I have gone a bit Liberal

[Andy1976]

It's not even that I disagree, it's that if you study even the slightest amount of criminology you'd realise that you were just wrong. Harsh sentencing does not act as a deterrent, but it does have a negative correlation with further offending. You've sent them to criminal uni for 10 years, they come out and expert. You've entirely disenfranchised them and they probably feel massively aggrieved towards society. And you've cost the state a huge wad of money.

 

It's nice that you've presumed my qualifications. Sadly I've studied more than 'the slightest amount of criminology', as that was my first degree - a first in law and criminology. After that my masters was in criminal law.

 

You might disagree, which is fine, again, but you shouldn't let prejudice get in the way of your valuing my opinion. You're entirely wrong about my knowledge of the subject I'm afraid. Two related degrees, and quite a few years in the field, I think, makes me somewhat qualified to comment.

 

That said, you disagree. It's fine. If people didn't disagree, I'd be out of a job!

[Cyclone]

I won't let an opinion override established fact, no matter who's opinion it is.

 

It sounds like you should know a lot about the subject, so how you can conclude that sentences act as a deterrent I don't know.

[Flanker7]

Originally Posted by Cyclone - ...................... Harsh sentencing does not act as a deterrent, but it does have a negative correlation with further offending. You've sent them to criminal uni for 10 years, they come out and expert. You've entirely disenfranchised them and they probably feel massively aggrieved towards society. And you've cost the state a huge wad of money.

 

I won't let an opinion override established fact, no matter who's opinion it is.

 

It sounds like you should know a lot about the subject, so how you can conclude that sentences act as a deterrent I don't know.

 

What you should have said was:-

'Harsh sentencing does not act as a deterrent in most cases'

 

How can it be an established fact when some people are put off by harsh sentencing even if its only 5%.

 

It may just be your pedantic, bullish, confrontational style that offends people 'no matter who's opinion it is'!

[Andy1976]

 

It may just be your pedantic, bullish, confrontational style that offends people 'no matter who's opinion it is'!

 

Don't worry, I've seen far worse.

 

Cyclone, I've explained the basis of my knowledge, being a 1st in law/criminology, a masters in criminal law and 20 years legal experience, dealing with at a guess a few thousand criminals.

 

Care to share yours? I assume we're talking on an even footing? You've experience dealing with criminals on a daily basis I assume and your facts and figures aren't just from 'sources'?

 

I'm genuinely interested now. I'd really be grateful if you could elaborate.

 

Many thanks.

[tinfoilhat]

Don't worry, I've seen far worse.

 

Cyclone, I've explained the basis of my knowledge, being a 1st in law/criminology, a masters in criminal law and 20 years legal experience, dealing with at a guess a few thousand criminals.

 

Care to share yours? I assume we're talking on an even footing? You've experience dealing with criminals on a daily basis I assume and your facts and figures aren't just from 'sources'?

 

I'm genuinely interested now. I'd really be grateful if you could elaborate.

 

Many thanks.

 

I'm going to wade in with my own question (mainly because I don't give a monkeys). The Americans, we are led to believe, have harsh jail sentences in some very harsh jails (I watched Americans toughest prisons on Natgeo so am something of an expert;)) They jail a far higher percentage of their population than, in fact they jail more per head of population than anywhere in the world (got that bit from the opening episode of The Newsroom on sky Atlantic).

 

Would you argue that if there wasn't such harsh sentences they'd have even more crime and Cyclone, would you argue that if they jailed less people there would be less crime?

[Phanerothyme]

I'm a neoliberal now, apparently - https://www.adamsmith.org/Ablog/eight-reasons-to-legalise-cannabis

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by Cyclone - ...................... Harsh sentencing does not act as a deterrent, but it does have a negative correlation with further offending. You've sent them to criminal uni for 10 years, they come out and expert. You've entirely disenfranchised them and they probably feel massively aggrieved towards society. And you've cost the state a huge wad of money.

 

 

 

What you should have said was:-

'Harsh sentencing does not act as a deterrent in most cases'

 

How can it be an established fact when some people are put off by harsh sentencing even if its only 5%.

 

It may just be your pedantic, bullish, confrontational style that offends people 'no matter who's opinion it is'!

 

Given that we're talking about the effects on populations and statistically speaking, it's over qualifying to say "in most cases", although not wrong.

Pedantry and confrontation in a written discussion that revolves around saying what you actually mean, do you need a hug?

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2017 at 08:39 ----------

 

Don't worry, I've seen far worse.

 

Cyclone, I've explained the basis of my knowledge, being a 1st in law/criminology, a masters in criminal law and 20 years legal experience, dealing with at a guess a few thousand criminals.

