Intermittent Custodial Sentence

jambutty · 04-07-2006, 14:46

A motorist was given 56 days Intermittent Custodial Sentence because he moved a 40 mph speed limit sign to a 30 mph area in an attempt to fool the speed camera that had trapped him twice in one day.

When did an Intermittent Custodial Sentence become law?

It would appear that this law came into being around September 2004 and basically it states:

Quote:

Intermittent custody should only be imposed if a custodial sentence of less than 12 months is justified and neither a community sentence nor suspended sentence is appropriate.

Towards the end of the last century the usual arguments raged about prison population and criminals getting light sentences because of prison overcrowding when it occurred to me that the answer might lie in a system that was in force in Capetown, South Africa in the early sixties and as far as I know is still in use today.

In 1998 I wrote to Jack Straw who was my MP at the time because I lived in Blackburn to outline what they did in South Africa. I never got a reply but maybe it my letter just sowed a seed.

A shipmate, or maybe that should be a shore establishment mate because we were both at a transmitting station miles out in the bush, got done for drunken driving. He was awarded, if that is the right word, 300 hours Intermittent Custodial Sentence, although I don’t think that it was called that at the time.

What it meant was that he would have to spend a total of 300 hours in jail within a 12 months period. He could choose when to go to jail providing that the period would be in multiples of 12 hours with a minimum of 48 hours at a time. Prisoners on this scheme would have to be at the prison gates between 0700 and 0800 or 1900 and 2000 by prior arrangement.

Any prisoner smelling of alcohol or under the influence of drugs would be turned away and the period ‘booked’ would be added to the sentence. Similarly if a prisoner did not turn up at the appointed time or was late, that period would also be added to the sentence.

There were stringent penalties for repeat offences that led to full time prison.

When a prisoner ‘booked’ in he or even she would be required to change into prison clothes under supervision and the street clothes would be locked away. During the term in prison, prisoners would not have any access to the radio except twice a day to listen to the news. There was no TV then but if there had been I guess that the ban would have applied to TV as well. Prisoners would work in the prison laundry and kitchens as well as scrubbing out their cells and communal space. The only reading material that was allowed was the Bible or Koran etc. or technical manuals relating to the job the prisoner was employed in. Any free time could be spent chatting in the communal space until 10:00pm when the prisoners were locked in their own cells for the night. Part time prisoners had no access to full time residents.

My mate had a vicar as a companion, a managing director of a major Capetown company, a bank manager and sundry senior management as well as a good selection of ‘ordinary’ workers. Most were in for various motoring offences.

My mate’s reaction well before his prison terms was up was, “Never again!”

The advantage of this scheme is that an offender would not only be punished as required by law but also would be able to keep his job and maintain his family whilst spending weekends and holidays in prison.

Tinkerbelle · 04-07-2006, 16:42

I presume this is a joke jambutty? I thought the whole point of prison was to loose your liberty!

jambutty · 04-07-2006, 17:12

It’s no joke Tinkerbelle it’s been on the news all day long and the prisoner does loose his liberty at the times when he might be going out enjoying himself.

As I said he gets punished by having to attend jail instead of spending a weekend doing what he wants but he keeps his job and earns to keep his family.

It is far better than going into jail for 56 consecutive days (8 weeks), probably losing your job in the process and your family having to claim various benefits until you, as a jailbird, try to get another job.

56 days is 28 weekends. Would you like to spend the next 28 weekends in jail whilst your friends and family are out enjoying life?

Imagine having to come from work on a Friday evening, get your tea and head off to jail for two days to come out on the Sunday evening for 28 weekends.

Tinkerbelle · 04-07-2006, 17:26

Well no actually jambutty, I don't agree it's right for them to choose when it's convenient for them to serve their prison sentence. Most people are sent to prison as a consequence of their own actions and if they loose their job and family, tough, they should have thought about that before breaking the law.

jambutty · 04-07-2006, 17:37

So you would punish the family for the deeds of the husband would you Tinkerbelle? You would probably have a different outlook if it happened to you.

But if that is your opinion then that is your opinion.

I happen to agree with this scheme, as it is a good compromise all round.

Busman747 · 04-07-2006, 18:08

As I read and re-read your post jambutty, the idea is becoming more appealing, HOWEVER - - - With the thousands of untracable people in this country, illegal imigrants, escaped prisoners, those that owe fines to the courts, Fathers that owe maintenance, the list is endless, Who is going to trace the large percentage of defaulters with this system?

