Totally agree Jed !!
J & S
If life meant life and prison meant punishment, ie, no TV or any of the other cushy perks that make prison a nice place to be, there wouldn't be any overcrowding. Prison should be an unpleasant place and that in itself would be a deterrent to crime. Punishment first and rehabilitation at the end of the sentence.
Sadly that is a fact, sentences simply are not a deterrent for many, most know they will not get a custodial sentence and some don't care if they do, I would be so pissed off if I was a Policeman, knowing that for all the hard work I had done catching a criminal the courts acting on Home Office directives are going to let the perpetrator off without a sufficient punishment. They must wonder if it is worth their time at the end of the day.
the problem we have is very few sentences can be a punishment. This has been shown time after time , as when the death penalty is introduced anywhere, the murder rate does not alter.
Fact is no criminal thinks he is going to get caught. Even a child taking a mars bar from a sweet shop, wouldn't do it, if they thought they were going to get caught. What would be the use !!! the real deterrent is a higher conviction rate. If they thought the chances of being caught were higher, then the punishment would then start to become a deterrent.
Forget more prisons and longer sentences, in the end it just costs us the taxpayer more money to run. Spend the money on more police, and better detection techniques. That's the real deterrent. Get the detection rate up to over 75% and you would see crime fall dramatically !!!!
More police will just mean more motorists getting caught speeding, more fines and more revenue for the Home Office/Chancellor of the Exchequer.
A copper I know has the standard reply to motorists he's caught speeding who complain that he should be investigating "proper" criminals such as thieves/muggers/rapists/murderers etc: "If you and the other motorists weren't speeding, I'd be on the beat investigating "proper" theives/muggers/rapists/murderers..." Sums up the Home Office's and Chief Constables' attitude to policing - go after the easy targets and claim the number of offenders caught rise each year.
But surely the challenge for any civilised society is to cure the problem at source. Prison is not a deterrent because it is a reaction to an event. Why don't we be proactive and find out why people commit crime and solve that. Far cheaper and hey we all get a nicer society to live in!
I am not sure you can educate people not to commit crime any better than we do now, as has been said, some crime is the result of desperation, some from laziness seeking the easy way to make a buck, some from simple greed. Putting people in prison is not the best answer but it could save money and make life for law abiding citizens better, UK residents and law abiding immigrants alike, I am sure they also suffer at the hands of our home grown criminals and the imported ones.
The best solution is deterrents, and quite frankly our current sentencing policy is simply not a deterrent to the repeat offenders or those that might embark on a life of crime.
If criminals knew there was a good chance of a long sentence when caught they might think twice, not all of course ut a majority, and if the Police were not spending so much time chasing the repeat offenders they would be able to increase their success rate in preventing crime all round.
With the current policy criminals know that there is very little chance that they will receive a custodial sentence and if they do it will be a lot lighter than they deserve.
The current parole system is flawed too, instead of giving people half the time of their sentence for good behaviour they should know that they will serve the full time and more if they break the laws while in Prison. Right now the Home Office directives mean that release is as soon as possible and criminals know that.
I don't know how you address greed and a desire for power, which is what motivates many criminals, including Hitler, Stalin, Pohl Pott, Ghengis Khan and many others who had wealth but wanted more, who had power but wanted more, criminals are just the same in a lot of cases, they enjoy the power crime gives them, they enjoy the rewards they get no matter how much they already have, their crimes are motivated by simple greed and no matter how many cars, boats and houses they have they want more, the same rule applies right down the line to the bottom rung with habitual criminals, they see it as easy money, an easy way to wealth or a better standard of living, not everyone can gain wealth through legal work but many can through crime.
The simple fact is that there will always be crime, a real deterrent is the only real help against it, the criminal element of immigrants is a typical example of that, Albanian and Romanians come here to pimp out their girls and sell their drugs and commit fraud crime because when caught the punishment is far easier here than it would be in their own Nations and Prisons and there is more profit here than in poorer Countries.
