Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

I take the view that it should but with changes to the prison system.

In general a convicted villain will only serve half of a sentence passed down by a judge. So what is the point in handing down 5 or 10 years porridge in the full knowledge that after half the period the prisoner will be out on the street?

The Home Office, after due process through Parliament, stipulates a prison tariff and judges are constrained within the set limits.

Statistically two thirds of prisoners released commit further crime and that goes to establish that prison is no real deterrent for the majority. Indeed to some it is a welcome break from having to survive in the outside world. A prisoner’s family will be taken care of through the Social Security benefits system and the prisoner will be housed, fed and clothed all at the tax payer’s expense. The victim of the crime would have to fend for her/himself as best s/he can.

In my view a prison sentence is to punish the criminal for his/her misdemeanours, rehabilitate the prisoner and ease him/her back into society as a reformed character.

What if a prisoner would serve one third of his/her sentence doing hard labour for which the prisoner would get paid. However 75% of the earnings would go to the victim of the crime. There would be no out of work hours privileges other than an hour of TV to watch the news and vetted books from a library. A prisoner would spend time other than work, meals and watching the news hours locked in the cell. If that period passes without problems during the next third the prisoner would attend a rehabilitation programme and have increased privileges. If suitable the prisoner could be released on license for the final third of the sentence.

Should a prisoner become a problem during the initial phase the prisoner would stay in that phase until s/he learns to conform or the full sentence runs its course.

A pipe dream I guess because there are too many do gooders around who seem to forget that in any crime there is a VICTIM as well as a criminal.

If such a regime had been in place some 15 years ago I would not have been the victim of SEVEN burglaries in as many years plus physical attacks on my person, house and car whilst living on the Roman Road estate in Blackburn I would have been spared most of them. Before anyone asks, I was an attendant in the local Community Centre at the time and I refused to allow the local thugs to take it over.

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

If you commit the crime then you do the full term of your time. Maybe its time for 3 strikes and your out. If that dosnt deter nothing would. The thought of life for say three shoplifting offences should put people off. Also life should mean life none of this " I sentence you to life to which you serve a minimum of 15 years before you are eligable for parole" Parole = a bad boy who has been good inside let out to see if he has been reabilitated, (my opinion and definition).

Line up the do gooders and let them be on the recieving end of constant crime and see how long they "keep the faith" in what they do.

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

Any term given should mean just that life = life, 12 months meaning 12 months - not 6 months! The inconsistancy of sentencing leaves a lot to be desired across the board!

I dont think for repeated offenders that prisons is a deterant

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

When judges give sentences like 5yrs, it sounds like they are being tough on crime!
We all know there's a going rate for crimes!! Why not tell the truth, and give the real length in prison time someones going to do for it? I bet it's because Joe public would find out how light the terms are! and would demand tougher sentences!!
I'd like more Judges to come from the "real world" and have a clue as to what it's like to have been a victim of crime!! Victims seem to be the least thought of when it comes to the justice system!:(

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

It depends on what class of victim.

Some of The Great Train Robbers like Biggs got 30 years. For what? Robbing a mail train of a couple of million quid. But that crime was against the monarch because it was The Royal Mail. So they got long sentences.

Commit a crime against the state, aristocracy and certain influential people and they throw the book at the crook. A so called joy rider who kills a kid off a Council Estate gets next to nothing. A child rapist gets a handful of years and is placed on the sex offenders register if the child is one of us. If the child was one of them and we still had hanging the sick individual would get topped.

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

I think that sentances should be served in full, and I think as a country we are far too lenient on serious crimes, esp sex offences.

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

Me Too.........

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

YES definately the sentence served should be the sentence given. recently on holiday was reading the local rag, a bar owner in barcelona got 4 years for noise,this was after two previous warnings, a couple of days later we were watching the digi-box bbc news. two scumbags in london attacked a 92 year old woman (who had senile dementia) in her home and robbed her, these scumbags were given 3 months, whose got it right? am still upset about this i agree with most people the lunatics have taken over the asylum.:mad:

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

If we get any softer on crime we might as well do away with criminal law. Its time we got a grip of reality and took a leaf out of the book of other countries.

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

anyone watch trevor mcdonald fri night? their prosecuting decent people now:mad: was a good few examples of the stupidity of the law/ pc brigade etc.:mad:

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

I think we should form a vigilante group and retake Hyndburn for the people - any takers reply by PM only please ;)

Re: Should 5 years mean 5 years?
 

Life should mean life - 5 years should be 5 years......NEVERMIND THIS PAROLE BOL*OCKS,criminals deserve all they get!!