Thread: Wtf

"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.