Prisons are super harsh & reform criminals!

[Hitman]

NOT.

People say that prisons are useless and have nice facilities and then on the other hand you have the people arguing that they are horrible places and they do change criminals and are working.

Clearly not. Take a look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10500315.stm


A police officer has been injured in an "unprovoked" shooting which police are linking to an earlier double shooting.
Police have been hunting for Raoul Thomas Moat, 37, who they believe shot his ex-girlfriend before killing her new partner in Gateshead on Saturday.
Moat, from Newcastle, was released from prison three days ago.
The officer was approached by an armed man and shot in Newcastle at about 0045 BST. His condition is thought to be serious, but not life-threatening.
Police said the uniformed motor patrol officer was carrying out a "static patrol" on a roundabout at East Denton which joins the A1 and A69 when he was attacked. He was later taken to Newcastle General Hospital.


Keep reading...


Moat had been released from Durham prison on Thursday after serving a sentence for assault.
BBC correspondent Danny Savage said it appeared Moat's relationship with his former girlfriend, who has been named locally as Samantha Stobbart, ended when he was in prison.
Following his release Moat tracked her down to the home of her parents where the shootings took place.
Ms Stobbart remains critically ill in hospital after reportedly being shot twice through a window of the house in Scafell, Birtley.


As you can see this man had just been released from prison. He had not changed. Maybe it got him even more angrier to carry out this revenge? Clearly he was violent because he had been sentenced for assault. I read that 9/10 prisoners released go back to crime, I think this was on the debate thing between Clegg, Brown & Cameron earlier this year - quite clearly prisons are not an effective way to decriminalise people.

[MrPinkPanther]

quite clearly prisons are not an effective way to decriminalise people.

This is very true, but that doesn't mean that Prisons aren't harsh enough. In my opinion some people are morally wrong (whether this is because of upbringing, past experiences or whatever) and they won't change whatever sentence is passed on them. The problem is differentiating between the genuine reformers and people like this guy. One of the key issues with Prison is the culture of crime, you've just gone and put thousands of criminals in a small area which is often why it makes people worse. Criminals get influenced by other potentially worse convicts and they learn "tips and tricks" off one another which is why recidivism rates are so high. It has little to do with "Prisons aren't harsh enough".

[Hecktix]

Prison is generally a crap concept of dealing with criminals "shove them in a cell for a few years then they'll regret it" - it really doesn't work and as they are associating with other criminals it makes them more likely to offend when they get out.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying prison should be scrapped there's not much else you can do for people who commit crimes like murder, rape etc however for smaller crimes such as theft, vandalism, minor assault charges etc something like restorative justice would be better used in my opinion as it keeps the "lesser" criminals out of prison (who if they went into prison are more likely to commit a more serious crime when they leave) and it actually teaches them to be sorry for their crime.

Restorative justice by the way is where both the criminal and the victim agree to participate in a programme of meetings where they meet face to face, or write letters to eachother so the victim can show the criminal (who has pleaded guilty and admitted to the crime) exactly how the crime made them feel. Research shows that restorative justice leaves both the criminal and the victim feeling more satisfied and a lot of victims have helped the people who victimised them become a better person (as it were).

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you are all happy with allowing 'lesser criminals' out, free to mug your homes and terrorise your neighbourhoods then thats fine by me - but the problem is that most of you are taking this view because you live in areas with next to no crime at all and the same goes for Ken Clarke (Conservative) who has now announced this week that he wants to let thousands of prisoners released early just as Labour did when they were in office (I did say the election would make next to no difference and again i've been proved correct). Try living where people live, try living amongst these 'lesser criminals' then come back and say they should be released early.

They keep committing crimes? - build more prisons, make them tougher and lock them up for longer.


Restorative justice by the way is where both the criminal and the victim agree to participate in a programme of meetings where they meet face to face, or write letters to eachother so the victim can show the criminal (who has pleaded guilty and admitted to the crime) exactly how the crime made them feel. Research shows that restorative justice leaves both the criminal and the victim feeling more satisfied and a lot of victims have helped the people who victimised them become a better person (as it were).

lol, that cannot be a serious post can it? do you really think the criminal gives a damn about the victim they've robbed/attacked?

