One third of the prison population absolutely need to be in prison. One third should not be in prison, there are much better sentencing options. Then there's the middle third who may need to be in prison. If we stopped inprisoning the first third then maybe we'd have proper resources for rehabilitation whilst inside and the probation service when we release them.
It's a tall order, but since a week ago, I actually live in hope. Cautious optimism.
AFZ
I know what you mean - but worth pointing out - I think/really hope you mean stop imprisoning the *second* third...
There are horror stories of early releases under the Conservatives where groups of low risk prisoners were identified, and released within a couple of days - without any support system in place. So, prisoners practically shoved out the front doors of the prison with nowhere to live (advice "it's safer to sleep on streets near a police station"), the probation services not informed, support for mental health issues abruptly halted etc.
I'm hoping that the Labour plans for early release takes post-release support into account - does each prisoner being released have somewhere to live? are there mental health issues and associated support that needs to be continued? are the support structures for reintegrating people back into society, find a job etc, in place?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
He also had some thoughts about who is your neighbour, and the significance of things you do to help people in need.
On a different topic, there will be an announcement on prison places today.
There is a crisis in prison numbers - obviously that's Starmer's fault, as he's created the problem in 8 days...
Seriously though, I think Labour have this in hand, it sounds like they're going to release many prisoners at 40% point in their sentence (as opposed to the standard 50% mark).* They are excluding serious violent offenders, sexual offenders and domestic violence offenders from this policy, it has been reported. Currently, the BBC is reporting 700 free places with 1400 being the minimum number needed for the system to work properly. I.e. that's the amount of space you need for moving things around and admitted new prisoners as they're sentenced and managing the population. The 40% scheme is expected to release 10,000 inmates.
So, a pragmatic, grown-up solution. The reason I mention it here, is because this is a classic political problem. If they get it right, it will be forgotten very quickly. It is not an issue that most of the public even thinks about. Conversely, if it goes wrong, they will be figuratively crucified for it.
I hope in the longer term they bring about some serious criminal justice reform. There's an old interview with James Timpson circulating. He suggested that it's a rule of thirds. One third of the prison population absolutely need to be in prison. One third should not be in prison, there are much better sentencing options. Then there's the middle third who may need to be in prison. If we stopped inprisoning the first third then maybe we'd have proper resources for rehabilitation whilst inside and the probation service when we release them.
It's a tall order, but since a week ago, I actually live in hope. Cautious optimism.
AFZ
There are too many people in prison but that's the fault of the criminals.
I agree that a custodial sentence should be the last resort for most offences but when a criminal refuses to co-operate with a non custodial sentences the courts have no option.
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
He also had some thoughts about who is your neighbour, and the significance of things you do to help people in need.
Jesus said that we should visit people in prison, not release them early.
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
He also had some thoughts about who is your neighbour, and the significance of things you do to help people in need.
Jesus said that we should visit people in prison, not release them early.
This thread of the conversation is about providing family support for children in poverty. I think you have your wires crossed.
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
He also had some thoughts about who is your neighbour, and the significance of things you do to help people in need.
Jesus said that we should visit people in prison, not release them early.
This thread of the conversation is about providing family support for children in poverty. I think you have your wires crossed.
If you read the thread you will see that I didn't start the conversation on prison places.
@Telford I’ve read the threads. There was one line about child support and a different one about prisons, and it still seems to me that you got your answers crossed. Nevertheless, let’s restart here:
Jesus said that we should visit people in prison, not release them early.
Jesus didn’t say it was instead of release. During his ministry, who had the power to do that?
Nevertheless, Jesus also said we should forgive people their offences against us seventy times seven times. What do you think forgiveness looks like to a prisoner?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
Yes, but look at the rest of Mark 14:7. ... 'and whenever you wish you may do them good.' (NKJV)
He didn't say, 'The poor you will always have with you. Tough. Get over it.'
Jesus didn’t say it was instead of release. During his ministry, who had the power to do that?
Jesus.
Nevertheless, Jesus also said we should forgive people their offences against us seventy times seven times. What do you think forgiveness looks like to a prisoner?