 

Care to share yours? I assume we're talking on an even footing? You've experience dealing with criminals on a daily basis I assume and your facts and figures aren't just from 'sources'?

 

I'm genuinely interested now. I'd really be grateful if you could elaborate.

 

Many thanks.

 

I'm more than happy to acknowledge that you have a greater understanding of the subject, and so much more first hand experience that it's not even funny.

Am I wrong though that the evidentiary consensus is that harsh sentencing does not act as a deterrent? If I am, prove it and I will immediately change my opinion.

 

---------- Post added 22-03-2017 at 08:41 ----------

 

Would you argue that if there wasn't such harsh sentences they'd have even more crime and Cyclone, would you argue that if they jailed less people there would be less crime?

 

I would question why they have a higher crime than we do, if harsh sentencing (that they practice) is indeed a deterrent.

Ideally you'd need two places with very similar cultures, economies, etc, 1 of which practices harsh sentencing, the outcome of that sentencing would be immediately apparent in a comparison.

Failing that, a single place that changes a sentence regime from harsh/lenient or vice versa. At which point you should see some change in the level of offending and you've got your proof (so long as other factors didn't change, like a police focus, or police funding).

[Andy1976]

 

I'm more than happy to acknowledge that you have a greater understanding of the subject, and so much more first hand experience that it's not even funny.

Am I wrong though that the evidentiary consensus is that harsh sentencing does not act as a deterrent? If I am, prove it and I will immediately change my opinion.

 

 

One can find surveys and studies to back up almost any view, literally.

 

There are surveys that say, for (unrelated) example, that climate change doesn't exist, yet there are plenty that say it does. As the old saying goes, you can make statistics say almost anything.

 

My evidence is from speaking personally to those who I would consider 'frequent' offenders. Not a single one of them was worried about minor sentences, yet all would readily admit that they would stick to smaller crimes for fear of 10 years in Hull. Perhaps my experiences are wrong. Perhaps the Sheffield/Doncaster/Chesterfield criminals are a bad example - I accept they're a smaller group. I don't think we'll ever know, and I don't think for a second that it's possible to say long sentences are or aren't a deterrent, as it's just not that simple. They will be for some people, whereas some people just won't care. I think that's the reality.

 

Flipping the coin, it's more realistic for me to look at it from the opposite viewpoint.

 

Every client I ever had who I would consider a regular would openly admit that they had no concern whatsoever about their crimes, simply because the penalties applied to them didn't concern them. The community type penalties offered no threat at all, in fact they literally laughed at that, and even short term custodial wasn't really an issue.

 

That to me opens up a rather large can of worms. None of them had any intention of rehabilitation, they would openly admit that, so what do you impose as firstly a penalty, and secondly as a deterrent? Rehab doesn't work - they would openly tell you that - and the minor sentences don't have any deterrent effect. What are you left with? There is only one option, which is harsher sentencing.

 

If your aims are rehab, then they will fail. Most of my clients would admit they've no intention of changing their ways. You have to look at punishment and deterrent in my view.

 

I use examples a lot in life - I remember a number of clients, all of whom were low level shoplifters, a bit of assault here and there, a bit of possession, and I can tell you that the only time I ever saw fear in their eyes in the cells was when they had gone a step too far.

 

I remember a guy I would consider a career 'burgler', Dean, who had seen more CSO than anyone I knew, had seen a few young offender institutes etc - one of my early clients. One day he broke into a pensioner's home that he had thought was empty, she resisted, he hit her, caused some fairly nasty injury, and before he knew it, he was out of magistrates, and up to Crown, before HHJ Bentley, who all the Sheffield lawyers here will remember. 5 years went by, and we saw him again. He never did anything like that again.

 

Don't get me wrong, he still shoplifted, did the odd commercial burglary etc, but never anything that gave him the risk of a lengthy bit of time in somewhere unpleasant.

 

I think the summary for me is that yes I do think the studies to which you refer are wrong, as they aren't backed up by any of my experiences first hand with the clients of South Yorkshire. That said, I don't think that they're universal, nor that every criminal thinks/acts the same way.

 

What I do know is that low level penalties have no effect on recidivism. If they did, the company I worked for at that time would have been long bankrupt, as criminal was their thing. It still is, and they're still going strong, with many of the same clientele.

 

Something is clearly wrong in the system if that's the case. Would 20 years for the third burglary sort it? I personally think that threat would make the stakes far too high and it would be a deterrent, and believe it would have been for many of my clients, but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

I don't know what jobs people do, but if 'studies' are released that go entirely against your experience over quite a few years, I suggest anyone would think those studies wrong.

 

Sorry - waffled!!