..they obviously dont, *drum roll* otherwise they wouldnt do it in the first place!

[alexxxxx]

prison numbers grew under labour (almost doubled). problem is that i don't want to go down the route like the USA who have a stupidly high prisoner population and a stupidly high crime rate (in respect to the UK). prison just turns into a fact of life for a section of the population. short prison sentences don't work - need to find a better alternative.

[-:Undertaker:-]

prison numbers grew under labour (almost doubled). problem is that i don't want to go down the route like the USA who have a stupidly high prisoner population and a stupidly high crime rate (in respect to the UK). prison just turns into a fact of life for a section of the population. short prison sentences don't work - need to find a better alternative.

You'd rather they walk the streets than be locked up in prison?

Our prison population is stupidly low, only at the 85,000 mark - to give people an idea of how small that is for a country with a population of nearly 70 million, picture a full wembley (90,000 capacity) - the prison population needs to be at least doubled to over the 150,000 mark. It is easy for you, others and the likes of Ken Clarke to sit on here and say we need criminals to write letters to their victims, but often its the poorest/oldest/youngest in deprived areas who are effected by crime which is not to mention the fact they already have pretty awful lives.

Our prison population is already too soft and overstretched, meaning that as Alan Jonhson said on Question Time (I wouldnt usually agree with any Labour minister regarding crime and justice) often all approaches such as community service have already been attempted with these people and the only thing left is prison. I think a system where 'the more you repeat your offences, the harsher the sentences become' would work.


http://www.fatstudent.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/20081118-wembley-stadium.jpg


The last prison expansion scheme was brought in by Michael Howard and hes right, prison does work.

The solution is very simple, so let's;


Expand the prison capacity of the United Kingdom to over the 150,000 mark.
Spend less per prisoner as nations on the continent do.
Remove any luxuries from prisons.
Introduce harsher sentencing.

[alexxxxx]

You'd rather they walk the streets than be locked up in prison?

Our prison population is stupidly low, only at the 85,000 mark - to give people an idea of how small that is for a country with a population of nearly 70 million, picture a full wembley (90,000 capacity) - the prison population needs to be at least doubled to over the 150,000 mark. It is easy for you, others and the likes of Ken Clarke to sit on here and say we need criminals to write letters to their victims, but often its the poorest/oldest/youngest in deprived areas who are effected by crime which is not to mention the fact they already have pretty awful lives.

it's not low compared to other countries. people in prison cost a lot of money too.



Our prison population is already too soft and overstretched, meaning that as Alan Jonhson said on Question Time (I wouldnt usually agree with any Labour minister regarding crime and justice) often all approaches such as community service have already been attempted with these people and the only thing left is prison. I think a system where 'the more you repeat your offences, the harsher the sentences become' would work.

We need to properly make sure people aren't driven to crime in early life and when people do come out of prison they are properly rehabilitated. There's no point in putting drug addicts and alcoholics in jail and when they come out they go straight back to their dealers. People often commit crime because they can't get a job or won't get a job - that needs to change.


[
Expand the prison capacity of the United Kingdom to over the 150,000 mark.
Spend less per prisoner as nations on the continent do.
Remove any luxuries from prisons.
Introduce harsher sentencing.


I don't think any of these methods will actually improve the efficiencies of prisons. Especially building big prisons.

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER][/QUOTE]

[HotelUser]

I can't complain much about Canada's prison structure. I don't think anyone really can unless they've experienced it themselves :P

[Hecktix]

If you are all happy with allowing 'lesser criminals' out, free to mug your homes and terrorise your neighbourhoods then thats fine by me - but the problem is that most of you are taking this view because you live in areas with next to no crime at all and the same goes for Ken Clarke (Conservative) who has now announced this week that he wants to let thousands of prisoners released early just as Labour did when they were in office (I did say the election would make next to no difference and again i've been proved correct). Try living where people live, try living amongst these 'lesser criminals' then come back and say they should be released early.

They keep committing crimes? - build more prisons, make them tougher and lock them up for longer.



lol, that cannot be a serious post can it? do you really think the criminal gives a damn about the victim they've robbed/attacked?

..they obviously dont, *drum roll* otherwise they wouldnt do it in the first place!

