Thread: Wtf

Oh come on Sid mate.....enough of the pseudo intellectual lawyer bollocks, first 'commensurate' twisted to serve your point of view, now youve hijacked 'sensible' from sensible sentencing........sure your not going to drop Law and become a politician........i recon your just arguing for arguments sake and taking the piss......

Quite simply, what we have is not working, the government cant afford to build more prisons, so if there full, that must mean the judges are being told to lessen the sentences.......you cant fool ALL of the people all of the time......

Originally Posted by Scouser

Oh come on Sid mate.....enough of the pseudo intellectual lawyer bollocks, first 'commensurate' twisted to serve your point of view, now youve hijacked 'sensible' from sensible sentencing........sure your not going to drop Law and become a politician........i recon your just arguing for arguments sake and taking the piss......

Quite simply, what we have is not working, the government cant afford to build more prisons, so if there full, that must mean the judges are being told to lessen the sentences.......you cant fool ALL of the people all of the time......

just read the post and process it... maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing... that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?

if you don't understand that increasing prison populations will have a negative and cumulative effect, then I would have to question just how "sensible" you are...

i got faith in you.... I'm sure you be able to get there with a bit of effort.... us pseudo intellectuals just get pissed off with people who appear to only know enough to know the solutions

Originally Posted by Sidney

just read the post and process it... maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing... that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?

if you don't understand that increasing prison populations will have a negative and cumulative effect, then I would have to question just how "sensible" you are...

i got faith in you.... I'm sure you be able to get there with a bit of effort.... us pseudo intellectuals just get pissed off with people who appear to only know enough to know the solutions

Your details are lacking and what you have put up do not support your argument. The only statistic that would indicate the 'sensibility' of terms would be the length of sentences of those behind bars now compared to some other earlier time; not the fullness of the rooms. If beer dropped 66% in price, and twice as many people drunk 10% less, then less money would be spent on beer but the pubs would be fuller. Another way is that the sentences could be 33% less but 100% more people could be desperate enough to have to turn to crime to support themselves. Another useful measure could be the current rate of people appearing in court compared to earlier times and the length of the sentences they receive.

Maybe you should consider that the prisons are fuller for another reason than the stiffer sentences, that to everyone but you, are not being handed out?

Mr Gadget.. I am afraid that because I am opinionated and can argue, you might believe that I know what the answer is.

An increasing prison population could be a result of a few things.... longer sentences, more criminals per head population, increasing population for the same sentencing levels, or more imprisonable offences...

In the last 2o years, the latter has occurred, population has increased, legislative punishment has gotten tougher, and judges have sentenced more vigorously. They actually are cognisant of societal expectations to some extent.

So its probably combination of all of the above, plus a few other things... the nett effect being fuller prisons. And despite statistical outliers that hit newspapers, the premise that judges are softer has had no evidence presented to justify that argument. Full prisons may suggest that that actually hasn't been the case, at least until they are completely full. So lets see data to show judges are sentencing more lightly......if thats your contention.... because plucking newspaper headlines aint evidence...

Sensibility is not an increasing prison population......

Originally Posted by Sidney

Mr Gadget.. I am afraid that because I am opinionated and can argue, you might believe that I know what the answer is.

An increasing prison population could be a result of a few things.... longer sentences, more criminals per head population, increasing population for the same sentencing levels, or more imprisonable offences...

In the last 2o years, the latter has occurred, population has increased, legislative punishment has gotten tougher, and judges have sentenced more vigorously. They actually are cognisant of societal expectations to some extent.

So its probably combination of all of the above, plus a few other things... the nett effect being fuller prisons. And despite statistical outliers that hit newspapers, the premise that judges are softer has had no evidence presented to justify that argument. Full prisons may suggest that that actually hasn't been the case, at least until they are completely full. So lets see data to show judges are sentencing more lightly......if thats your contention.... because plucking newspaper headlines aint evidence...

Sensibility is not an increasing prison population......

Sidney,

I have not plucked any newspaper headlines. I don't tend to bother with news as most of it is ill researched, ill written sensationalism. I am very un-opinionated and if you have followed what I've posted in various posts in this thread you will have noticed that I've put in a lot of arguments on both sides of your argument.

There is a lot more crime now, that cannot be denied. 30 years ago if a vehicle was stolen it was quite a thing; when mine disappeared earlier this year I got a letter from the police saying they are not looking for vehicles but is someone finds it it will be found. The whole level of what is investigated has moved even with more police about. Why is that? A mixture of the police not having the respect they once held, more crime, a lot more paperwork, higher levels of evidence needed, ....

If you look at periods of low crime levels it is when there is low unemployment and good economic times. When things go pear shaped in the economy and unemployment increases then more tend to turn to crime. Once they have a record it is hard for them to find employment; the guy with a clean slate will generally get the position first. Hey, we're in a vicious cycle. As I said earlier the issue is being looked at from completely the wrong angle. We need to get to a position where the severity of the sentencing isn't really the issue, ... it is the lower amount of sentencing due to lower crime we want to get to.

