ChatterBank14 mins ago
Our Joke Justice System
20 Answers
http://
A Ministry of Justice report found that 82 per cent of offenders saw community service orders, as less harsh than going to prison.
Nearly three-quarters (70 per cent) of those given unpaid work missed at least a day of it, and 14 per cent said they had missed most of it.
And their failure to attend largely went unpenalised: court action was taken in less than half the number of cases of those who failed to attend their unpaid work.
And only 21 per cent of offenders questioned for the Ministry of Justice survey, which questioned offenders over 18 who were given community orders, said the fear of getting another community order would stop them reoffending in future.
The research found that 77 per cent of offenders who had been to prison before thought that prison would have been a worse punishment than a community order, while 87 per cent of offenders who had not been to prison felt that way.
We have definitely lost the plot somewhere along the way pampering to the minority right-on liberals.
A Ministry of Justice report found that 82 per cent of offenders saw community service orders, as less harsh than going to prison.
Nearly three-quarters (70 per cent) of those given unpaid work missed at least a day of it, and 14 per cent said they had missed most of it.
And their failure to attend largely went unpenalised: court action was taken in less than half the number of cases of those who failed to attend their unpaid work.
And only 21 per cent of offenders questioned for the Ministry of Justice survey, which questioned offenders over 18 who were given community orders, said the fear of getting another community order would stop them reoffending in future.
The research found that 77 per cent of offenders who had been to prison before thought that prison would have been a worse punishment than a community order, while 87 per cent of offenders who had not been to prison felt that way.
We have definitely lost the plot somewhere along the way pampering to the minority right-on liberals.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. 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.
We have almost no real threat nowadays for what may be called "low level" criminals (shop lifting, burglary etc.)
Saw parts of 2 programs on TV last week.
One was about shop lifters and they visited on house where a young teenage girl lived and she showed all the clothes in her wardrobe, and admitted she had stolen about 30% of it from shops.
The other program was about Roma gypsy scum who come here with no intention of working but to live off benefits. They want to save enough money to go home and built a house back in their "home" land.
One of the gypsies admitted if he was short of money he would go to a shop and steal things, and now and again if he saw a house was empty he would go inside and steal stuff.
The fact these people are willing to talk about this on TV proves there is no deterrent any more for these type of criminals.
Even a couple of weeks in prison probably would not bother them.
There used to be a time when people were ashamed to admit to crime, and they were certainly shamed of going to prison. Nowadays for these type of people there is no shame in admitting crime, or going to prison.
Sadly we are heading towards a sort of anarchy where some members of the public can do what they like and society has no way of punishing them.
Saw parts of 2 programs on TV last week.
One was about shop lifters and they visited on house where a young teenage girl lived and she showed all the clothes in her wardrobe, and admitted she had stolen about 30% of it from shops.
The other program was about Roma gypsy scum who come here with no intention of working but to live off benefits. They want to save enough money to go home and built a house back in their "home" land.
One of the gypsies admitted if he was short of money he would go to a shop and steal things, and now and again if he saw a house was empty he would go inside and steal stuff.
The fact these people are willing to talk about this on TV proves there is no deterrent any more for these type of criminals.
Even a couple of weeks in prison probably would not bother them.
There used to be a time when people were ashamed to admit to crime, and they were certainly shamed of going to prison. Nowadays for these type of people there is no shame in admitting crime, or going to prison.
Sadly we are heading towards a sort of anarchy where some members of the public can do what they like and society has no way of punishing them.
Well if I had my way we would not have that problem Emmie!
Three strikes and out. So 1st petty crime, community service (enforced) 2nd weekend jail 3rd 5 years.
That would stop it. The number committing these crimes is not huge, when Plod do get one off the streets it is noticeable in the reduction of crimes in the area. If we banged them up it would cost less in Policing and Insurance etc etc.
Three strikes and out. So 1st petty crime, community service (enforced) 2nd weekend jail 3rd 5 years.
That would stop it. The number committing these crimes is not huge, when Plod do get one off the streets it is noticeable in the reduction of crimes in the area. If we banged them up it would cost less in Policing and Insurance etc etc.
overall the US justice system is not one we should embrace here.
I don't have the answer, there are times when i think the judicial system has gone to pot, especially when it involves the abuse of children, and rape and murder of women, the elderly being targeted, some crimes shouldn't be a custodial sentence, if adequate supervision of community orders were in place, then perhaps the little tykes will turn out better citizens, however i very much doubt it, part of the problem seems to be lack of parental care, neglect.
I don't have the answer, there are times when i think the judicial system has gone to pot, especially when it involves the abuse of children, and rape and murder of women, the elderly being targeted, some crimes shouldn't be a custodial sentence, if adequate supervision of community orders were in place, then perhaps the little tykes will turn out better citizens, however i very much doubt it, part of the problem seems to be lack of parental care, neglect.