You are incredibly narrow minded, people commit crimes for various reasons and it doesn't mean they are heartless or whatever, if they can redeem themselves then it is fair enough

[Colossus]

He probably didn't care/think about what he did.

Sometimes people think about what they did and what went wrong.

[GommeInc]

You do realise this is just one example out of thousands? :P It won't cover everyone! Loads of people leave prison every day, and many do not re-offend. However, saying that, I think tougher measures should be put on these individuals who have committed murder. I still stand by the "making cell blocks 3x3 m and only have basic requirements. Luxuries should rarely exist :P Just give 'em books, not TV.

[Camy]

You are incredibly narrow minded, people commit crimes for various reasons and it doesn't mean they are heartless or whatever, if they can redeem themselves then it is fair enough

I agree with this, I'm sure alot of the people in prison didn't mean to cause harm to the people they do, and are forced to turn to crime due to various reasons e.g. drugs.

I don't understand why they don't realise people won't change in prison, when they have better lives in prison than alot of people do on the outside. Three meals a day, xboxes, sky tv, etc.. I think they should lose stuff like xboxes and sky tv, luxuries alot of law abiding people can't afford. It doesn't make sense to me for them to have stuff like that. You can argue that its one of their human rights, but I just feel they don't deserve stuff like that when they break the law, and are meant to be in prison to be punished.

[Hecktix]

I agree with this, I'm sure alot of the people in prison didn't mean to cause harm to the people they do, and are forced to turn to crime due to various reasons e.g. drugs.

I don't understand why they don't realise people won't change in prison, when they have better lives in prison than alot of people do on the outside. Three meals a day, xboxes, sky tv, etc.. I think they should lose stuff like xboxes and sky tv, luxuries alot of law abiding people can't afford. It doesn't make sense to me for them to have stuff like that. You can argue that its one of their human rights, but I just feel they don't deserve stuff like that when they break the law, and are meant to be in prison to be punished.

thing is prison isn't too much of a luxury at all, it has bad social repurcussions (and I don't mean they lose friends) for the prisoners and when they get out they struggle to fit back into the outside world when they are released which usually leads to reoffending. Prisoners too often become institutionalised which is quite bad really.

[-:Undertaker:-]

it's not low compared to other countries. people in prison cost a lot of money too.

We need to properly make sure people aren't driven to crime in early life and when people do come out of prison they are properly rehabilitated. There's no point in putting drug addicts and alcoholics in jail and when they come out they go straight back to their dealers. People often commit crime because they can't get a job or won't get a job - that needs to change.

I don't think any of these methods will actually improve the efficiencies of prisons. Especially building big prisons.

If I am quite honest in my opinion then its my view that crime in general is getting out of hand across the western world because we have gone soft on crime with human rights laws and the rest of the red tape laws. I am pretty sure people would rather their taxes be spent on keeping them safe than on things like foreign aid or the European Union. I am no fan of taxes but there are some things we need taxation for and security and protection are one of the main issues, a governments main job is to protect its people from danger. This country spends a lot more per prisoner than other countries on the continent from what I have heard on the news (both papers and mainstream news channels) and that needs to change to lower the costs.

Many people cannot get a job at the moment and my Dad has lost his job - he isnt committing crime and nor are the majority of the unemployed. The majority dont commit crime so stop making excuses for the criminals. I mean lets just face it in the fact that the vast majority of criminals are utter scum with no respect for the law, no respect for other people and are going to offend over and over again - so the answer is to keep them locked up. I have heard a number of crazy ideas on this rehabilitation idea such as; give them council housing, give them support, give them a job - i'm sorry but the rest of us who abide the law dont have all of this provided for us, so why should criminals be any different? if somebody breaks the law you dont go around rewarding them.

It does [prison] work, if people are in prison they cannot commit the crime and its as simple as that.