Back in the day it was easy for the local bobby to put the 'fear of' up a young fella and steer him back on the right tracks. There were more fathers at home that would provide a good guiding influence, including a good clip round the ear when required, particularly with adolescent males. ... There are many things that have changed.

"maybe the prisons are full because of tougher sentencing... that would seem a "sensible" conclusion?"

Oh Sid, had to come back in so all the 'pieces of shit' reading this on their laptops in prison will understand (front lobel development, withstanding).......

The 'piece of shit' gets his (reduced) sentence from the judge......the prisons are full.....dilemma, how do we lock this 'piece of shit' away?....easy....part 2 of our fantastic legal system comes into effect.....drum roll please!!!!!!!

the fukin Parole board.....they then release another 'piece of shit' early, from his reduced sentence to make way for the new 'piece of shit' to take his warm bed (and laptop) in prison.......and so the cycle revolves....kapish?

C'mon mr gadget....

The whole tenor of this thread is that the justice system is soft on crime. That reaction is solely based on various emotional stories and headlines but no actual data. It is a popular media and political sponsored idea that I am yet to see actually substantiated. Scouser thinks that explaining his version of how the parol board works is somehow relevant... but again no actual data.

When I point out that out prisons are full its not be conclusive to say that prison sentencing is tougher, but it is at least indicative that it might not be as soft as is assumed.

All of these threads are the same... isn't it dreadful, lock em up forever, the justice system is soft, put em on an island to eat themselves. That is simple emotional response and these issues are bigger than that.

The implication is that by being tougher, we would deter more offenders... that is not reality. When I point out that increasing the prison population is not desirable, the short term view is that just as long as they are all locked up whats the problem? The problem is that with a larger prison pop, we also have a larger rotation of freshly trained and resentful re-offenders cycling through our community, we have more frustrated and deprived kids growing up without fathers and we have a long term cumulative increasing problem. That all spells increasing levels of crime which perpetuates the issue.

The "Sensible" Sentencing Trust don't offer anything apart from tougher sentencing, that is one dimensional thinking and we need better than that.... in fact don't call yourself sensible until your have the capacity to consider the issue from a larger perspective.

These are big issues, they deserve better thought and consideration, and the traditional emotive response doesn't actually work....

Originally Posted by Sidney

C'mon mr gadget....

The whole tenor of this thread is that the justice system is soft on crime. That reaction is solely based on various emotional stories and headlines but no actual data. It is a popular media and political sponsored idea that I am yet to see actually substantiated. Scouser thinks that explaining his version of how the parol board works is somehow relevant... but again no actual data.

When I point out that out prisons are full its not be conclusive to say that prison sentencing is tougher, but it is at least indicative that it might not be as soft as is assumed.

I've yet to see you show us some data that substantiates your claim, all I've done it propose another and more plausible means by which our prisons are full. There are is simply more people repeatedly committing crimes.

All of these threads are the same... isn't it dreadful, lock em up forever, the justice system is soft, put em on an island to eat themselves. That is simple emotional response and these issues are bigger than that.

There are those that should be sentenced more heavily. Not the majority, but some. You seem to be assuming that we are talking about all. If the overall level of crime reduced then the prisons would not be so full and the few that do need putting away for longer could more easily be accommodated. If there is an overwhelming general public perception is that some are too light, then yes that does mean that the sentences are too light. There are quite a few cases each year where the sentence really is a wet bus ticket compared to the effects of their crimes.

The implication is that by being tougher, we would deter more offenders... that is not reality. When I point out that increasing the prison population is not desirable, the short term view is that just as long as they are all locked up whats the problem? The problem is that with a larger prison pop, we also have a larger rotation of freshly trained and resentful re-offenders cycling through our community, we have more frustrated and deprived kids growing up without fathers and we have a long term cumulative increasing problem. That all spells increasing levels of crime which perpetuates the issue.

Helloooo Mr Sydney, .... have you actually taken in what I've been writing? This is it!

But I've been approaching it from a totally different angle. Lower crime through better economic decisions and responsible social, yes we are all responsible. As I've said, "Why have they turned to crime?" The vast majority of the time it is through economic hardship. Many turn to drugs to 'dull the pain' of this hardship which just means they have to increase their level of crime to pay for that too.

There was a lot of discussion about 30 years ago about reducing sentences, and the statutes were actually changed to accommodate this and it did happen. The thought was that the prisons had just become a 'school for criminals' and that it was better to rehabilitate and release. Like they didn't talk to each other out of prison for training and setting up their black market connections.

The "Sensible" Sentencing Trust don't offer anything apart from tougher sentencing, that is one dimensional thinking and we need better than that.... in fact don't call yourself sensible until your have the capacity to consider the issue from a larger perspective.

These are big issues, they deserve better thought and consideration, and the traditional emotive response doesn't actually work....

It is a valid part of an overall change. Perpetrators of crimes should be sentenced in proportion to the effects of their crimes. That quite frankly is what the justice system was set up to do. As I've mentioned on many occasions we possess the means to reduce a lot of crime through better governmental economic decisions and better communities. Changing overall sentencing in the current climate will have little effect of crime levels, it is just moving the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff from one side of the beach to the other. We need to look up and wider and stop people coming off that cliff, at the moment the ambulance crew are overworked.