I see forgiveness as a personal thing. I can forgive a criminal who has offended against me but that doesn't mean I should not co-operate with a state prosecution.
Jesus never said that the state shouldn't have prisons or punish offenders.
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
And that relationships never break up and jobs are never lost and landlords never increase rents and small businesses never fail.
Besides, even if you consider the parents to have acted wrongly in having another child it takes a certain level of callousness to react to that by plunging said child and their siblings into poverty. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes many consider the Tories to be the nasty party.
In the election campaign did Labour say they were going to change the policy ?
There are many couples who have chosen not to have more than 2 children because they can't afford to have them.
Your implication seems to be that rich people should have children and poor people shouldn’t - and/or that family planning accidents never happen.
Wrong. My implication is that parents should be responsible for their children
And if for whatever reason they cannot discharge that responsibility then tough shit kids, enjoy living in poverty?
This is one of my moral quarrels with the Conservative mindset - it appears to prefer to let people suffer if it can find a way to blame them or someone else for their suffering, rather than being driven by any desire to alleviate suffering as a first priority.
It's almost like the only significance of hungry cold children is so they can heap condemnation on their parents.
And it's one reason I have a lasting and profound dislike of the Conservative party in particular and right-wing politics in general.
Tory Jesus at the feeding of the five thousand;
"Lord, these people have followed you here and having nothing to eat"
"Well the stupid sods should have brought some food with them shouldn’t they? It's their own stupid fault. Why should I do anything to help these feckless idiots?"
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
Yes, but look at the rest of Mark 14:7. ... 'and whenever you wish you may do them good.' (NKJV)
I guess that's why so many people give to charity
He didn't say, 'The poor you will always have with you. Tough. Get over it.'
Jesus didn’t say it was instead of release. During his ministry, who had the power to do that?
Jesus.
Nevertheless, Jesus also said we should forgive people their offences against us seventy times seven times. What do you think forgiveness looks like to a prisoner?
I see forgiveness as a personal thing. I can forgive a criminal who has offended against me but that doesn't mean I should not co-operate with a state prosecution.
Jesus never said that the state shouldn't have prisons or punish offenders.
Among many things Jesus didn’t comment on either way, including a whole bunch of contentious issues.
If you find Jesus’ silence normative, He didn’t say we shouldn’t release prisoners either. This gets you nowhere.
Jesus said that we should visit people in prison, not release them early.
Wait a minute, you are not right about that after all - he said both. I am forgetting that Jesus read these words from Isaiah in the synagogue:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free…”
and said
“Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Jesus said that we should visit people in prison, not release them early.
Wait a minute, you are not right about that after all - he said both. I am forgetting that Jesus read these words from Isaiah in the synagogue:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free…”
and said
“Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Whilst I understand what you are getting at it could be argued that he meant it in a spiritual sense more than a literal one.
We need to stop sending so many to prison. They are full. The new government has its hands full in sorting that out.
It rather depends what the alternative sentence is. Imprisoning non-violent offenders seems like it would often be a waste of resources over alternative sentences.
The question is, is giving a community service order treating crimes less seriously than prison? The Conservative Party has been saying that, but is it true? In terms of paying back the community, doing work to benefit the community is obviously better than simply locking people in a cell for 23h a day. It also seems to me to be more likely to lead to rehabilitation and reform, and hence reduced rates of recidivism.
The question is, is giving a community service order treating crimes less seriously than prison? The Conservative Party has been saying that, but is it true? In terms of paying back the community, doing work to benefit the community is obviously better than simply locking people in a cell for 23h a day. It also seems to me to be more likely to lead to rehabilitation and reform, and hence reduced rates of recidivism.
Whereas it seems to me that, given a choice between being locked up away from everyone else and being free to see family and friends, go to the pub/cinema/football, etc, (and, of course, being free to commit further crimes) the latter is manifestly less serious.
There’s an old saying: if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. But if there’s no time to do, there’s no reason not to do the crime. Community service is no more of a deterrent than ASBOs were.
The question is, is giving a community service order treating crimes less seriously than prison? The Conservative Party has been saying that, but is it true? In terms of paying back the community, doing work to benefit the community is obviously better than simply locking people in a cell for 23h a day. It also seems to me to be more likely to lead to rehabilitation and reform, and hence reduced rates of recidivism.