Here’s a little food for thought.
The majority of offences committed in England and Wales are “summary” offences. That is, they can only be dealt with in the Magistrates’ court. These include such things as assaulting a police officer, driving whilst disqualified, common assault, all except the most serious Public Order offences, and almost all motoring offences. In addition many “either way” offences (which can be dealt with either by magistrates or in the Crown Court) are usually heard in the Magistrates’ court. These can include theft and criminal damage (where the amount involved is under £5,000), ABH and burglary. In fact, around 95% of all criminal matters which result in prosecution are seen to a conclusion in Magistrates’ courts.
Now the rub. The maximum penalty available to Magistrates is six months custody. Anybody who they sentence and who pleads guilty must be given a one third discount off their sentence, making the maximum four months. Anybody sentenced to a determinate length sentence only serves half of it in custody anyway but under the present “Home Detention Curfew” arrangements someone sentenced to four months will be released after one quarter of the sentence (30 days) has been served and then spend another 30 days under curfew to remain at home, usually, from 7pm to 7am. So the maximum sentence anybody pleading guilty in a Magistrates’ court will receive is 30 days custody and 30 days curfew. What also needs bearing in mind is that it is most unusual for anybody to be sentenced to the maximum penalty for any offence. A quick glance at Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines will confirm that.
As for the “custody vs. community” argument those insisting that community orders are harsh in the minds of the offender need only observe (as I have on many occasions) a defendant being sentenced when custody is a possibility. The only thing they are interested in (despite what I have said above) is remaining out of prison. Any non-custodial sentence - even if accompanied by hefty amounts of supervision or unpaid work - is a “result” and one for which their advocates will argue strongly.
Whilst I would not go so far as to recommend the US model of justice in its entirety there has to be something wrong with a justice system that can see a repeat violent offender assault a police officer and face a maximum of 30 days inside. Yes we certainly have lost the plot and we stand to lose it even further because no party seems willing to stand on a platform of harsher sentencing and it is all governments’ avowed intention to keep people out of prison.
We often look to other “similar” nations for guidance on many issues. We should look to the continent on this one. In Spain, Portugal and France (and probably elsewhere but I have not checked) you are almost certain to be handed a custodial sentence for a minor offence of violence. In England and Wales you are almost certain to remain free.
The majority of offences committed in England and Wales are “summary” offences. That is, they can only be dealt with in the Magistrates’ court. These include such things as assaulting a police officer, driving whilst disqualified, common assault, all except the most serious Public Order offences, and almost all motoring offences. In addition many “either way” offences (which can be dealt with either by magistrates or in the Crown Court) are usually heard in the Magistrates’ court. These can include theft and criminal damage (where the amount involved is under £5,000), ABH and burglary. In fact, around 95% of all criminal matters which result in prosecution are seen to a conclusion in Magistrates’ courts.
Now the rub. The maximum penalty available to Magistrates is six months custody. Anybody who they sentence and who pleads guilty must be given a one third discount off their sentence, making the maximum four months. Anybody sentenced to a determinate length sentence only serves half of it in custody anyway but under the present “Home Detention Curfew” arrangements someone sentenced to four months will be released after one quarter of the sentence (30 days) has been served and then spend another 30 days under curfew to remain at home, usually, from 7pm to 7am. So the maximum sentence anybody pleading guilty in a Magistrates’ court will receive is 30 days custody and 30 days curfew. What also needs bearing in mind is that it is most unusual for anybody to be sentenced to the maximum penalty for any offence. A quick glance at Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines will confirm that.
As for the “custody vs. community” argument those insisting that community orders are harsh in the minds of the offender need only observe (as I have on many occasions) a defendant being sentenced when custody is a possibility. The only thing they are interested in (despite what I have said above) is remaining out of prison. Any non-custodial sentence - even if accompanied by hefty amounts of supervision or unpaid work - is a “result” and one for which their advocates will argue strongly.
Whilst I would not go so far as to recommend the US model of justice in its entirety there has to be something wrong with a justice system that can see a repeat violent offender assault a police officer and face a maximum of 30 days inside. Yes we certainly have lost the plot and we stand to lose it even further because no party seems willing to stand on a platform of harsher sentencing and it is all governments’ avowed intention to keep people out of prison.
We often look to other “similar” nations for guidance on many issues. We should look to the continent on this one. In Spain, Portugal and France (and probably elsewhere but I have not checked) you are almost certain to be handed a custodial sentence for a minor offence of violence. In England and Wales you are almost certain to remain free.
it certainly made for interesting viewing and food for thought.
http://
http://
I think we need to address the issue of recidivism separately, emmie.
