Legal Madness

[jambutty]

As I understand it every single crime on the statute book has a minimum and maximum punishment attached to it. The judiciary apply a punishment that is either the min or max or somewhere in between depending on the actual case. For the Home Office (John Reid) to broadly hint to the judges that they should avoid sending people to prison because they are full is – well you put your own expletives in here.

As a victim of crime on several occasions I can claim to speak with some authority on how a victim feels. The first feeling is, “I wish that it never happened” but sadly we cannot go back in time. Once you get over the initial shock your thoughts turn to the criminal. You want him/her punished severely enough to make him/her think twice about repeating the crime on someone else or even yourself. You want full restitution if the crime has been against your property and some compensation. There is little satisfaction in knowing that the criminal has gone to prison for a while when your property has been stolen or smashed. You have to replace it somehow whether it is by insurance premiums or cash. No amount of money will compensate you for a crime against the person but it helps the healing process both physical and mental. If you do get compensated for a crime against the person, it is taxpayer’s money (criminal injuries fund) that is used, not the criminals. S/he is languishing in prison. Which I might add is more comfortable than that for a serving soldier, sailor or airman and they can get shot at and have bombs and shells chucked at them. Not forgetting the odd chemical or gas.

Fining a criminal may seem like a good solution for what people call petty crimes (they aren’t petty to the victim) but if s/he has nothing then s/he cannot pay so more public money is wasted bringing the criminal back before the courts – just to get another fine.

Much of the ‘petty’ crime is perpetrated by people who have nothing, exist on dole money etc and want something. So they go and steal it. Although a large proportion of burglaries and muggings are the work of junkies trying to fund their habit.

Some just don’t bother paying a fine knowing full well that there is a fifty-fifty chance of getting away with it. If the courts actually get the money it rarely, if ever, covers the cost of collecting it. I know of one person who ran into the back of my car (drunk, no tax, no insurance and already banned from driving), was fined and ordered to pay for the repairs. After TWENTY ODD YEARS I have yet to see one single penny from this guy.

ASBO’s and tagging are a waste of time and money except for the minority. Too many young thugs see them as a badge of honour and flout them anyway.

Only fine a criminal if it can be established that s/he has the means to pay and then fine them an amount related to their income. Say 50% of their weekly income for up to 8 weeks.

The greater majority of prisoners locked up are re-offenders, which says a lot about a spell of porridge.

In my view a criminal should first be punished for the crime with a severity, within the bounds of humane treatment, that will make him/her think twice before going off the rails again. In other words make them work hard for 8 hours a day with only the very basic privileges. Then would come a period of making him/her see the error of his/her ways in what is know as rehabilitation where additional privileges could be EARNED. And training in some skill so that once released the prisoner would have the means of earning a living during a final period of parole. Any violations along the way would automatically send the person back to jail to start all over again.

Of course there will always be a few ‘hard cases’ who would not buckle under and this is where the phrase “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” could come into play.

Finally, if re-offenders didn’t re-offend we could probably close down at least a quarter of the prisons. This would release more staff to the existing ones to ensure that prison meant what it is supposed to. A PUNISHMENT!

[tadah]

I wonder what the punishment guidelines are now?

Robbery = Say sorry and give back 10% of takings?

Assualt = Buy them a box of plasters?

[grannyclaret]

Simple,,,,, Bring back the birch,,,,,

[Mancie]

Things just don't seem to add up.. the vast majority of the post on here (and probably the general public) say more offenders should be jailed, but the man in charge of policy on young offenders put in his resignation today stating the reason for his resignation was that Goverment policy is swamping prisons with young offenders convicted of minor crimes.

I don't know the exact figures but the prison population has gone up by several thousands over the past 8 years,the goverment claim to have created provisions to accomadate 20,000 more convicts than ten years ago and that offenders are more likely to face jail now than in the past.

[chav1]

hes right , young offenders shoudlnt be sent to prison

they should be sent to do hard labour in boot camps