You are incredibly narrow minded, people commit crimes for various reasons and it doesn't mean they are heartless or whatever, if they can redeem themselves then it is fair enough

I am not narrow minded, you are narrow minded i'm afraid in that what yourself and the left in general cannot grasp is that people have a choice when committing crime. The rest of us dont have to commit crime even when we are skint/in terrible situations, so why are these people any different? i'm sick to the back teeth of advocates with opinions the likes of yours caring more about the criminal than the victim - try living on a council estate where you are scared to walk out of your home at any given time, try putting yourself in the position of elderly and young people who are scared of going outside in fear of being mugged, try living in a neighbourhood where petty crime drives away jobs and opportunity.. I suspect the likes of Ken Clarke and yourself have never even experienced crime hence why you are determined to be so soft on the subject. Crime is a massive issue, it can ruin areas economically, socially and can trap people in those areas into a life of being on the dole in which their children then follow.

It is not about being heartless,it really is as simple as do the crime do the time.


thing is prison isn't too much of a luxury at all, it has bad social repurcussions (and I don't mean they lose friends) for the prisoners and when they get out they struggle to fit back into the outside world when they are released which usually leads to reoffending. Prisoners too often become institutionalised which is quite bad really.

Oh come off it, do you really think a criminal is going to care? of course not! because if they did they wouldnt commit the crime in the first place.

[alexxxxx]

undertaker you have such a strange simplistic view to everything.

[-:Undertaker:-]

undertaker you have such a strange simplistic view to everything.

I think you'd find that the opposite, i'm not the one advocating talking to criminals and catering for them and their every need. It is ever since we lost our touch on these matters from the 1960s onwards that crime spiralled out of control and respect has been lost - we need to restore that respect.

[Camy]

thing is prison isn't too much of a luxury at all, it has bad social repurcussions (and I don't mean they lose friends) for the prisoners and when they get out they struggle to fit back into the outside world when they are released which usually leads to reoffending. Prisoners too often become institutionalised which is quite bad really.

I guess the fact they will always have that criminal record, which will prevent them from getting good jobs and whatnot doesn't really help them fit back into society, its a bit of a vicious circle. On the other hand, I still don't think prisons are harsh enough, especially on murderers, rapists etc. Theres no real, 'scare factor' I guess you could call it, to not reoffend and go back to prison, which I think the current system is lacking.

[Inseriousity.]

lol the irony is they get caught, go to prison, get taught how not to get caught by people who caught and end up in prison again. It'd be interesting to see how many reoffend and don't get caught (impossible but interesting).

I do not think the rehabilitation system works. It seems to me to give them a few NVQs and then expect them to find their feet. As law-abiding people with qualifications, we know it's hard to find work so imagine having no experience, a few qualifications from prison and a criminal record?!

PS. I do not live in a posh area, it's Middlesbrough LOL, so I do see crime everyday.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I guess the fact they will always have that criminal record, which will prevent them from getting good jobs and whatnot doesn't really help them fit back into society, its a bit of a vicious circle. On the other hand, I still don't think prisons are harsh enough, especially on murderers, rapists etc. Theres no real, 'scare factor' I guess you could call it, to not reoffend and go back to prison, which I think the current system is lacking.


lol the irony is they get caught, go to prison, get taught how not to get caught by people who caught and end up in prison again. It'd be interesting to see how many reoffend and don't get caught (impossible but interesting).

I do not think the rehabilitation system works. It seems to me to give them a few NVQs and then expect them to find their feet. As law-abiding people with qualifications, we know it's hard to find work so imagine having no experience, a few qualifications from prison and a criminal record?!

PS. I do not live in a posh area, it's Middlesbrough LOL, so I do see crime everyday.

To which both come back to the central point which is; dont commit the crime in the first place.

[Swastika]

I think most of you have missed the most important point completely.
We should be helping to stop people from committing crime in the first place, we need communities to join together and work together to fight crime.
We can't just rely on the morons we call the police or the government, because quite clearly they cannot stop crime, we need youth projects and REAL rehabilitation services to those who have become a victim of the times.
Think about it, what makes more sense, locking people up and letting them re-offend, or setting up projects and helping out deprived communities to stop crime at the first stage?
I'm from Middlesbrough, our crime record is high and we're a failing town to put it quite bluntly - set up projects and schemes for these teenagers and young adults falling victim to offending crimes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think most of you have missed the most important point completely.
We should be helping to stop people from committing crime in the first place, we need communities to join together and work together to fight crime.
We can't just rely on the morons we call the police or the government, because quite clearly they cannot stop crime, we need youth projects and REAL rehabilitation services to those who have become a victim of the times.
Think about it, what makes more sense, locking people up and letting them re-offend, or setting up projects and helping out deprived communities to stop crime at the first stage?
I'm from Middlesbrough, our crime record is high and we're a failing town to put it quite bluntly - set up projects and schemes for these teenagers and young adults falling victim to offending crimes.

