Crime, punishment and re-offending.

[cee-dee]

It seems that the Justice Secretary is considering the issue of "earned release" for offenders and is thinking about teaching them "a proper lesson" to help prevent re-offending.

http://news.sky.com/story/1520431/gove-wants-to-teach-prisoners-a-proper-lesson

If you remember on another thread I mentioned full jails and wondered how many inmates were re-offenders?

According to the link above, two thirds of young offenders and 45% of adult offenders will re-offend within one year of release. Shouldn't that be that they're caught within one year of release?

One young burglar broke in to a house, stole some things and the keys to a car outside and stole that too. Shortly after, he entered another house, stole some more things and the keys to the car outside. As it was a faster car, he drove off in that, drove like a lunatic and crashed. He was killed. His mate with him just ran off and left him.

When the cops found the wrecked car, they searched the (dead) body and found a jail release card, he'd been released from jail 2 days before!

An exceptional case, yes, but if he'd not crashed, how many offences would that lad have committed before he was caught again?

Surely offenders need dissuading from re-offending after being caught the first time not more-or-less getting let off as it was "their first offence". The first offence should be dealt with far more seriously?

[margaret*e]

Surely offenders need dissuading from re-offending after being caught the first time not more-or-less getting let off as it was "their first offence". The first offence should be dealt with far more seriously

I think this proves a point.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crime/thanks-serial-south-shields-thief-s-delight-after-court-giv...

[cee-dee]

Frustrating.................

[malacandran]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Surely offenders need dissuading from re-offending after being caught the first time not more-or-less getting let off as it was "their first offence". The first offence should be dealt with far more seriously?

---

Yes, you're right  - the first time they commit a crime, is the time to give them a severe punishment.  That will deter them from committing another crime.

But nowadays, the first crime gets a weak punishment, or none at all.  What can that do, except encourage further crime?  

It seems so obvious.  But these days common-sense has gone out of the window. The justice system is ruled by lawyers who want to get big fees by cleverly defending obvious criminals.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The idea of punishing a first offence harshly sounds attractive - the problem with that though are the statistics quoted in the OP.

They demonstrate that a prison sentence does nothing to deter further offences and may well make it far more likely that an offender will reoffend if sent to prison.

I'd be interested in statistics referring to first offenders who are not jailed - do 45% of them reoffend within 1 year of being caught for the first time?  I suspect not - if that is the case then the case for jailing them is flawed.

[malacandran]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

The idea of punishing a first offence harshly sounds attractive - the problem with that though are the statistics quoted in the OP.

They demonstrate that a prison sentence does nothing to deter further offences and may well make it far more likely that an offender will reoffend if sent to prison.

I'd be interested in statistics referring to first offenders who are not jailed - do 45% of them reoffend within 1 year of being caught for the first time?  I suspect not - if that is the case then the case for jailing them is flawed.

---

I agree - the case for jailing them is, as you say, flawed.

Because, what does jail mean to a criminal?  It only means they get locked for a while.  Then they're released, and come out to commit more crimes.

What we need is to stop them committing crimes permanently.  And this can only be achieved by execution.

This may seem a harsh solution.  But it was seen as sensible, in the 18th century.  In that century, criminals were routinely executed

forl offences such as theft.  That got rid of criminal genes, and "purified" the general population.  It made the people more law-abiding.

Which is why such 18th century nuisances as "highwaymen", did not persist into the 19th century.  It was because the highwaymen got hanged, and didn't propagate their criminal genes.  And many other criminal genes were eliminated.  So the 19th century was more law-abiding.

This may seem simplistic, but I think it's basically true.  

[fallen-archie]

On the suggestion, what else can the government do other than build more prisons the cost of which we cannot afford at this time. I think it a stupid idea but until we address the cause and motivation of those committing crime then what options do we have? It seems to be accepted that drug abuse including Alcohol, Account for many criminal acts, would it be beyond the abilty of our most talented scholars to examine this and come up with initiatives aimed at removing dependance and therefore reducing the need to commit an offence. Why can't we also stop making our prisons so accommodating, Yes to a point they deny Liberty yet they remain places where mobile phones are common as is drug taking, that might suggest there is collaboration with officers. 

Perhaps Government should start to chip away at the system and make sure that Liberty is valued above incarceration.

[electric*mayhem*band]

What do people think of us reverting back to the good old Victorian penal system, and about the idea of converting our present jails into facsimiles of Newgate ? Just a suggestion.

Hey, nonny nonny.

