrent from Wikipedia:

 

"Measuring and estimating the effects of criminal sanction on subsequent criminal behavior is the historic and conceptual core of criminology.Despite numerous studies using a variety of data sources, sanctions, crime types, statistical methods and theoretical approaches, there remains little agreement in the scientific literature about whether, how, under what circumstances, to what extent, for which crimes, at what cost, for which individuals, and perhaps most importantly, in which direction do various aspects of contemporary criminal sanctions affect subsequent criminal behavior. There are extensive reviews of this literature with somewhat conflicting assessments."

 

Linked to that paragraph are several references in support of the summary. I cannot access them as they are not live-linked. For example, the first given is:

 

Zimring, Franklin E.; Hawkins, Gordon J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Obviously that is an American journal. Your link was Australian. I hope you can appreciate from the paragraph that there must therefore be evidence for both sides of the argument. Which is what I claimed. Don't try and bore me with the fallibility of Wikipedia. It's a silly argument when references are provided and the website is moderated. I don't think I need say anything more do I?

 

BOOM.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Santo

[LeMaquis]

Well, it's now been well over an hour and Redfox (who I could see was online at the time) hasn't replied so I can only conclude that he/she knows just as much about deterrence as I did, possibly less.

 

I also note LeMaquis has gone quiet since I pointed out he was putting words in my mouth.

 

Arguing endlessly with the small brain large ego brigade isn't everyone's idea of a good Friday night.

[Cyclone]

So the reference from wikipedia is a study from 1973, ouch, I hope that's not considered to be the state of the art of research...

[Wayne B]

certainly too soft,

prisons too full and at over 1K/week per prisoners.

Rent a piece of land in Ukraine, use local staff to man it thus reducing the bill to around £100/week. then get rid of all the long term prisoners

[Santo]

Arguing endlessly with the small brain large ego brigade isn't everyone's idea of a good Friday night.

 

Please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth.

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2016 at 12:14 ----------

 

So the reference from wikipedia is a study from 1973, ouch, I hope that's not considered to be the state of the art of research...

 

As stated, that is the first of several references for the paragraph I quoted.

 

There is no consensus as to whether prison actually works as a deterrent. I have never claimed there was consensus one way or the other.

 

There was a deterrent element in the prison sentence of Chris Huhne. The judge said as much. Because it was high profile I think his prison sentence might deter others from committing that particular offense but I cannot prove that.

 

I quoted an 'interesting' article about prison sentences and reoffending from the Telegraph. That is all.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Santo

[Cyclone]

The question isn't whether the judge thought there was a deterrent element, the question is whether such a deterrent actually has the claimed effect, ie to deter.

 

I think there is a consensus that it doesn't.

[Santo]

The question isn't whether the judge thought there was a deterrent element, the question is whether such a deterrent actually has the claimed effect, ie to deter.

 

I think there is a consensus that it doesn't.

 

For which crimes? You don't think the high profile nature of the Huhne case might have a deterrent to others effect? I think it might, but I can't prove that. Not many people are likely to be caught so it's difficult to determine. We only found out about Huhne because his ex-wife blabbed not realising she'd end up in trouble.

 

For premeditated murder, rape, basically any crime where you have to be or verging on being a psychopath I would agree with you. Prison isn't a deterrent for reasons you have given.

 

But there isn't a consensus across the board. As the Wiki paragraph makes clear. Based on the references it provides.

[cgksheff]

It can be argued that UK prisons are not a deterrent because they are too "soft".

 

Are there any comparable statistics on reoffending rates by ex-convicts from those "hard" prisons in America?

[Santo]

It can be argued that UK prisons are not a deterrent because they are too "soft".

 

Are there any comparable statistics on reoffending rates by ex-convicts from those "hard" prisons in America?

 

The crime rate in Singapore is well known to be low and their punishments severe. Violent crime is rare. If we adopted their system (excluding canings and execution naturally) would we see a long term reduction in crime? The prisons would be fuller than they already are during the transition period surely? It's not just the sentences though, it's how prisoners are rehabilitated inside and the opportunities they get when released. I doubt we could expect giving longer prison sentences but changing nothing else to have any great impact short term.

 

I have read that the death penalty for drug trafficking hasn't been a deterrent in Singapore however.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Santo

[El Cid]

The question isn't whether the judge thought there was a deterrent element, the question is whether such a deterrent actually has the claimed effect, ie to deter.

 

I think there is a consensus that it doesn't.

 

What is needed from the court is consistency, and for the police to convict as many wrong doers as possible.

The punishment for killing some usually is jail, but not always.