Intermittent Custodial Sentence

[Mick]

I know someone who was in Kirkham open prison he was in for 2 years and he said its the best place with colour tv,ps2's so they can play DVD's they are allowed out everyday to the pub which is just down the road they can have takeaways sent in he said he had a great time .
some justice system ..

[Wynonie Harris]

Seems to me like these intermittent custodial sentences are yet another device of the do-gooders in their tireless quest to make life easier for this country's criminals. If people have committed a crime that warrants a jail sentence, no matter how short, they should do their time in full - not serve it as some gimmicky weekend sentence which is more of an inconvenience than a punishment. As for the upset caused to the criminals' families, if we took that argument to its logical conclusion, we'd never jail anybody.

Of course, the do-gooders tell us that it will ease prison overcrowding. Well, let me suggest another alternative - a large-scale prison building programme in order to greatly increase the prison population of this country. Again, the do-gooders tell us that we already have one of the highest prison populations in Europe but this statistic disregards the crime rates in each country. We actually, have one of the most lenient justice systems in Europe with only 12 people jailed for every 1,000 recorded crimes. Only Sweden can beat that with 4.7 prisoners for every 1,000. Ireland jails 33 people per 1,000 recorded crimes and Spain 47. Interestingly, Britain and Sweden have two of the highest crime rates in Europe.

The solution to the crime problem in this country is both simple and obvious - build more prisons and lock more people up for longer periods in extremely spartan conditions. In other words, give criminals something to fear. The sad thing is that the vast majority of ordinary people know this, but neither a Labour nor a Tory government will put it into action because law and order policy in this country seems to be directed by a small minority of do-gooders - an unholy alliance of clergymen, social workers and the chattering classes. So we will just have to go on getting robbed, mugged, punched, stabbed and murdered while the criminals strut the streets with impunity.

[jambutty]

Please jambutty, you appear to have just dismissed me as though I know nothing! I probably have more interest and experience than you actually think. Yes it's my opinion at the moment ... convince me different.

Have you read what I actually wrote Tinkerbelle or put your own spin on what you THINK I wrote? I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else. Just pointing out that in the right circumstances the Intermittent Custodial Sentence scheme is a viable alternative to full time porridge. Booking into prison at times that do not affect your full time employment is the idea not if it is convenient for social reasons.

Tagging is another useful way of curtailing the outdoor activities of the miscreant Madhatter but the person is still at home and able to enjoy the company indoors. So you can’t go out after 6:00pm? Big deal! Instead of going to the pub with your mates your mates come round to you with the booze. Where is the punishment in that? In any case I’m pretty sure that the real criminal would be able to get around that restriction, go out and burgle a house and have the perfect alibi. “It wasn’t me guv! I’m tagged and the records will show that I was at home when that house was robbed.”

This thread has been turned into opinions about the criminal justice system as a whole and what is wrong or unacceptable about it. We all agree that prison is too soft and should be harsher but that’s where the do-gooders come in with human rights and the like. But this thread isn’t about that but the pros and cons of the Intermittent Custodial Sentence.

As has been pointed out this scheme is a pilot system for lesser crimes that would attract a custodial sentence of less than 12 months for certain crimes.

I’m not saying that the Intermittent Custodial Sentence is the answer to all our criminal ills just another weapon against the lesser criminal. It has nothing to do with do-gooders views.

Just compare a 6 months full time prison sentence with a 52 days Intermittent Custodial Sentence.

The full time sentence means that the criminal’s family would have to resort to receiving all the various benefits and the cost of keeping the criminal locked up for that time. When the person comes out he will be unemployed and thus a further drain on public funds until he can find another job. Not easy with a criminal record.

A 52 days Intermittent Custodial Sentence served at weekends means that the criminal keeps his job and the only expense to the public purse is for the 52 days spread over 26 weeks (6 months) and keeping track of him to ensure that he serves his time on time.

The criminal gets punished as required by law with minimal expense. The criminal looses his freedom at the one time when law abiding citizens are able to relax and enjoy the fruits of their weeks labours.

Any ex-serviceman will tell you that being on duty whilst all your mates are out enjoying themselves is not a pleasant experience. It is only tolerated because you know that the situation will be reversed the next time.

Denying a criminal the freedom to do what he wants at weekends is still punishment and each weekend the message not to transgress is reinforced as he reports for his spell of porridge.

Just ask yourself which would you prefer. A full time custodial sentence where you get banged up for six months with all the amenities that are provided or an Intermittent Custodial Sentence where you KNOW that for the next 26 weekends you get banged up and also KNOW that after the weekend it is back to your normal job?

[Wynonie Harris]

I still think that the Intermittent Sentence is the lesser punishment. You're free to go out during the week with your mates and pursue all your normal activities during the evening. I admit I've never had a taste of prison life (so far!), but it seems to me that being totally deprived of your freedom would be far more restrictive and unpleasant. In fact, Intermittent Custodial Sentences are just another gimmick in a long line of schemes to ensure that offenders are given their freedom such as automatic early release, home detention curfews, electronic tagging and various community orders. This is all to deflect attention away from the fact that the government has no intention of embarking on an extra prison building scheme for both ideological and monetary reasons.