The two main purposes of any sentence are punishment and reform/rehabilitation. My viewpoint is that punishment must come first. It is the deal between the State and the individual where the individual forfeits the right to exact punishment on those who transgress against him and instead relies upon the State to do so on his behalf. If rehabilitation or any other by-product can be achieved at the same time all well and good but the primary aim of the Criminal Justice System must be to punish offenders.
This principle seems to have been lost. The overriding aim of sentences proposed by the probation service when they prepare their pre-sentence reports is increasingly weighted towards the needs of the offender. In England and Wales there is no significant difference in the rates of recidivism between those who have served short custodial sentences and those who have served community orders (the latest figures I can find is something like 64% against 59%). Neither seem to work particularly well when it comes to the prevention of reoffending with almost two thirds of people subject to either disposal going on to commit further crime. So really it’s a matter of what punishment adequately fit’s the crime.
There is no doubt that punishment for summary and less serious either-way offences has become lessened in the past ten or fifteen years. If you compare sentencing guidelines from about 2000 or so to those in use now there is no doubt about this. As one clear example, in 2003 the guideline for driving whilst disqualified was immediate custody, as was that for assaulting a PC. Now it is not and the custody threshold is not passed unless the offence has serious aggravating features or the offender has a long history.
There is no logical reason for this. The number of those offences has increased in the last ten years and neither disposal seems very effective at preventing them from being committed. But ask “the man in the street” (on whose behalf justice is administered) whether he expects to see a person who assaulted a police officer go to prison and I think you’d find most would say “yes”. And they’d be sorely disappointed.
The two main purposes of any sentence are punishment and reform/rehabilitation. My viewpoint is that punishment must come first. It is the deal between the State and the individual where the individual forfeits the right to exact punishment on those who transgress against him and instead relies upon the State to do so on his behalf. If rehabilitation or any other by-product can be achieved at the same time all well and good but the primary aim of the Criminal Justice System must be to punish offenders.
This principle seems to have been lost. The overriding aim of sentences proposed by the probation service when they prepare their pre-sentence reports is increasingly weighted towards the needs of the offender. In England and Wales there is no significant difference in the rates of recidivism between those who have served short custodial sentences and those who have served community orders (the latest figures I can find is something like 64% against 59%). Neither seem to work particularly well when it comes to the prevention of reoffending with almost two thirds of people subject to either disposal going on to commit further crime. So really it’s a matter of what punishment adequately fit’s the crime.
There is no doubt that punishment for summary and less serious either-way offences has become lessened in the past ten or fifteen years. If you compare sentencing guidelines from about 2000 or so to those in use now there is no doubt about this. As one clear example, in 2003 the guideline for driving whilst disqualified was immediate custody, as was that for assaulting a PC. Now it is not and the custody threshold is not passed unless the offence has serious aggravating features or the offender has a long history.
There is no logical reason for this. The number of those offences has increased in the last ten years and neither disposal seems very effective at preventing them from being committed. But ask “the man in the street” (on whose behalf justice is administered) whether he expects to see a person who assaulted a police officer go to prison and I think you’d find most would say “yes”. And they’d be sorely disappointed.
i understand, however our penal system seems not to work over well, with many who re-offend, there are definitely some who shouldn't be in prison,
i don't think drug users should be, there has to be a better method, treatment, and rehabilitation, i know that some end up there for burglary, theft to feed the habits, but if they go into prison, where it seems you can get drugs, what is the point. Separate units for drug users, and see if protracted counselling, therapy can't break the habits.
i don't think drug users should be, there has to be a better method, treatment, and rehabilitation, i know that some end up there for burglary, theft to feed the habits, but if they go into prison, where it seems you can get drugs, what is the point. Separate units for drug users, and see if protracted counselling, therapy can't break the habits.
I think the Nigel Evans fiasco is a little off-topic, Peter, but interesting nonetheless. It is not about punishment for the crime but more about conviction of the guilty and acquittal of the innocent. Mr Evans's acquittal shows that the justice system has some merit, but of course his costs, like those of Dave Lee Travis, are a thorny issue.
From what I have read the CPS should never have launched their prosecution. Many of their witnesses maintained that they considered no crime had been committed against them. They were brought on the bolster the case against Mr Evans and the strategy came badly unstuck. I have commented on the "Jimmy Saville fallout" cases before and believe the pursuit of people who had allegedly committed offenced many decades ago was almost bound to fail. In fact it seems the only three people are guilty. Two of them (Saville and Cyril Smith) are dead and cannot have the allegations against them properly tested and the third (Stuart Hall) pleaded guilty and probably wishes he hadn't. I cannot see that number increasing any time soon and if DLT is acquitted at his retrial heads must roll at the CPS. (But I doubt they will).
