Thread: Wtf

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.