[cee-dee]

Phones eh? Have a read of this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-33361410

Jails are too soft. Those in jail should be made to work not laze about plotting their next crime. Breaking stones would tire them out so they'd be too tired to cause any trouble afterwards.

Liberty? Hmmmmm, another "L" is liberal (small l) and those liberals have a lot to answer for in pandering to criminals and their "rights".

Wrongdoers probably fall in to distinct groupings and they're possibly age-related. Do you find many fraudsters at 14 or wanton vandals at 50? I wonder if anyone has thought of finding out the ages where each type of crime begins and considered how to target a realistic punishment regime?

[upthecreekyetagain]

If harsh prison  are, as some suggest, the answer to crime then why not also bring back debtor's prisons - that might solve the credit crunch 🙂

[joe_bloggs*]

I read somewhere that around 70% of crime is commited while under the influence of, or stealing to aquire drink or drugs,I know it would cost more ininitially,but these people who are a danger to themselves and other people should be incarcerated not in prison but in a secure medical unit,which could treat their addictions by a specialist team,surely it's got to be cheaper in the long run than the constant merry-go-round of familliar faces popping up at the courts every other week ?

[fallen-archie]

Asolutely correct, Lets concentrate for now on one area where there are real gains to be made. The Drug and alcohol stats are frightening, current policy ais the supplier and denies the user real support. 

As for the Liberalisation of prisons yes they should be humane but not to the point that they fail to be a deterrent.

[malacandran]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Phones eh? Have a read of this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-33361410

Jails are too soft. Those in jail should be made to work not laze about plotting their next crime. Breaking stones would tire them out so they'd be too tired to cause any trouble afterwards.

Liberty? Hmmmmm, another "L" is liberal (small l) and those liberals have a lot to answer for in pandering to criminals and their "rights".

Wrongdoers probably fall in to distinct groupings and they're possibly age-related. Do you find many fraudsters at 14 or wanton vandals at 50? I wonder if anyone has thought of finding out the ages where each type of crime begins and considered how to target a realistic punishment regime?

---

You're right when you mention ages. I think that gets to the nub of it.

It goes back to the earliest age - ie birth.  Some people are born with a criminal frame of mind,  They're not like most people, who are nice.  The criminals aren't nice - they want to cheat and hurt us. This is because they have bad genes.

These bad genes should be eliminated by executing the criminals.  

It's no good locking the criminals up in prison for a while, because when they come out, they will attack us again.

The only way to get rid of them permanently,  is to execute them. 

All this was well understood in the past.

But nowadays, aren't wooly-minded Liberals and Guardian readers confusing the issue?

[astrologica]

In the 19thC we had treadmills in prisons. The treadmills were a pointless exercise, but kept the prisoners occupied. We should bring back treadmills. Every prison should have a large treadmill, but it should be attached to the National Grid. Prisoners should be made to run on the treadmill for at least 12 hours a day, thus providing a renewable energy source for all of us outside the prison. Make them useful. We have wind power, wave power....why not prisoner power?😀 Oh.....I am forgetting......they have 'human rights'.
Or we could bring in that part of Sharia law that deals with thieves.😕

[electric*mayhem*band]

malacandran wrote:

These bad genes should be eliminated by executing the criminals.  

It's no good locking the criminals up in prison for a while, because when they come out, they will attack us again.

The only way to get rid of them permanently,  is to execute them.

_________________________________________________________________

Yes, what a jolly good idea. Let's resurrect Tyburn, and invest in a fleet of tumbrels. Give the tourists something to gawp at, when their Oxford Street shopping spree has ended.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Do people really take seriously things others Tweet - any more than what they post on her? ???

[023mjc]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Phones eh? Have a read of this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-33361410

Jails are too soft. Those in jail should be made to work not laze about plotting their next crime. Breaking stones would tire them out so they'd be too tired to cause any trouble afterwards.

Liberty? Hmmmmm, another "L" is liberal (small l) and those liberals have a lot to answer for in pandering to criminals and their "rights".

Wrongdoers probably fall in to distinct groupings and they're possibly age-related. Do you find many fraudsters at 14 or wanton vandals at 50? I wonder if anyone has thought of finding out the ages where each type of crime begins and considered how to target a realistic punishment regime?

---

Surely there must be some kind of technology that would prevent mobiles from getting a signal in prisons.

[cee-dee]

Two things would prevent that.

1/ It would block legitimate phones.

2/ The Wireless Telegraphy Act.

[upthecreekyetagain]

That's easy - change the law and prisons have things called land lines.

[023mjc]

Something that would just effect the cell blocks. If they can get that probe all the way to pluto and have it send photo's back  I'm sure they could work it out.