Ministers consider ending jail terms of six months or less

The Ministry of Justice is considering banning prison sentences of less than six months in England and Wales.

Ministers argue that short jail terms are less effective at cutting reoffending than community penalties

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46847162


Oh dear... at a time when prison sentencing is already too soft, and where we need tougher sentences and more prison places in order to deal with the crime epidemic that is going on...!

Send 'em straight to Butlins, might as well !

So police now dont go out to shoplifting complaints if the amount lifted is less than £100....now 6 month or less prison sentences may be banned...no wonder crime is rising like it is.  
Perhaps replacing shorter jail sentences with boot camps...maybe  will make men out of some of the scroats who are polluting our streets with gay abandon.

To me what is the point of 6 months jail time, it is pointless, when they will be out in 6 weeks?

I mean seriously what difference is it going to make?

I think the prison system in theis country continues to fail to undertand how in other countries they are able to reduce crime.

One thing we fail at here, is our inability to understand why there is higher levels of crime in certain areas. namely being relative poverty and high levels of children to single parents in poverty. All these factors lead people into possible avenmues of crimiminality.

So people are at odds that people do not serve a few weeks, which is what people sentenced to 6 months will face?

Either the view is they have harsher sentences or will look to understand where other nations have been able to reduce crime. I mean why are the Dutch ended up closing countless prisons? Why again is their crime rates continually reducing? Is it because they have a better benefit system than us, a better minimum wage and that they are trying to bridge the gap of relative poverty?

I mean can anyone show to me how ever prison or capital punishment has ever been a deterrant to people committing crime?

Now of course some criminals are so dangereous that they should never be allowed into society ever againt

People are less likely to be lead to crime, if many social factors help prevent them failing into crime. That is a fact and yet we never learn from this.

I think people should stop thinking harshness is the answer to crime, because in the gin age, children were basically hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. What did that achieve? Countless people hung, for being hungry? Or shipped off to Australia?

In all the areas and today of history of crime. Why is it even in countries including the US, where they have the death penalty. Will people realise its never a deterrant against crime? The reason is, because they fail to understand what leads people to crime. The only exception to this is with sexual crime. Where on that factor its the only case where brutality might actually work, by cutting their balls off. As there is different factors that lead to this crime, which no social environment can ever hope to stop or change. A fear of death clearly does not deter and has never detered many people committing crimes. Maybe the loss of sexual organs is a way to deter sexual offenders.

Hence my view is to look at the problems that lead people into crime and help prevent them being led into this.

what you say about the connection between crime and poverty is a fact yet there seems to be another factor at work now or perhaps then. The majority of people in my community, growing up were living hand to mouth, yet the crime rate was low, maybe they didn't get caught but I doubt it as there were police living in the community, they were never off duty as such and would pursue an investigation on the slightest thing. I f you did break the law and were convicted you were a marked man and always watched and always the first to be visited if your previous crime fitted the scenario of the current crime, known criminals were stopped and questions as to what they were doing at any time, there were no complaints of police harassment by human rights groups or celebrities.
Whatever has changed and other countries are showing the way maybe we should give it a try. I know some prison officers or whatever they are called now and they have said many young people in prison almost prefer to be there because their lives are structured and they feel someone cares enough to try to guide them and say no if required, many seem to be abandoned at a young age to their own devices with little or no discipline by uninterested or useless parents, not always the case but perhaps this is the other reason.

Vintage wrote:what you say about the connection between crime and poverty is a fact yet there seems to be another factor at work now or perhaps then. The majority of people in my community, growing up were living hand to mouth, yet the crime rate was low, maybe they didn't get caught but I doubt it as there were police living in the community, they were never off duty as such and would pursue an investigation on the slightest thing. I f you did break the law and were convicted you were a marked man and always watched and always the first to be visited if your previous crime fitted the scenario of the current crime, known criminals were stopped and questions as to what they were doing at any time, there were no complaints of police harassment by human rights groups or celebrities.
Whatever has changed and other countries are showing the way maybe we should  give it a try. I know some prison officers or whatever they are called now and they have said many young people in prison almost prefer to be there because their lives are structured and they feel someone cares enough to try to guide them and say no if required,  many seem to be abandoned at a young  age to their own devices with little or no discipline by uninterested or useless parents, not  always the case but perhaps this is the other reason.

I said relative poverty Vintage, not simple poverty.