From what I have read the CPS should never have launched their prosecution. Many of their witnesses maintained that they considered no crime had been committed against them. They were brought on the bolster the case against Mr Evans and the strategy came badly unstuck. I have commented on the "Jimmy Saville fallout" cases before and believe the pursuit of people who had allegedly committed offenced many decades ago was almost bound to fail. In fact it seems the only three people are guilty. Two of them (Saville and Cyril Smith) are dead and cannot have the allegations against them properly tested and the third (Stuart Hall) pleaded guilty and probably wishes he hadn't. I cannot see that number increasing any time soon and if DLT is acquitted at his retrial heads must roll at the CPS. (But I doubt they will).
"...see if protracted counselling, therapy can't break the habits."
It cannot usually, emmie. It's often tried and even under court order it usually fails. The main reason is that however intensive the therapy is it relies on the willingness and co-operation of the addict to make the best use of it. And usually that is not forthcoming. Even where money is no object (such as with celebreties) breaking a habit is very, very difficult.
It cannot usually, emmie. It's often tried and even under court order it usually fails. The main reason is that however intensive the therapy is it relies on the willingness and co-operation of the addict to make the best use of it. And usually that is not forthcoming. Even where money is no object (such as with celebreties) breaking a habit is very, very difficult.
Indeed emmie. The issue of drug availability in jails is a scandal and could easily be cured with the will to deal with it. However this would require a far more ruthless prison regime involving non-contact visits and genuinely strict screening of staff. That would be politically unacceptable but in any case, once again, that's putting the needs of the offender before those of the victims.
Around 80% of acquisitive crime in the UK is committed to feed drug addiction. This is a huge problem for shopkeepers and householders. Few of the addicts involved in this crime will be cured of their addiction and ultimately the only way to protect victims from this crime is to lock up the perpetrators. Levels of non-compliance with community orders (which may include Drug Treatment and Testing Requirements) is extremely high and in the meantime the miscreants are free to continue their offending behaviour making the lives of people in their locality extremely unpleasant. Locking them up provides some respite for the victims though of course, for reasons I mentioned in my earlier answer, not for very long.
You have to remember that whilst drug addicts are often seen as victims, they are in fact victims solely of their own stupidity. With a few exceptions nobody forced them to start a life of substance abuse. The real victims are (a) the shopkeepers who have their goods plundered and sold on at a fraction of their true value to fund the next “fix” (thus increasing prices for all of us) and (b) householders who see their possessions - some valuable financially and some of priceless sentimental value - stolen from the apparent safety of their homes. These are the victims of drug addicts’ acquisitive crime and these are the victims who deserve the protection of a robust criminal justice system. The justice deal between the State and the individual does not extend to curing drug addiction. If it can be achieved as a side show then that’s great. But it should not be pursued at the expense of justice and protection for the real victims.
Around 80% of acquisitive crime in the UK is committed to feed drug addiction. This is a huge problem for shopkeepers and householders. Few of the addicts involved in this crime will be cured of their addiction and ultimately the only way to protect victims from this crime is to lock up the perpetrators. Levels of non-compliance with community orders (which may include Drug Treatment and Testing Requirements) is extremely high and in the meantime the miscreants are free to continue their offending behaviour making the lives of people in their locality extremely unpleasant. Locking them up provides some respite for the victims though of course, for reasons I mentioned in my earlier answer, not for very long.
You have to remember that whilst drug addicts are often seen as victims, they are in fact victims solely of their own stupidity. With a few exceptions nobody forced them to start a life of substance abuse. The real victims are (a) the shopkeepers who have their goods plundered and sold on at a fraction of their true value to fund the next “fix” (thus increasing prices for all of us) and (b) householders who see their possessions - some valuable financially and some of priceless sentimental value - stolen from the apparent safety of their homes. These are the victims of drug addicts’ acquisitive crime and these are the victims who deserve the protection of a robust criminal justice system. The justice deal between the State and the individual does not extend to curing drug addiction. If it can be achieved as a side show then that’s great. But it should not be pursued at the expense of justice and protection for the real victims.
the Chinese would do that, they don't pussy foot around,
how about legalising all recreational drugs, and then the addicts get them from legalised outlets, because the way this war on drugs is going, it will never be won - if people want to get off their faces on drugs they have to pay, so how about taking the dealers out the equation, so the addicts have no need to rob to get their fix. I have no idea how it would work in reality, but many are in prison for drugs, drug related offences, if so surely there is a better way.
how about legalising all recreational drugs, and then the addicts get them from legalised outlets, because the way this war on drugs is going, it will never be won - if people want to get off their faces on drugs they have to pay, so how about taking the dealers out the equation, so the addicts have no need to rob to get their fix. I have no idea how it would work in reality, but many are in prison for drugs, drug related offences, if so surely there is a better way.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