Whereas it seems to me that, given a choice between being locked up away from everyone else and being free to see family and friends, go to the pub/cinema/football, etc, (and, of course, being free to commit further crimes) the latter is manifestly less serious.
There’s an old saying: if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. But if there’s no time to do, there’s no reason not to do the crime. Community service is no more of a deterrent than ASBOs were.
The evidence is against custodial sentences in deterring crime in the long run:
“The evidence strongly suggests that short custodial sentences under twelve months are less effective than other disposals at reducing re-offending. There is little evidence demonstrating any significant benefits of such sentences. Indeed, there is a reasonable body of evidence to suggest short custodial sentences can make negative outcomes (such as reoffending) worse.
The current evidence does not suggest that increasing the length of immediate prison sentences is an effective way to reduce reoffending.
[…]
Community sentences and suspended sentences appear to have an advantage in avoiding some of the criminogenic effects of imprisonment…”
Long story short: in the long run, knowing how bad prison is doesn’t deter crime, neither does giving longer sentences. CS orders are more likely to reduce crime.
Long story short: in the long run, knowing how bad prison is doesn’t deter crime, neither does giving longer sentences. CS orders are more likely to reduce crime.
The question is, is giving a community service order treating crimes less seriously than prison? The Conservative Party has been saying that, but is it true? In terms of paying back the community, doing work to benefit the community is obviously better than simply locking people in a cell for 23h a day. It also seems to me to be more likely to lead to rehabilitation and reform, and hence reduced rates of recidivism.
Whereas it seems to me that, given a choice between being locked up away from everyone else and being free to see family and friends, go to the pub/cinema/football, etc, (and, of course, being free to commit further crimes) the latter is manifestly less serious.
There’s an old saying: if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. But if there’s no time to do, there’s no reason not to do the crime. Community service is no more of a deterrent than ASBOs were.
This is beautiful logical and beautifully wrong.
Short term sentences are particularly damaging.
Imagine for a moment that most of those that become inmates live relatively chaotic lives to begin with. A 3 month sentence for say petty theft may sound like a deterrent but the evidence is that it often isn't when lots of other factors are in play. Now our twenty something young man is sent away for a while. Makes us law-abiding folk feel better. Unfortunately, whilst inside he loses his job (what employer will wait 3 months?) He can't pay rent so loses his home too. So when he gets released with no job, no home and a criminal record, what do you think the odds of reoffending are?
I'm willing to bet that if your honest with yourself, you would definitely reoffend in that situation.
I am so bored of policies that sound good but make things worse.
The books by the Secret Barrister are well worth reading for a critical appraisal of the criminal justice system, including the effects of various punishments on criminals.
Yes. An offender who fails to comply with the requirements of a non-custodial sentence will get summoned back into court, and may end up facing gaol time.
It rather depends what the alternative sentence is. Imprisoning non-violent offenders seems like it would often be a waste of resources over alternative sentences.
The extent to which a particular sentence is or is not a waste of resources depends on the extent to which it deters future crimes (either future offending for the person in question, or acting as a deterrent to similar crimes by other people).
As @alienfromzog and @Cameron note, a custodial sentence that is just long enough to get someone fired from their job and evicted from their home is unlikely to be terribly effective.
It doesn't matter whether something seems logical to @Marvin the Martian - as far as I am aware, Marvin is neither a habitual criminal, nor is he considering taking up a life of crime. The thing that matters is the effect that various sentencing choices have on the people who are either current criminals, or considering committing some criminal offense or other.
Shipmates have shown data that indicates the rate of reoffending is higher in those that received short custodial sentences vs non-custodial sentences for the same crime. That should encourage you not to issue short custodial sentences at all, although I will note two things:
1. The reports claim to control for type of offense, but they can't control for type of criminal. Where a judge has a choice between a custodial sentence and a community order, it seems likely to me that they are more likely to divert those they consider more amenable to reform to the community order, and those they consider hardened criminals to custody, so I'd want to ask more questions about how the studies think they successfully control for this effect.
2. The deterrent effect is very difficult to measure. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there's not much difference in practice in deterrent as you change the punishment, but measuring this is difficult.