OK, it may be difficult to get a job afterwards, but don't forget there is a whole array of organisations, many government-funded to help the poor ex-con resume his place in society. Compare that to the amount of government help given to victims. As for the benefits question, no one has ever said that you can have an effective criminal justice system on the cheap. But whatever the cost, it will certainly be less than the estimated £60 billion annual cost of crime in this country!

[Tinkerbelle]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Have you read what I actually wrote Tinkerbelle or put your own spin on what you THINK I wrote?

OMG! jambutty, you really are a cantankerous old ****** lol!

"Convince me", merely meant put your point forward for why it's a good idea and you have, thankyou. I still don't agree though.

You appear to sympathise with the situation of the criminal, I don't. If you break the law and loose everything you've got then tough, that is the risk they took breaking the law. There is enough decent law abiding citizens out there that are unemployed by circumstances beyond their control, why should we make it easier for those that can't abide by the law to keep their job?

Also if it's aimed at people wanted to keep their employment why is Jobseeker Plus one of the outside agencies that are involved?

[slinky]

Got to say I too think this is a bad idea. Like Tinks and cashy have said " can't do the time don't do the crime".

People that break the law and are sent to prison do deserve to lose their jobs. Make the gits realise that to break the law they stand to lose alot more than their freedom.

A law is there to be abided, not to be broken and sent on holiday every weekend for a couple of months. Ok so they won't be able to go out on the lash at weekends or take their kids out to the seaside...GOOD!! they don't deserve these priviledges that law abiding citizens recieve.

[Margaret Pilkington]

They have been using something similar to this system in either Norway or Sweden for quite a long time. It is for driving offences and for other crimes that are seen as 'minor'...drunkenness etc. It does remove the liberty of the prisoner at times when he would probably enjoy leisure.......but it costs far less to keep the intermittent prisoner in jail....he can work to feed his family...and therefore they are not claiming benefits....the prisoner remains a contributor to taxes and continues to integrate in the local community...so there are no costs to getting the prsioner back into society because he hasn't really left society. Having said that the justice system in this country stinks........you can kill someone by driving under the influence of drugs...leave the scene of an accident and get off with just a few months in clink (if that!)....but if you don't pay your council tax because you don't agree with the policy of your local council then off you go to Jail.

[jambutty]

Calling on some fictitious Deity does nothing to enhance your post Tinkerbelle. Neither does name calling. You may see me as cantankerous but others do not. Old I am, I admit it. But a ****** never. That is a libellous accusation to make and putting lol and a grinning smiley at then end of your sentence doesn’t alter that fact.

You really should read and try to understand what I have written and not put your own interpretation on it to suit your argument.

All I have done is explain as best I could that the Intermittent Custodial Sentence is a cheaper way to punish people who commit certain crimes whilst still retaining a strong element of punishment.

That is my opinion although I do not expect anyone to agree with it. But I do expect people to respect my opinion for what it is. My opinion! I respect yours and do not resort to name calling and libellous remarks in order to make my point.

As you so obviously disagree with me, fine. That’s your opinion! It is neither right nor wrong, the same as mine.

I agree that anyone who breaks the law deserves to be punished, the contentious issue is how and that is where people disagree as they are perfectly entitled to.

Just where are these decent law abiding citizens unemployed or otherwise?

Who can hold his/her hand up and say that they have NEVER broken the law? I can’t! Anyone else care to admit that they are lawbreakers? Is anyone willing to accompany me to the nearest police station and with me confess to breaking a law at sometime and insisting that they be punished? No! Of course not! That is absolutely ludicrous.

So it’s OK if we breach the law but if someone else does they should get the book thrown at them.

As far as I am aware there is no remission for an Intermittent Custodial Sentence. You get 52 days that’s what you do. Whereas with a full time jail sentence the criminal is out under licence before completing even half the time. Some punishment!

[Tinkerbelle]

Originally Posted by jambutty

That is a libellous accusation to make

So sue me!! I can't afford to pay, they'll take me to court. What's the worse that can happen? ......... I'll get one of these cushy intermittent custodial sentences

Get off your high horse it was a light hearted throw away comment! I wasn't keen on your 'tone' when answering my first posts.

Calling on your ex-servicemen days did nothing to enhance your post either. How you can compare the good men of our country to criminals? I think that was low.

You've lost my interest now anyway ......... oh and for the record I still think it's wrong

[mthead]

Originally Posted by cashman

IF YOU CANT DO THE TIME DONT DO THE CRIME

Never a truer statement Cashy.If you get 8 months ,you serve 8 months.If you get 2 years you serve 2 years.No serving your sentence when its convenient.I also disagree with time off for good behaviour and tagging but that is a totally different arguement.If you break the law be man enough to take your punishment.And as for the funding why not make the criminals work inside.Doing jobs that benefit those innocent members of the public they have offended against,or even just the general public.I mean who was it that built the railroads of America? YOU'VE MADE YOUR BED NOW LIE IN IT !!!!!!!! Thats a term that also springs to mind....

