Penal reform? No jail for thieves?

[cee-dee]

Don't send thieves to jail?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23686277

Really, just what Planet do those people come from?

It's bad enough seeing criminals getting off lightly without seeing them get off altogether.

[charliebird123]

Does the clown realise how many fines are left unpaid?

[tommy.irene]

Ha..ha

[cee-dee]

Here's a good example of how "well meaning" people have absolutely no idea of how to deal with criminals who have absolutely no respect for the general public and how they regard the silly people who have "gone soft" by accepting anything the criminal says to get his own way:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23693031

[joe_bloggs*]

I noticed come this Friday "Driving without due care" will be dealt with by fixed penalty notice (FPN)

instead of being dealt with by a summons, hoping to free up court time and expense,the evidence will likely come from the ever diminishig number of police patrol cars,Magistrates are predicting that the opposite will happen,and more drivers are lilkely to challenge the ticket in court,this is what happens when you cut police numbers and try to get the job done as cheaply as possible

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-the-treatment-of-penalties-for-careless-drivi...

[bankhaunter]

Wouldn't it be better to have a system more directed towards making that type of criminal compensate victims rather than simply locking them up?

It would require a big shake up of the present system.

[cee-dee]

No, because many offenders are just a waste of space and would never be able to properly compensate their victims.

[bankhaunter]

The system would have to be organised so the victim did get compensation.

It should be said that it's only a small percentage of the criminals referred to, actually get a prison sentence anyway so something like community service paid at a certain amount per week, the money going to the victim, may be better justice.

[cee-dee]

Where are they going to get this money from?

It doesn't matter where you say it should come from, do-gooders will try to say the crims need a certain amount of money to live and can't afford to pay anything. If it was taken anyway the crims would go out to do more thieving.

It won't work. Deprivation of Liberty for as long as it takes to dissuade reoffending is the only way.

[bankhaunter]

They would have to work for it much in the same way as community service is done now, the work would be done for an amount of money instead of now where they get no payment, the pay would go to the victim, any other money from benefit or anywhere else would not be affected.

So you could have a theft on £500 meaning them doing the equivalent of 5 weeks work for example, if they already had a job, they would have to work in the evenings.

As things stand at the moment, it may be better moneywise to go to prison rather than pay a fine, particularly if they have already been in prison.

[cee-dee]

OK, so they work but who for?

If they've already got a job, do they have money taken from their pay OR, if, as you propose they work "in the evening", who for and doing what?

You're presuming not only that there's work available (and money to pay them) but that they're actually capable of any work. Some crims are so anti-social, anti-establishment, anti-everything that they're unemployable.

Anticipating you saying they work "for the community", doing what? Does not "the community" already have a workforce? Would not "the unions" have something to say about offenders doing "their" work or work that could be done by newly employed members? If "the community" has work needing to be done and if "the community" doesn't have the funds available to do this hypothetical "work", where will the money come from?

Forget "Government funding". The Government has no money. The money comes from taxpayers. Are they to find more money to fund this "work" done by offenders?

Just also remember that if any Government were foolish enough to go for such a scheme, there'd have to be another army of taxpayer-funded people to oversee and administer the scheme and would they not be subjected to the same sort of intimidation currently suffered by those involved with current "work in the community" schemes?

It's all an idiotic idea.

[tommy.irene]

I remember when a mate was fined £1000 for no Tax on the car... after 3 months he hadnt paid it and couldnt.. he done 3 days in jail and owed nothing .. 

[bankhaunter]

If someone is sentenced to do so many hours community service, something has to be found for them to do, that already happens.

If they go to prison instead, that costs money so paying victims for the community service done by an offender would be cheaper or at least cost no more, the cheapest prisoner cost the taxpayer over £340 per week to keep in prison.

It would not be anti social criminals that would be given that sort of punishment.

[cee-dee]

The thing is, they don't do it. They intimidate the "staff" to mark them down as having attended and/or worked.

[bankhaunter]

Is there evidence of that?

[cee-dee]

Only what I was told by staff.

[lhasa.two]

Prof Ashworth, the Vinerian Professor of English Law at Oxford University, who advised the judiciary on sentencing between 1999 and 2010, said prison should still be considered in cases of robbery, blackmail and burglary.

But for "pure property offences", including theft, handling of stolen goods, criminal damage and fraud, imprisonment was disproportionate, he said.

"We should be reserving our most severe form of punishment for our most serious types of offending.

"Should someone be sent to prison and deprived of their liberty for an offence that involves no violence, no threats and no sexual assault?" he said.

"Instead, the priority should be to deal with such offences in the community, giving precedence to compensation or reparation for the victim and, where the offence is sufficiently serious, imposing a community sentence."

Serious question: What's the difference between robbery burglary and theft? 

"Pure property offences"?!

Obviously the Prof has never had his property entered into unlawfully  and ransacked, nor had any of his personal belongings stolen. Reading between the lines it would seem he's thinking  the Insurance co will compensate for the physical cost of the loss, so that's allright then! 

These thieves can of course compensate their victims at about 25p a week for the rest of their lives... These fines rarely get paid because they have already spent their money on the drugs they stole for in the first place and have no employment...  

Spend the money getting  them off the drugs and please don't send them out into the community to work for the very same people they stole from in the first place. Instead, send them to face their "victims" and apologise to them, make it real for them that there are real people who suffer from their illegal behaviour.

[start-the-fire]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The thing is, they don't do it. They intimidate the "staff" to mark them down as having attended and/or worked.

---

I have to agree with CD. community service where i live is a joke, of 8 hrs community service, they can spend 4 hrs travelling around picking people up and dropping them off. Some will just sit in the van. Those that did some work do it out of boredom, rather than the team leader asking them. I have no doubt that some of these team leaders are intimidated by some.

The cost to the taxpayer can also be quite large, in proportion the the community projects they accomplish, strimming graveyards etc the salary of the teamleader, vans, petrol,admin, all the latest H AND S equipmentpetrol etc.

Not going to prison will i feel mean even more will commit crimes such as burgulary, as there is no real deterant.Prison used be alot tougher than it is now, unfortunately the system seems to pander more to them than it ever did.

Until you have been burgled i realy dont think that they can appriciate the upset and true cost their action causes, which is far than just a monatary value. 

[joe_bloggs*]

All down to cutting costs, it's government policy:

In the MoJ’s Spending Review 2010 document on Workforce Impact, as seen by the Bureau, the department explains to its staff that they would need to keep people out of the court system and reduce the numbers of those held in custody. The document states:

‘we will have to make changes to and start focusing on diverting people from courts and we will have to review, consult on and then implement changes to sentencing in order for the volume effects- fewer people using courts, fewer offenders in custody- to reduce demands on different parts of the justice system.’

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/27/trials-failing-due-to-increased-basic-administrative...

From the BBC 2010:

"The reforms will stabilise the prison population and then start to reduce it by 2014-15. We expect that by the end of the Spending Review period the number of prisoners will be around 3,000 lower than it is today."

The ministry said that "dangerous and serious" offenders would still go to jail - but that a range of new rehabilitation tactics would be introduced to cut the number of other low-level criminals who would need to be behind bars.

These include more sentences in the community and performance-related contracts with private and voluntary bodies charged with rehabilitating criminals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11586371

[cee-dee]

I don't think this is wise, do you?:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23777143