For 1, a sentencing report prepared (IIRC) by the Probation Service is there to assist the judge. For 2, the biggest deterrent is the likelihood of apprehension - which is a policing matter rather than anything to do with sentencing or prison policy. (Incidentally, while deterrence may affect whether others offend or not, it does not appear to have much deterrent effect for the person sentenced.)
Yes. An offender who fails to comply with the requirements of a non-custodial sentence will get summoned back into court, and may end up facing gaol time.
and this is why a number of offenders are in The Chokey for minor offences.
We are outraged when children are abused but apparently have nothing better than prison to offer if they consequently struggle with adult life.
And a big part of the record prison population is austerity driven cuts in areas like education and youth services, as well as the kinds of things that functioned as early interventions. You can thank Osborne and his highly static view of costs and benefits for that.
The incarceration rate in the UK is significantly higher than that in places like France, Germany, the Netherlands etc. There's no logical reason why this should be so.
Makes sense if you think about it, would you plan to commit a crime thinking you’re likely to get caught ? Most likely you do it if you think you can get away with it - and most serious violence occurs when people lose control, at which point they are not weighing up costs and benefits in any rational way.
This is a bit of a tangent. For many years I have been involved in making Women's History accessible to the general public (heritage walks / articles / talks / workshops).
One of our topics concerns women who were hung or transported in the late C18th / early C19th. The story is always the same - convicted and sentenced for petty theft / convicted and sentenced a second time for petty theft / then there's a third, or fourth or fifth conviction, usually for something small - stealing a cheese, or a pair of shoes and then they are convicted yet again and either hung or transported.
It astounds me the number of times people pick up on the final outcome "transported for stealing a cheese! I bet there wasn't much crime then, with such harsh penalties! If penalties were harsher now there would be less crime!"
And, honestly, it's a trope - back in the day you could be transported or hung for stealing a loaf of bread. Well, yes. But only after repeated convictions. The simple fact was that a woman who had a conviction for theft had no chance of most forms of honest employment. Prison was never a deterrent to a woman with hungry children. And so these women carried on in a tidal wave of petty crime, until they reached the end of the road.
And somehow the tl;dr conclusion many people have reached today is that harsh penalties for petty crime then meant that there was less crime then.
You can provide a litany of offences and convictions prior to the final conviction and there will still be some person who thinks it worked well.
Before we had colonies people convicted of what we would regard as petty crime were executed because we had no prisons as such.
When I was a child I was told two things. I was told that a female ancestor had been departed to Austrialia and had returned with a chest and some gold. I was shown 'the chest' However I was also told that one ancestor had been a pirate.
These days we do have the welfare state and even if benefits are thought to be insufficient, many billions are paid out each year.
I have been told that although sentences for petty crime were very harsh 19th C juries would often (not always) fail to convict for precisely this reason. Any Shipmates with any data to back up or rebut this idea?
Before we had colonies people convicted of what we would regard as petty crime were executed because we had no prisons as such.
When I was a child I was told two things. I was told that a female ancestor had been departed to Austrialia and had returned with a chest and some gold. I was shown 'the chest' However I was also told that one ancestor had been a pirate.
These days we do have the welfare state and even if benefits are thought to be insufficient, many billions are paid out each year.
Prisons have existed in this country for many centuries:
If all that y’all are saying about prison not being a deterrent and community-based sentences being more likely to prevent reoffending is true, then I only have one question:
Why exclude violent offenders from consideration for such leniency?
Before we had colonies people convicted of what we would regard as petty crime were executed because we had no prisons as such.
When I was a child I was told two things. I was told that a female ancestor had been departed to Austrialia and had returned with a chest and some gold. I was shown 'the chest' However I was also told that one ancestor had been a pirate.
These days we do have the welfare state and even if benefits are thought to be insufficient, many billions are paid out each year.
Prisons have existed in this country for many centuries:
I think the position in past centuries was more complicated than popular histories would have it.
I remember hearing a talk about press-gangs by an eminent naval historian. He had plenty of examples of juries acquitting men - mostly merchant seamen, labdlubbers were rarely targeted - who had offered violent resistance to navy press-gangs. In some instances merchant ships had even opened fire on naval vessels laying in wait to seize their crews before they returned to port.
