Are the courts too soft?

[truman]

 

Take stuff like fraud from a bank. You get these young brokers getting 8yrs for defrauding a massive corporation, yet someone does something awful to a kid (for example) and gets the same.

 

For the former, get them to pay the money back if poss, prebent them from doing a similar job .

 

Do you reckon anyone found guilty of massive fraud would be employed in a similar position once they'd done their time?

[Cyclone]

I shall come back to deterrence once I reach the office (I expect I'll be having a slow day).

 

I'm sure there are studies on the subject so we can get an informed answer rather than just our own speculation.

[redfox]

If anyone actually really thinks the thought of going to prison occurs to people in the vast majority of circumstances when offending they are dreaming. It is the last thing on their mind, if it did occur to them a substantial number would not offend at all.

 

Yes some take steps to avoid being caught but even in those cases it is not prison that will stop them or deter them. For some being caught and going away for bit is an occupational hazard and just something that happens from time to time - and allows them opportunity to chew the fat will old mates former competitors is seen for some as a chance to expand the market or the circle of similar minded associates (leaving aside any technical improvements they learn of whilst away). They don't like it, don't enjoy it and will do what they can to minimise the extent of the stay away but a deterrence - no.

[Cyclone]

Australian analysis here, but I don't think that UK outcomes will be measurably different.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1128_sac.pdf

 

Pretty much as I suggested, although marginally less definitive than I presented it.

 

This section has examined evidence of the strength of

imprisonment as a general deterrent. The research suggests

that imprisonment has a negative but generally insignificant

effect upon the crime rate, representing a small positive

deterrent effect

 

it further goes on to suggest that resources used to detain someone could actually reduce crime more if allocated in a different capacity.

 

It has been proposed that harsher punishments do not deter

for a number of reasons, including a lack of impact of actual

punishment levels on perceptions of punishment and the ‘present

bias’ of most offenders, who discount the severity of distant

punishments in favour of meeting immediate needs. Where

changes in severity have demonstrated a deterrent effect,

the lengthy terms of imprisonment required may represent a

disproportionate response to the criminal behaviour. It has also

been suggested that the allocation of resources needed for

lengthy terms of imprisonment could reduce more crime (than

that generated by a general deterrent effect) if reallocated to

enforcement, parole or community-based sentences

 

So there are very good reasons to not send people to jail automatically IMO.

The criteria for jailing people should be a) that there is a system in place to reform them and b) if they need removing from society in order to protect the public.

 

As a punishment the loss of liberty is effective, but as a deterrent it's basically useless. It has a high cost, and from what I've read elsewhere, rather than reforming criminals, it acts as a centre for excellence where they make contacts and hone their skills. Precisely the opposite of what we want to achieve.

 

---------- Post added 19-08-2016 at 08:47 ----------

 

Further to my last comments

 

A number of literature reviews examining the effects of

imprisonment on reoffending have been conducted over the

last 10 years. One of the most recent, by Nagin, Cullen and

Jonson (2009), found that imprisonment had either no effect or

a mildly criminogenic effect upon reoffending when compared

to non-custodial or community-based sanctions.

 

Just the supporting paragraph from that report.

[unbeliever]

Australian analysis here, but I don't think that UK outcomes will be measurably different.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1128_sac.pdf

 

Pretty much as I suggested, although marginally less definitive than I presented it.

 

 

 

it further goes on to suggest that resources used to detain someone could actually reduce crime more if allocated in a different capacity.

 

 

 

So there are very good reasons to not send people to jail automatically IMO.

The criteria for jailing people should be a) that there is a system in place to reform them and b) if they need removing from society in order to protect the public.

 

As a punishment the loss of liberty is effective, but as a deterrent it's basically useless. It has a high cost, and from what I've read elsewhere, rather than reforming criminals, it acts as a centre for excellence where they make contacts and hone their skills. Precisely the opposite of what we want to achieve.

 

---------- Post added 19-08-2016 at 08:47 ----------

 

Further to my last comments

 

 

 

Just the supporting paragraph from that report.

 

 

One of many, many studies on the subject going back at least decades (for example, several cites on the wiki page on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(legal)#cite_note-12).

There is no academic consensus on the matter. Which is why it's left open to politics.

 

There is however a developing consensus that the probability of being caught is crucial. A moderate punishment attached to a high probability of receiving said punishment is far more effective than a severe punishment attached to a lower probability.

 

Let's not loose sight here of the victims' right to retribution. Punishments most not be so soft that the criminal justice system loses the consent of the law-abiding majority.

Edited August 19, 2016 by unbeliever

[Cyclone]

That wasn't a study to be fair, it was a summation of the body of evidence that studies have provided. It's not peer reviewed though, so maybe the lit review was more of a cherry picking exercise.

 

Can you show a study that shows that there is a deterrent effect from prison sentences, I'm not aware of any.