Tinkerbelle · 04-07-2006, 22:04

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.

Punishing the family for the husbands deeds? The husband himself has done that by committing the criminal act, not the legal system that is there to punish him.

To me it just seems this new system of an intermittent sentence is even less of a deterrent than ever. It's to convenient. Punishment isn't meant to be convenient.

:EDIT:

Just been having a look at

http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/pr...31,18,3,18,0,0

and

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/31008-25.htm

It does say it's a pilot scheme. I will reserve judgement. It it's targeted at the right people then fair enough.

shillelagh · 04-07-2006, 23:01

I think it's a good idea. Just as long as its for like motoring offences etc not for murder, rape etc. If it's for something like theyd get a couple of months maybe its a good idea. That way they dont lose their job and their home.

Madhatter · 04-07-2006, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by shillelagh

I think it's a good idea. Just as long as its for like motoring offences etc not for murder, rape etc. If it's for something like theyd get a couple of months maybe its a good idea. That way they dont lose their job and their home.

exactly. Tinks, its about him going to prison when it's convenient for his family, and when it will cause less disruption to society, not at all about him. He has to be there when they say, not when he decides is convenient. It's ok you can work get money, be a dad in the week, but you will be here at the weekend no matter what. It's also only available because it's for petty offenses.
Tagging is another scheme that still punishes people by making them a prisoner in their own home after 6 each nightm but allows them to get a job, and look after family. I've got a friend on a tag at the moment. She can't step over the doorstep after 6.
It's far better than her clogging a cell up at an open prison, or at the high security prison that she was at at one time.
I can't agree with putting someone thats defrauded money with murderers.
Prison should be for rapists, murderers peodophiles and dangers to society

Tinkerbelle · 04-07-2006, 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by shillelagh

Just as long as its for like motoring offences etc not for murder, rape etc.

The Parliament site suggests offences such as theft, forgery,fraud and minor driving offences.

Madhatter · 04-07-2006, 23:20

It's about time our justice system was set to reflect the crime. I've said this before, but beating a girl so that her cheekbone is fractured gets 15 months, which will be halfed, her face and life is permanently scared. someone steal 28 thousand, and gets 15 months plus has to pay it back. I think the first should get a lot longer sentence, the girl needed a metal plate.

Tinkerbelle · 04-07-2006, 23:35

Yes I'm seeing the gist of it. Good idea? As I've said I'll reserve judgement.

I just have a problem with the softly, softly approach that we've adopted in this country when it comes to dealing with criminals these days. Booking into prison for the weekend or weekdays, depending which is more convenient, just doesn't seem like punishment to me.

cashman · 05-07-2006, 00:17

gotta say sorry i,m with tinks on this one, agree with hatter that our justice system should reflect the crime- but thats another issue, i was learnt a saying when i was young IF YOU CANT DO THE TIME DONT DO THE CRIME i think that still stands today in my book, also i think the criminal should think of his family not ME- SOCIETY or anyone else.

Madhatter · 05-07-2006, 01:15

Well, I'm looking at it from the point of view of cost to us cashman, I didn't do the crime, you didn't, tinks certainly didn't, so why should we have to pay for his full time stint in prison at over a hundred quid a day, PLUS have the burden of keeping his family on benefits while the criminal sits in prison watching sky tv, and getting conjucal visits. This way he gets to work to keep his own family,and himself all week and then gets his social time took off
at the weekends. For non serious crimes I think it makes sense. For serious violent crimes then yes prison. But the crime has got to justify the cost and the locking away from society.
Other punishments can hurt just as much if not more than prison and be as effective if not more, at less cost to us.
Thats how I see it anyway.

Madhatter · 05-07-2006, 01:15

Well, I'm looking at it from the point of view of cost to us cashman, I didn't do the crime, you didn't, tinks certainly didn't, so why should we have to pay for his full time stint in prison at over a hundred quid a day, PLUS have the burden of keeping his family on benefits while the criminal sits in prison watching sky tv, and getting conjucal visits. This way he gets to work to keep his own family,and himself all week and then gets his social time took off
at the weekends. For non serious crimes I think it makes sense. For serious violent crimes then yes prison. But the crime has got to justify the cost and the locking away from society.
Other punishments can hurt just as much if not more than prison and be as effective if not more, at less cost to us.
Thats how I see it anyway.