Juries acquitted them on the grounds that they were acting in self defence.
Debtors were sent to prison, of course and incarceration ranged from village lock-ups for holding drunkards or brawlers to short periods to long term imprisonment for political prisoners.
It's overly simplistic to suggest that they hanged people because they didn't have the means to levy custodial sentences. It was more complicated than that.
Before we had colonies people convicted of what we would regard as petty crime were executed because we had no prisons as such.
When I was a child I was told two things. I was told that a female ancestor had been departed to Austrialia and had returned with a chest and some gold. I was shown 'the chest' However I was also told that one ancestor had been a pirate.
These days we do have the welfare state and even if benefits are thought to be insufficient, many billions are paid out each year.
Prisons have existed in this country for many centuries:
I think the position in past centuries was more complicated than popular histories would have it.
I remember hearing a talk about press-gangs by an eminent naval historian. He had plenty of examples of juries acquitting men - mostly merchant seamen, labdlubbers were rarely targeted - who had offered violent resistance to navy press-gangs. In some instances merchant ships had even opened fire on naval vessels laying in wait to seize their crews before they returned to port.
Juries acquitted them on the grounds that they were acting in self defence.
Debtors were sent to prison, of course and incarceration ranged from village lock-ups for holding drunkards or brawlers to short periods to long term imprisonment for political prisoners.
It's overly simplistic to suggest that they hanged people because they didn't have the means to levy custodial sentences. It was more complicated than that.
I cannot think of any other reason why criminals, who would often be teenagers, would be executed for minor cimes.
Violent offenders are imprisoned on grounds of public safety.
Are violent criminals more likely than non-violent ones to reoffend if not locked up? Or is non-violent crime not something the public has a right to expect to be protected from?
Violent offenders are imprisoned on grounds of public safety.
Are violent criminals more likely than non-violent ones to reoffend if not locked up? Or is non-violent crime not something the public has a right to expect to be protected from?
Unless they get a whole life sentence, a violent criminal is likely to be a violent person when they are released,
Violent offenders are imprisoned on grounds of public safety.
Are violent criminals more likely than non-violent ones to reoffend if not locked up? Or is non-violent crime not something the public has a right to expect to be protected from?
Unless they get a whole life sentence, a violent criminal is likely to be a violent person when they are released,
Which is why reform and rehabilitation are important functions of prisons, which are hard to do when those prisons are overcrowded.
Violent offenders are imprisoned on grounds of public safety.
Are violent criminals more likely than non-violent ones to reoffend if not locked up? Or is non-violent crime not something the public has a right to expect to be protected from?
It's almost a sensible question.
There is a huge difference between protecting the public from violence and protecting them/us from petty crime. Of course, logically one option is to lock up all criminals for life. In one sense that prevents reoffending. It's hugely expensive and has the unfortunate side-effect of meaning there is no way back for young people who make a mistake.
The other part of this that has been clear in this discussion as well. If we stop wasting public money locking up people who shouldn't be locked up then we have a lot more resources to invest in rehabilitation for long-term offenders so that we reduce the risk to the public when they're released.
There is a very good moral argument to be had about criminal justice but it's actually not needed here. Self-interest for you and me would dictate that we want a system that works and reduces crime. ALL the evidence suggests that we can do it much better than we currently are. In doing so, we can save BIG money than could be redirected to other public services and/or mean lower taxes.
Politicians can always garner votes by playing the tough on crime card. I'm not interested. We can make our society better and save money by doing things differently.
Comments
Yep. But thanks.
I'm hoping that the Labour plans for early release takes post-release support into account - does each prisoner being released have somewhere to live? are there mental health issues and associated support that needs to be continued? are the support structures for reintegrating people back into society, find a job etc, in place?
There were actually far more than 5,000.
Jesus said that there would always be poor people and he was right.
He also had some thoughts about who is your neighbour, and the significance of things you do to help people in need.
I agree that a custodial sentence should be the last resort for most offences but when a criminal refuses to co-operate with a non custodial sentences the courts have no option.