The bad kids dont take any notice of them and more to the point, why should criminal youths be rewarded for their poor behaviour? bad areas where crime is rampant can be solved very easily just as Singapore did as it stems from unemployment. The idea Singapore had and carried out successfully was to 'zone off' certain areas and drastically lower corporations tax and business tax within them areas which brought investment and jobs to the area. If people have jobs and money, they care more for where they live and their homes/streets.

I dont buy this argument that people are forced into it because they live in a bad area, some people havent got two pennies to rub together and they dont turn to crime. If you commit a crime its your own choice at the end of the day (for the vast majority of crimes).

[Swastika]

The bad kids dont take any notice of them and more to the point, why should criminal youths be rewarded for their poor behaviour? bad areas where crime is rampant can be solved very easily just as Singapore did as it stems from unemployment. The idea Singapore had and carried out successfully was to 'zone off' certain areas and drastically lower corporations tax and business tax within them areas which brought investment and jobs to the area. If people have jobs and money, they care more for where they live and their homes/streets.

I dont buy this argument that people are forced into it because they live in a bad area, some people havent got two pennies to rub together and they dont turn to crime. If you commit a crime its your own choice at the end of the day (for the vast majority of crimes).

I'm not saying that youths should be rewarded for bad behaviour, im saying there should be something in place in the first place to stop young kids turning to crime. We all know most crimes in the local community stem from having no money and there being nothing to do, its a fact - something should be done to stop it. Start now and start with the next generation, the teenagers and young children on the streets who have nothing to do and see joyriding and drug dealing to be a normal thing to kill boredom and to get money.
At the end of the day, if there's no jobs in the area for young lads and lasses, and drugs are easily available - they're gunna sell it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not saying that youths should be rewarded for bad behaviour, im saying there should be something in place in the first place to stop young kids turning to crime. We all know most crimes in the local community stem from having no money and there being nothing to do, its a fact - something should be done to stop it. Start now and start with the next generation, the teenagers and young children on the streets who have nothing to do and see joyriding and drug dealing to be a normal thing to kill boredom and to get money.
At the end of the day, if there's no jobs in the area for young lads and lasses, and drugs are easily available - they're gunna sell it.

After the war and before the modern day people didnt have a thing, especially kids - they didnt feel the need to smash up bus stops/attack people/form gang wars and all the rest. The excuse of 'theres nothing to do' is a poor one, often I have nothing to do yet I dont expect the taxpayer to pay for some entertainment for me to stop me turning to crime and violence.

[HotelUser]

After the war and before the modern day people didnt have a thing, especially kids - they didnt feel the need to smash up bus stops/attack people/form gang wars and all the rest. The excuse of 'theres nothing to do' is a poor one, often I have nothing to do yet I dont expect the taxpayer to pay for some entertainment for me to stop me turning to crime and violence.

Yes, and there was a time where we thought ideology of world conquest, and enslaving African people was okay too. I think that's just a little worse than smashing up a bus.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, and there was a time where we thought ideology of world conquest, and enslaving African people was okay too. I think that's just a little worse than smashing up a bus.

..and that has to do with this thread what exactly?

Slavery and yobs on the streets, I dont see the comparison?

[HotelUser]

..and that has to do with this thread what exactly?

Slavery and yobs on the streets, I dont see the comparison?

You were saying when we had harsher punishments that there was less crime comparable to today. I am nullifying your example by showing that there was worse crime going on at the time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You were saying when we had harsher punishments that there was less crime comparable to today. I am nullifying your example by showing that there was worse crime going on at the time.

You havent said anything of the sort, all you've done is say slavery was wrong and conquest was wrong - both have nothing to do with crime examples now and crime pre-1960 when the western world in general went soft on the issue such as the abolition of the death penalty, loss of respect for the police and so forth. I dont see the link here between world empire/slavery and British prisons in 2010, maybe you'll point it out for me.