You will find places like in the where people are generally poor and there is low crime. The same where people are generally middle class and generally rich. Its where there is an imbalance where people live that there is rich and poor.

Hence relative poverty

I agree on many of your points though.

We already have a system where prison is given to only those who are guilty of very serious crimes, and anyone given prison for lesser crimes will have a long list of previous convictions and where they have previously avoided getting a prison sentence...

In fact... only a very low percentage of first time offenders of many serious crimes actually get prison sentences...

Have a look at pages 5 & 6...

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoestoprison.pdf


This report also says that 70% of prison sentences are imposed on people who have at least 7 previous convictions/cautions... and 50% of prison sentences are imposed on those with at least 15 previous convictions/cautions...


What we need is enforcement of the prison option much earlier on, and instead of this pathetic automatic halving of time served, we need to enforce the full term of sentence, and instead start saying that prison term will be extended further for bad behaviour...


Also... it's total bullshit to claim that prison doesn't work, if firstly, it is not being applied until someone has already been allowed to become a career criminal after years of convictions but only getting soft community sentences instead of prison, and secondly if they are finally given a prison sentence after years of avoiding it, but are allowed out in only a few weeks instead of doing the full term imposed...


It is clear to me that we urgently need a large increase in prison places, and we need to be giving prison sentences to many more much earlier on in their criminal activity... and we need to be making them do the full term of sentence as well as making the prisons a much harsher environment to be in...


Not the other way round...!

It really does seem the UK criminal justice system is seriously out of step with common sense.

It has been that way for a long time with the soft on crime sentencing and holiday camp style prisons...

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:It really does seem the UK criminal justice system is seriously out of step with common sense.

I second your point

Soft on crime is definitely lacking in common sense...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Soft on crime is definitely lacking in common sense...

Tell that to the dutch where they have low crime rates

We have high crime rates...


And years of soft sentencing...


50 % of prison sentences are given to serial offenders who have at least 15 previous convictions...


Even serious offenders are highly unlikely to get prison for first offences...


So... what's your solution to high/rising crime levels...???


Even softer sentencing...!!!???

So I see the point and earlier points have gone over Tommys head as per usual

Oh well

No... it's my points that are being ignored by you...

Thor wrote:To me what is the point of 6 months jail time, it is pointless, when they will be out in 6 weeks?

I mean seriously what difference is it going to make?

I think the prison system in theis country continues to fail to undertand how in other countries they are able to reduce crime.

One thing we fail at here, is our inability to understand why there is higher levels of crime in certain areas. namely being relative poverty and high levels of children to single parents in poverty. All these factors lead people into possible avenmues of crimiminality.

So people are at odds that people do not serve a few weeks, which is what people sentenced to 6 months will face?

Either the view is they have harsher sentences or will look to understand where other nations have been able to reduce crime. I mean why are the Dutch ended up closing countless prisons? Why again is their crime rates continually reducing? Is it because they have a better benefit system than us, a better minimum wage and that they are trying to bridge the gap of relative poverty?

I mean can anyone show to me how ever prison or capital punishment has ever been a deterrant to people committing crime?

Now of course some criminals are so dangereous that they should never be allowed into society ever againt

People are less likely to be lead to crime, if many social factors help prevent them failing into crime. That is a fact and yet we never learn from this.

I think people should stop thinking harshness is the answer to crime, because in the gin age, children were basically hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. What did that achieve? Countless people hung, for being hungry? Or shipped off to Australia?

In all the areas and today of history of crime. Why is it even in countries including the US, where they have the death penalty. Will people realise its never a deterrant against crime? The reason is, because they fail to understand what leads people to crime. The only exception to this is with sexual crime. Where on that factor its the only case where brutality might actually work, by cutting their balls off. As there is different factors that lead to this crime, which no social environment can ever hope to stop or change. A fear of death clearly does not deter and has never detered many people committing crimes. Maybe the loss of sexual organs is a way to deter sexual offenders.

Hence my view is to look at the problems that lead people into crime and help prevent them being led into this.

I posted this earlier, after your one sentence about being soft on crime

What parts did you actually address Tommy?

Sentencing must be a punishment foremost, and this is also a deterrent... Soft sentencing is neither...

So it seems again Tommy does not want to debate and talk to himself

Okay

Seems another debate is over

Try looking at the link I posted...


The stats tell the real story...