This thread of the conversation is about providing family support for children in poverty. I think you have your wires crossed.
Jesus didn’t say it was instead of release. During his ministry, who had the power to do that?
Nevertheless, Jesus also said we should forgive people their offences against us seventy times seven times. What do you think forgiveness looks like to a prisoner?
Yes, but look at the rest of Mark 14:7. ... 'and whenever you wish you may do them good.' (NKJV)
He didn't say, 'The poor you will always have with you. Tough. Get over it.'
Jesus never said that the state shouldn't have prisons or punish offenders.
Among many things Jesus didn’t comment on either way, including a whole bunch of contentious issues.
If you find Jesus’ silence normative, He didn’t say we shouldn’t release prisoners either. This gets you nowhere.
Wait a minute, you are not right about that after all - he said both. I am forgetting that Jesus read these words from Isaiah in the synagogue:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free…”
and said
“Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Whilst I understand what you are getting at it could be argued that he meant it in a spiritual sense more than a literal one.
We need to stop sending so many to prison. They are full. The new government has its hands full in sorting that out.
Seems to me the problem is so many people committing crimes, not the fact that so many are caught and properly punished.
Which crimes that are currently considered serious enough to warrant a prison sentence do you think should be treated less seriously?
Whereas it seems to me that, given a choice between being locked up away from everyone else and being free to see family and friends, go to the pub/cinema/football, etc, (and, of course, being free to commit further crimes) the latter is manifestly less serious.
There’s an old saying: if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. But if there’s no time to do, there’s no reason not to do the crime. Community service is no more of a deterrent than ASBOs were.
The evidence is against custodial sentences in deterring crime in the long run:
“The evidence strongly suggests that short custodial sentences under twelve months are less effective than other disposals at reducing re-offending. There is little evidence demonstrating any significant benefits of such sentences. Indeed, there is a reasonable body of evidence to suggest short custodial sentences can make negative outcomes (such as reoffending) worse.
The current evidence does not suggest that increasing the length of immediate prison sentences is an effective way to reduce reoffending.
[…]
Community sentences and suspended sentences appear to have an advantage in avoiding some of the criminogenic effects of imprisonment…”
Long story short: in the long run, knowing how bad prison is doesn’t deter crime, neither does giving longer sentences. CS orders are more likely to reduce crime.
Indeed, and further evidence from the Ministry of Justice (controlling for type of offence) here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d1c732ee5274a08cdbe45c4/impact-short-custodial-sentences.pdf
This is beautiful logical and beautifully wrong.
Short term sentences are particularly damaging.
Imagine for a moment that most of those that become inmates live relatively chaotic lives to begin with. A 3 month sentence for say petty theft may sound like a deterrent but the evidence is that it often isn't when lots of other factors are in play. Now our twenty something young man is sent away for a while. Makes us law-abiding folk feel better. Unfortunately, whilst inside he loses his job (what employer will wait 3 months?) He can't pay rent so loses his home too. So when he gets released with no job, no home and a criminal record, what do you think the odds of reoffending are?
I'm willing to bet that if your honest with yourself, you would definitely reoffend in that situation.
I am so bored of policies that sound good but make things worse.
AFZ
The extent to which a particular sentence is or is not a waste of resources depends on the extent to which it deters future crimes (either future offending for the person in question, or acting as a deterrent to similar crimes by other people).
As @alienfromzog and @Cameron note, a custodial sentence that is just long enough to get someone fired from their job and evicted from their home is unlikely to be terribly effective.
It doesn't matter whether something seems logical to @Marvin the Martian - as far as I am aware, Marvin is neither a habitual criminal, nor is he considering taking up a life of crime. The thing that matters is the effect that various sentencing choices have on the people who are either current criminals, or considering committing some criminal offense or other.
Shipmates have shown data that indicates the rate of reoffending is higher in those that received short custodial sentences vs non-custodial sentences for the same crime. That should encourage you not to issue short custodial sentences at all, although I will note two things:
1. The reports claim to control for type of offense, but they can't control for type of criminal. Where a judge has a choice between a custodial sentence and a community order, it seems likely to me that they are more likely to divert those they consider more amenable to reform to the community order, and those they consider hardened criminals to custody, so I'd want to ask more questions about how the studies think they successfully control for this effect.
