News4 mins ago
prisons
In social ethics, we were having a discussion on whether the class thinks that the standard punishments that this countrry has for each crime is fair or not. Whic lead to discussing the prison system.
Almost all of agreed that prisons should be stricter (no tv's/pool tables ect.) and that so the good honest tax payer has to pay as little as possible, the criminal has to pay for their stay. Plus, if it turns out after years, that someone confesses or new evidence is found, they are then given their money back as some compensation for being wrongly inprisoned.
Who agrees this would work?
If the person doesn't pay, bayliffs will be sent round or their families benefits (if on any) would be cut until such time that enough money has been saved - is what someone said to do if they won't/ can't pay.
Almost all of agreed that prisons should be stricter (no tv's/pool tables ect.) and that so the good honest tax payer has to pay as little as possible, the criminal has to pay for their stay. Plus, if it turns out after years, that someone confesses or new evidence is found, they are then given their money back as some compensation for being wrongly inprisoned.
Who agrees this would work?
If the person doesn't pay, bayliffs will be sent round or their families benefits (if on any) would be cut until such time that enough money has been saved - is what someone said to do if they won't/ can't pay.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mollykins. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I do not think it would work.
Firstly some prisons are extremely strict, uncompromising, slummy hell holes. I still shudder everytime I think about Norwich or Chelmsford. Open prisons are of course less so. Unfortunately, the Daily Mail etc seem to think of them as holiday camps. They are not.
Secondly, how exactly are they to be made to pay? If they have no assets, what will HMP do? Throw them out on the streets? I consider it extraordinarily unfair that the criminals' families will have to pay. In many cases, the families are themselves the victims - how can that be right? In some cases the families are completely unaware of the criminal activities of others - it's a big enough shock for a husband to lose his wife to a jail term or children to lose a father, without persecuting them for his keep. (Admitted there are some families who are aware and who glory in a criminal lifestyle - but weeding them out would be extremely costly for the system and the costs would outweigh the likely benefits.
Thirdly, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the police can now investigate whether someone is living off the proceeds of crime and can confiscate all the perpetrator's assets. Again, no assets, no means to pay.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a fair sentence for a crime but I don't think that this is the answer.
After years of wrongful imprisonment, damages are generally awarded to people, with a deduction for their board and lodging (after all, they would have had to live on something, wouldn't they?)
Firstly some prisons are extremely strict, uncompromising, slummy hell holes. I still shudder everytime I think about Norwich or Chelmsford. Open prisons are of course less so. Unfortunately, the Daily Mail etc seem to think of them as holiday camps. They are not.
Secondly, how exactly are they to be made to pay? If they have no assets, what will HMP do? Throw them out on the streets? I consider it extraordinarily unfair that the criminals' families will have to pay. In many cases, the families are themselves the victims - how can that be right? In some cases the families are completely unaware of the criminal activities of others - it's a big enough shock for a husband to lose his wife to a jail term or children to lose a father, without persecuting them for his keep. (Admitted there are some families who are aware and who glory in a criminal lifestyle - but weeding them out would be extremely costly for the system and the costs would outweigh the likely benefits.
Thirdly, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the police can now investigate whether someone is living off the proceeds of crime and can confiscate all the perpetrator's assets. Again, no assets, no means to pay.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a fair sentence for a crime but I don't think that this is the answer.
After years of wrongful imprisonment, damages are generally awarded to people, with a deduction for their board and lodging (after all, they would have had to live on something, wouldn't they?)
I'm not sure the actual idea outrages people, but it's more the illogical application of your rules that leaves this idea open to serious criticism.
Of course I'd like to see my taxes better spent, on schooling or the NHS (etc. etc.), but the idea that prisoners fund themselves is flawed. Some public money goes to the prisons and we have to accept that, even if we don't like it.
Forcing a prisoner to pay for his own incarceration is like kicking a man when he's down. I'm NOT defending a prisoner, but we need to treat these people with respect alongside appropriate condemnation. If we take their house (assuming the bank doesn't), how can they get back on their feet an re-integrate into society? Having no money or means and a criminal record (so employers won't look twice at you) is a sure fire way to push someone back into criminal activity just so they can eat. And as a sub-issue, those people would then just end up eeking out their money back through benefits anyway.
That's presuming that people have money in the first place. What about burglars who re-offend to feed drug habits? The same as muggers or vagrants? These people have nothing to begin with; that's why they commit crime.
Also, punishing a family is ludicrous. As had been noted above, what if the family are the victims? As Barmaid correctly says, provisions already exist to remove monies where the circumstances warrant. What if, as happened recently, the woman in the link below hadn't informed the police because her house would be 'taken' from her? I'll bet if you were a prospective girl's parents, you'd be singing a different song.
Not the BBC link, but:
http://www.belfasttel...r-14562248.html?r=RSS
Of course I'd like to see my taxes better spent, on schooling or the NHS (etc. etc.), but the idea that prisoners fund themselves is flawed. Some public money goes to the prisons and we have to accept that, even if we don't like it.
Forcing a prisoner to pay for his own incarceration is like kicking a man when he's down. I'm NOT defending a prisoner, but we need to treat these people with respect alongside appropriate condemnation. If we take their house (assuming the bank doesn't), how can they get back on their feet an re-integrate into society? Having no money or means and a criminal record (so employers won't look twice at you) is a sure fire way to push someone back into criminal activity just so they can eat. And as a sub-issue, those people would then just end up eeking out their money back through benefits anyway.
That's presuming that people have money in the first place. What about burglars who re-offend to feed drug habits? The same as muggers or vagrants? These people have nothing to begin with; that's why they commit crime.
Also, punishing a family is ludicrous. As had been noted above, what if the family are the victims? As Barmaid correctly says, provisions already exist to remove monies where the circumstances warrant. What if, as happened recently, the woman in the link below hadn't informed the police because her house would be 'taken' from her? I'll bet if you were a prospective girl's parents, you'd be singing a different song.
Not the BBC link, but:
http://www.belfasttel...r-14562248.html?r=RSS
So that would be a case of 'what the left hand gives, the right hand takes away'- how would that solve anything? If you knew you were going to be fined for working and getting yourself a job, where's the incentive? I know I wouldn't bother. Plus, what would be the point of handing out a benefit, then taking it away again? Increased admin costs help nobody, and if a person is entitled to a benefit, they remain entitled no matter what. You can't simultaneously give someone something and tell them they aren't allowed it! Plus, even if a person could be fined, the fine would have to be very large (prison isn't cheap, that's the point of this debate) and a person (likely) on a minimum wage couldn't afford to pay very much anyway. We all laugh when we hear a court has ordered Mr. X to pay £5p/m for 50 years.
I'm sorry, but your idea(s) remain fatally flawed.
I'm sorry, but your idea(s) remain fatally flawed.
-- answer removed --
totally unworkable. if you want to reclaim money from the prisoner once released, what will he live on? how will he buy his food, etc? he'll have little option but to return to a life of crime.
you couldn't take the money from the family benefits as we're working towards abolishing child poverty.
I'm all for giving them the choice of lethal injection if they're sentenced to a life term, with a 28 day "cooling off" period!
you couldn't take the money from the family benefits as we're working towards abolishing child poverty.
I'm all for giving them the choice of lethal injection if they're sentenced to a life term, with a 28 day "cooling off" period!
Id be happy for them to get basic meal three times a day, visits only behind glass,if they are sentenced t o say a year they serve a year and then if they offend again another twice the three strike rule applys with a minimum of ten year. They can work in prison to learn skills all for the benefit of charities , or the outside law abiding community.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