[HotelUser]

You havent said anything of the sort, all you've done is say slavery was wrong and conquest was wrong - both have nothing to do with crime examples now and crime pre-1960 when the western world in general went soft on the issue such as the abolition of the death penalty, loss of respect for the police and so forth. I dont see the link here between world empire/slavery and British prisons in 2010, maybe you'll point it out for me.

Okay. Check out the 18th and 19th centuries.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Okay. Check out the 18th and 19th centuries.

You say there was worse crime going on then, well i'm afraid back then slavery wasnt a crime and its not even comparable to yobs in Britain nowadays.

[HotelUser]

Yeah so what has slavery got to do with crime on British estates now?

None of this is making any sense what so ever, theres not even a faint link.

When we were beheading people, locking them up for their lives, abusing people as punishments, yes there was less crime, but the system's design was significantly more corrupted, and the system had far too much power, not egging for our own sovereignty.

Locking someone up in a one roomed cell until the day they die will stop crime, but us having the power to do that and the means by which we do it is unjust, and gives governments an authority nobody should have.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When we were beheading people, locking them up for their lives, abusing people as punishments, yes there was less crime, but the system's design was significantly more corrupted, and the system had far too much power, not egging for our own sovereignty.

Sovereignty has nothing to do with this topic.

I am not saying lets go back to the beheading/dunking stools/torture days of Tudor times, all i'm saying is that if you commit a crime you should be locked up. As usual everything gets taken out of proportion just like how you brought slavery up when it has sod all to do with crime nowadays and crime back then also. You disagree that criminals should be locked up do you?

[HotelUser]

Sovereignty has nothing to do with this topic.

I am not saying lets go back to the beheading/dunking stools/torture days of Tudor times, all i'm saying is that if you commit a crime you should be locked up. As usual everything gets taken out of proportion just like how you brought slavery up when it has sod all to do with crime nowadays and crime back then also. You disagree that criminals should be locked up do you?

My point is completely valid because it references what I'm suggesting your idea would do: which is give the system more power than it should have. How on Earth will locking someone up for their entire life improve THEIR lives? You've completely neglected looking at this from a criminals perspective. No matter what they've done they have a right to live too, and if they've done wrong we should use our jurisdiction over them to teach them, not harm them further.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My point is completely valid because it references what I'm suggesting your idea would do: which is give the system more power than it should have. How on Earth will locking someone up for their entire life improve THEIR lives? You've completely neglected looking at this from a criminals perspective. No matter what they've done they have a right to live too, and if they've done wrong we should use our jurisdiction over them to teach them, not harm them further.

I haven't suggested locking people up for life who have committed crimes, I have stated very clearly that those who keep committing crime should have longer sentences imposed on them to act as a deterrent and protect the public, which is the central point of putting someone in prison. On you go to say I havent looked at this from a criminals perspective, of course I have because if I was in a criminals shoes I wouldnt commit the crime in the first place. You act as though they are innocent little angels who just dont realise what they are doing is wrong, of course they know robbing a pensioner is wrong, of course they know drug dealing is wrong - just you cant accept the fact that these people are bad and dangerous.

Please never become a judge I beg of you, because its people such as the likes of you who allow dangerous people out of prison early and who later go on to cause more misery for neighbourhoods, sometimes even going on to kill again.

[HotelUser]

I haven't suggested locking people up for life who have committed crimes, I have stated very clearly that those who keep committing crime should have longer sentences imposed on them to act as a deterrent and protect the public, which is the central point of putting someone in prison. On you go to say I havent looked at this from a criminals perspective, of course I have because if I was in a criminals shoes I wouldnt commit the crime in the first place. You act as though they are innocent little angels who just dont realise what they are doing is wrong, of course they know robbing a pensioner is wrong, of course they know drug dealing is wrong - just you cant accept the fact that these people are bad and dangerous.

Please never become a judge I beg of you, because its people such as the likes of you who allow dangerous people out of prison early and who later go on to cause more misery for neighbourhoods, sometimes even going on to kill again.


No, you fail to understand that 1) everybody thinks differently and things affect different people differently, and, 2) Not everyone is blessed with having a good upbringing like us. Wrong rolemodels in someones life can lead to the person justifying bad decisions. You saying you wouldn't commit the crimes in the first place is proof enough that you're unable to see things truly from their perspective.