 

The same thing re:perceived risk of being caught is included in that report I linked, it doesn't say that the punishment must or even should be imprisonment though, a community sentence with a high risk of being caught is more effective than a harsh sentence with a low risk of being caught.

 

Retribution is not part of our system of justice at all. Punishment, rehabilitation, protection.

But yes, the law should reflect the majority view, it doesn't define morality, it just codifies it.

I've never heard it expressed that the law requires consent, although it seems reasonable. Policing on the other hand, pretty much has to be done with the consent of the people.

[Santo]

That wasn't a study to be fair, it was a summation of the body of evidence that studies have provided. It's not peer reviewed though, so maybe the lit review was more of a cherry picking exercise.

 

Can you show a study that shows that there is a deterrent effect from prison sentences, I'm not aware of any.

 

The same thing re:perceived risk of being caught is included in that report I linked, it doesn't say that the punishment must or even should be imprisonment though, a community sentence with a high risk of being caught is more effective than a harsh sentence with a low risk of being caught.

 

Retribution is not part of our system of justice at all. Punishment, rehabilitation, protection.

But yes, the law should reflect the majority view, it doesn't define morality, it just codifies it.

I've never heard it expressed that the law requires consent, although it seems reasonable. Policing on the other hand, pretty much has to be done with the consent of the people.

 

Isn't it a bit rich to say unbeliever is cherry picking when your own article is from Australia? The references to the studies quoted by Wikipedia are provided.

 

Why would you be aware of studies that show the deterrent effect? You aren't a criminologist are you? Unless you spend all your free time reading about things vastly outside your professional scope it's an odd thing to be reading about for a Java programmer.

 

It seems there isn't total consensus. That doesn't mean prison doesn't work as a a deterrent. But it looks like it depends on the crime as well. I've never heard it said that the death sentence for murder in America is a deterrent. The Wikipedia article says the American 3 strikes system is a deterrent however.

[Cyclone]

I didn't say that at all, read my post again.

 

I spend my free time reading about all sorts of things, don't you?

 

I was aware of studies that show a lack of useful deterrent effect from prison sentences. I'm not aware of the opposite. Is there some reason you don't think I should say so?

 

Lots of people have claimed that the death sentence is a deterrent (not in this thread of course) it's easily disproven though.

 

I get the vague feeling that you'd like to shut down discussion, particularly from those who you've decided aren't qualified... And out of interest, is this a new account for an old user? I haven't mentioned my job recently and yet you've picked it up within a month of joining the forum...

Edited August 19, 2016 by Cyclone

[Santo]

I didn't say that at all, read my post again.

 

I spend my free time reading about all sorts of things, don't you?

 

I was aware of studies that show a lack of useful deterrent effect from prison sentences. I'm not aware of the opposite. Is there some reason you don't think I should say so?

 

Lots of people have claimed that the death sentence is a deterrent (not in this thread of course) it's easily disproven though.

 

I get the vague feeling that you'd like to shut down discussion, particularly from those who you've decided aren't qualified... And out of interest, is this a new account for an old user? I haven't mentioned my job recently and yet you've picked it up within a month of joining the forum...

 

How can you not be aware of studies showing the opposite when they demonstrably exist? Read the Wikipedia references. It's just odd that you are only aware of one side of the argument. I'm not trying to close down debate at all. I just find it humorous that you talk about cherry picking when you did exactly that. You talk about being unaware of studies that show something you don't believe. You say 'I'm not aware of studies....' Big deal. You aren't Mr Cyclone PhD in Criminology, Governor of Strangeways, Criminal Psychiatrist are you? There's no real reason for you to be aware of them. So I reckon you hold an opinion, cherry pick for evidence of your claim and then say you are right. Doesn't work like that sir.

 

You say what your job is in your public profile btw. Sorry to burst that conspiratorial bubble.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Santo

[unbeliever]

I think we're in danger of getting carried away here.

 

There a case put forward from time to time that punishments should go beyond the standards of proportional retribution because of the value of the deterrent effect. This is highly dubious in evidentiary terms, runs against natural justice, and as a result it is highly controversial.

 

On the other hand proportionate punishments have a deterrent value of their own and have a great deal of other value as well. Amongst other things they provide retribution for victims and of course any prison term inhibits reoffending for at least the duration of the sentence.

 

There's a reasoned middle ground here between those who argue that we can imprison offenders for as long as we like and that'll fix everything; and those that argue that we don't need prison at all as retribution, inhibition and deterrence are of no value.

Punishments in my view should be proportionate. Rehabilitation is a good thing, but it should not be a replacement for punishment. The real way to get crime down is most likely to improve detection and conviction rates; of course this must be done within the confines imposed by a free society; that probably means more front-line policemen and police-substitutes (cameras and other surveillance etc).