I am not saying they are responsible for much of the crime, far from it, but the % of them committing crime here compared with the % of them living here is actually very high.
We all want a better TV and a nicer car, for some morals stop them stealing what they want and for the majority it is the consequences of being caught, but for some the consequences are worth the risk, we need to make the consequences higher stakes
I will say it again...load and clear...there is only one real deterrent and that's the chance of being caught !!! If you don't think you are going to get caught, it don't matter what the sentence is. As stated before every time the death penalty has been introduced, in whatever country, it has no effect on the murder rate !!!
Better and higher detection rate is the only deterrent.
And I am with Rogue....we do have to look the causes of crime. As has been stated above one of the big main causes of crime is drugs. maybe we do have to look at other ways of dealing with the problem. Maybe de-criminalising drugs, and have them on prescription. I know this is a debate for another thread. There will always be evil people, who will be out to cause trouble and commit crime, but overall maybe we need a complete new look at the causes of crime, and what we can do to assist, those that fall into its clutches.
I dont disagree with what is being said, but I simply dont think it will work, make drugs legal, which drugs ? heroin, which heroin ? people sniff it but after a while it loses it's kick, so they inject it, but after a while it loses it's kick, so they mix it with other stuff and create crack cocaine and other forms of it that have a greater kick, heroine addicts are always on the look out for something with a bigger kick and that is where the dealers will still be in demand and their products still sought after.
Even if you did take away the dealers profits, the dealers would not turn away from their life of crime, they make too much money and enjoy the rewards of thier lifestyle, so they would turn to different crime, fraud, people trafficking and worse.
Taking away the need for crime is a great idea, but how, how can we end the Nations poverty in a simple move, how can we end years of hereditary upbringing that makes some criminals turn to crime like their family and friends always did.
If we could wave the wand and give everyone criminal and would be criminal a house, a car and a job would it be enough for them, or would they continue along the crime lifestyle to get a bigger house, a nicer car and a job with less hours and less work ?
A persons life of poverty might turn them to crime but why don't they stop when they get out of the poverty trap, because whatever they gain it is never enough, the same as the rest of us, they strive for more, we work more hours, work away or go into business for ourselves to improve what we have, they steal more.
And I do think as have said, if we locked them up for the right length of time when we caught them the Police would have more time to deal with first time offenders and more time to increase capture rates and be more of a deterrent.
This is only hypothetical but lets do a bit of iterative analysis, and I'm doing it as a person who does not commit crime for gain etc. you would have to do it with the wider populace to getting meaningful data.
Iteration 1. - Q. Why do you steal?
- A. To fund my drug habit
Iteration 2. Q. Why do you take drugs?
- A. Because it makes me feel good and I get a good buzz, and all my friends do it.
Iteration3. Q. Why is it so important to get a buzz and fit in with your friends?
- A. Coz life's shit innit and they look to be having a good time!
You see within 3 iterations we have peer pressure and lack of social mobility/goal seeking. As we delve further and do more iterations we would begin to break down and find the root cause. By fixing the root cause you solve life's ills. I don't profess to knowing what they are or knowing the solution.
Of course there are some crimes committed by people who are basically "wired up wrong" and don't know their right from wrong. They have no moral compass. Thankfully these are in the minority. Though the likes of the popular media would have you believe they are in the majority!
If, as Dean states, we had better detection rates then yes a reactive deterrent would help in a lot of cases.
I would not support bringing back the death penalty, I do not believe its abolition is the reason for the increase in the number of murders, I think that is down to the general increase in despicable crime, gang crime, drugs crime and such.
That and the increase in the level of violence we now endure, there was a time when a fight was 2 guys taking each other outside to sort out a dispute, knives and guns were an extremely rare part of that violence, the carrying of knives and guns were extremely rare occurrences, now in the criminal world it is commonplace.
You're spot on Rob, nothing has changed. The Court of Appeal has merely upheld the right of judges to jail the most serious offenders for the rest of their lives.