2. The deterrent effect is very difficult to measure. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there's not much difference in practice in deterrent as you change the punishment, but measuring this is difficult.
and this is why a number of offenders are in The Chokey for minor offences.
We are outraged when children are abused but apparently have nothing better than prison to offer if they consequently struggle with adult life.
And a big part of the record prison population is austerity driven cuts in areas like education and youth services, as well as the kinds of things that functioned as early interventions. You can thank Osborne and his highly static view of costs and benefits for that.
The incarceration rate in the UK is significantly higher than that in places like France, Germany, the Netherlands etc. There's no logical reason why this should be so.
One of our topics concerns women who were hung or transported in the late C18th / early C19th. The story is always the same - convicted and sentenced for petty theft / convicted and sentenced a second time for petty theft / then there's a third, or fourth or fifth conviction, usually for something small - stealing a cheese, or a pair of shoes and then they are convicted yet again and either hung or transported.
It astounds me the number of times people pick up on the final outcome "transported for stealing a cheese! I bet there wasn't much crime then, with such harsh penalties! If penalties were harsher now there would be less crime!"
And, honestly, it's a trope - back in the day you could be transported or hung for stealing a loaf of bread. Well, yes. But only after repeated convictions. The simple fact was that a woman who had a conviction for theft had no chance of most forms of honest employment. Prison was never a deterrent to a woman with hungry children. And so these women carried on in a tidal wave of petty crime, until they reached the end of the road.
And somehow the tl;dr conclusion many people have reached today is that harsh penalties for petty crime then meant that there was less crime then.
You can provide a litany of offences and convictions prior to the final conviction and there will still be some person who thinks it worked well.
When I was a child I was told two things. I was told that a female ancestor had been departed to Austrialia and had returned with a chest and some gold. I was shown 'the chest' However I was also told that one ancestor had been a pirate.
These days we do have the welfare state and even if benefits are thought to be insufficient, many billions are paid out each year.
Prisons have existed in this country for many centuries:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4887704.stm
Why exclude violent offenders from consideration for such leniency?
I remember hearing a talk about press-gangs by an eminent naval historian. He had plenty of examples of juries acquitting men - mostly merchant seamen, labdlubbers were rarely targeted - who had offered violent resistance to navy press-gangs. In some instances merchant ships had even opened fire on naval vessels laying in wait to seize their crews before they returned to port.
Juries acquitted them on the grounds that they were acting in self defence.
Debtors were sent to prison, of course and incarceration ranged from village lock-ups for holding drunkards or brawlers to short periods to long term imprisonment for political prisoners.
It's overly simplistic to suggest that they hanged people because they didn't have the means to levy custodial sentences. It was more complicated than that.
Maybe not, but they have existed in this country for much longer than you implied. The historical facts are easy enough to check.
Are violent criminals more likely than non-violent ones to reoffend if not locked up? Or is non-violent crime not something the public has a right to expect to be protected from?
Unless they get a whole life sentence, a violent criminal is likely to be a violent person when they are released,
Which is why reform and rehabilitation are important functions of prisons, which are hard to do when those prisons are overcrowded.
It's almost a sensible question.
There is a huge difference between protecting the public from violence and protecting them/us from petty crime. Of course, logically one option is to lock up all criminals for life. In one sense that prevents reoffending. It's hugely expensive and has the unfortunate side-effect of meaning there is no way back for young people who make a mistake.
The other part of this that has been clear in this discussion as well. If we stop wasting public money locking up people who shouldn't be locked up then we have a lot more resources to invest in rehabilitation for long-term offenders so that we reduce the risk to the public when they're released.
There is a very good moral argument to be had about criminal justice but it's actually not needed here. Self-interest for you and me would dictate that we want a system that works and reduces crime. ALL the evidence suggests that we can do it much better than we currently are. In doing so, we can save BIG money than could be redirected to other public services and/or mean lower taxes.
Politicians can always garner votes by playing the tough on crime card. I'm not interested. We can make our society better and save money by doing things differently.
That's good enough for me.
AFZ