[jambutty]

A perceived tone of a post is down to the reader and how they view what they read Tinkerbelle and rarely has anything at all to do with what is actually written. So what you are actually saying is that you were not keen on your own interpretations of what you read. That says it all.

What high horse is that?

It is a sad fact of life that some people do make insulting comments about others and when challenged pretend that it was all in fun. The reality of the situation is that the comment was meant to be serious but the commentator just didn’t have the moral fibre to put it seriously. They cowardly hide behind pseudo laughter.

I don’t recall comparing servicemen to criminals.

Any ex-serviceman will tell you that being on duty whilst all your mates are out enjoying themselves is not a pleasant experience. It is only tolerated because you know that the situation will be reversed the next time.

Just exactly where is this comparison with criminals? You really should read and understand what was actually written.

So I’ve lost your interest? Big deal! I don’t recall asking for it.

This thread isn’t about the points you made in your response mthead although I agree with most of them. This thread is about the Intermittent Custodial Sentence.

I would take you up on one point though.
If you break the law be man enough to take your punishment.
Agreed! Will you join with me and take a trip to nearest police station to confess to some past breach of the law and take your punishment?

By the way it was mainly Chinese immigrants who built the Coast-to-Coast railway with a few convicts thrown in.

[slinky]

Well all I can say is.. If I was burgled tonight, while my innocent children lay in bed and some moron came and took our belongings, that I work BLOODY hard to buy for my family, then that MORON appeared in court and was given this idiotic sentence I would be gutted to say the least. And why should he be allowed to have this sentence, to work for money to buy himself things when he had taken mine. OH COME ON!! HELLO............I don't think anyone in their right mind would turn and say " well I think that was a fair sentence for that theiving bar steward to get".

[mthead]

Originally Posted by jambutty

I would take you up on one point though.
If you break the law be man enough to take your punishment.
Agreed! Will you join with me and take a trip to nearest police station to confess to some past breach of the law and take your punishment

My punishment for what ???????????????????
And as for the Intermittent Custodial Sentences I disagree with them,as I do with the time off for good behaviour and tagging.I regard them as something the same.An easy way out.Its bad enough that sentences dont fit the crimes these days without introducing another 'Namby Pamby' wayout.

[accymel]

What a load of balcocks if ive seen any!!!

Sorry im in agreeance with everyone here is that 'you do the crime you do the time' said the same to my X when he thought breaking jaws was funny & i was married to the knobhead at the time geeeez prison never stopped him much cept try doing the like at home to get away with it!! Sorry if punishment isn't dealt with appropiately to the crime then the crim just carries on cos at the moment prison & sentencing is cushty.

Geee this introduction is supposed to be benefit of crim's family errrr speaking from one who knows - the family get used & abused by these idiots anyhow to think that this would make it easier - hell no!! Im with tinks like she said if husband does the crime he has to be punished & if thats at expence of being away from his kids -so be it cos he's no role model anyway.

As ive said in another thread this country is too ruled by the criminals rights so much that why bother with any courts or police eh?

Take it you haven't been a victim of serious crime then Jambutty???? because if you had then a softey approach is the last thing you'd want mmm it'll be justice rightfully served.

[jambutty]

It is more likely that the thieving torag who turned over your house slinky would get a slap on the wrist these days unless it was a repeat offence so the ICS would not come into it.

This ICS isn’t for all sentences that merit less than a 12 months sentence but as an alternative for those minor offences that do warrant a custodial sentence of less than one year. It is a harsher alternative to tagging.

I’m all for banging up criminals and throwing away the key or at the very least making one third of the sentence as hard labour and no privileges at all, the next third meaningful work with some privileges and the last third as rehabilitation. But I’m also a realist in that my dream will never become a reality.

My punishment for what ???????????????????

I don’t know mthead! Surely you have broken the law at some time in your adult life. What about nipping down the motorway at 80 plus? Or parking on double yellow lines while you nip out to an ATM. Or maybe removing stationary from the office or nuts and bolts and things from the factory. That’s theft you know. Of course you know but it is only petty theft and in any case your office or factory won’t miss what you take.

It depends what you call a serious crime accymel. How about 7 burglaries in 12 years? Two muggings and one GBH assault rendering me eligible for hospital treatment to put my nose back in the middle of my face. Are those serious enough? Not to mention vandalism to my home and motor vehicle not once but many times. You shouldn’t presume!

OK! So very few people like the idea of ICS and that’s fine, it’s your opinion. Many people, including me, consider that the criminal justice system is an ass and favours the criminal above the victim. But how many of you have tried to do anything about it. Have you made your views known to your MP repeatedly? Or is it a case of whingeing to your family and friends and then going to the pub for a drink and forgetting all about it?

How many of the thread contributors didn’t vote at the last general election?