Do you really think I like seeing child rapists getting a pathetic 6 months in jail? Of course not. But 10 years in jail wont guarantee that when they're released they'll do anything differently. We need not a more harsh approach, we need a more helpful approach to helping these people become normal citizens.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, you fail to understand that 1) everybody thinks differently and things affect different people differently, and, 2) Not everyone is blessed with having a good upbringing like us. Wrong rolemodels in someones life can lead to the person justifying bad decisions. You saying you wouldn't commit the crimes in the first place is proof enough that you're unable to see things truly from their perspective.

Do you really think I like seeing child rapists getting a pathetic 6 months in jail? Of course not. But 10 years in jail wont guarantee that when they're released they'll do anything differently. We need not a more harsh approach, we need a more helpful approach to helping these people become normal citizens.

What do you propose then? lets send in government officals to every household every day of the week to make sure people are being brought up in the correct way? i'm sorry but once you reach your teen years you start to realise whats right and whats wrong, some people are brought up badly but they still know themselves that smashing a bus stop is wrong, robbing somebody is wrong and the rest of it - they are often served with behaviour orders and all the rest so its not as though we are giving them a free hand and they are oblivious to the fact what they are doing is wrong - despite what you'd like me to think. These people arent stupid, they know how to play the powerless police and how to play the system.

The idea is very simple and even young children can understand the basics of this idea; commit the crime, you do the time. so what are you saying to me here, that they dont understand what i've bolded? if thats the case then you really are kidding yourself.

So you'd like them allowed on the outside around your family and your friends? fair dos if you want to take that chance, but maybe you should consider the nightmare some people have to live through their entire lives because these people are allowed to roam our streets, all because the likes of yourself and Ken Clarke believe in chance after chance after chance for these people.

You dont like these people being let out but at the same time you want them on the outside, do you even know yourself what you want?

[HotelUser]

Now you're assuming many many things which I did not say or imply at all. Criminals should be punished to an extent, yes, but they need to be offered better education and therapy in prison. It has to be more about teaching them to become acceptable and responsible people. The problem now is we're giving short punishments in which the criminals aren't learning anything, so what's to stop them from recommitting if they're in jail for 5 years, or 10 years?


What do you propose then? lets send in government officals to every household every day of the week to make sure people are being brought up in the correct way? i'm sorry but once you reach your teen years you start to realise whats right and whats wrong, some people are brought up badly but they still know themselves that smashing a bus stop is wrong, robbing somebody is wrong and the rest of it - they are often served with behaviour orders and all the rest so its not as though we are giving them a free hand and they are oblivious to the fact what they are doing is wrong - despite what you'd like me to think. These people arent stupid, they know how to play the powerless police and how to play the system.

The idea is very simple and even young children can understand the basics of this idea; commit the crime, you do the time. so what are you saying to me here, that they dont understand what i've bolded? if thats the case then you really are kidding yourself.

So you'd like them allowed on the outside around your family and your friends? fair dos if you want to take that chance, but maybe you should consider the nightmare some people have to live through their entire lives because these people are allowed to roam our streets, all because the likes of yourself and Ken Clarke believe in chance after chance after chance for these people.

You dont like these people being let out but at the same time you want them on the outside, do you even know yourself what you want?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Now you're assuming many many things which I did not say or imply at all. Criminals should be punished to an extent, yes, but they need to be offered better education and therapy in prison. It has to be more about teaching them to become acceptable and responsible people.

Hang on a second, the rest of us use our education to our advantage and obey the law - why should somebody who has done something wrong and somebody whom threw away their education, be treated in a special manner as though they are the victim? It is very simple how to be respectable and they know it otherwise they wouldnt want to go to prison. The problem is, they dont want to be respectable and obey the law - they like disobeying the law, they like smashing things up, they like mugging people and in general they enjoy committing crime hence why they do it in the first place.

What you and Ken Clarke are proposing goes along the lines of this; we all know that stealing is wrong (the criminal included), so lets spend tax payers money telling the criminal what he already knows, that theft is wrong.


The problem now is we're giving short punishments in which the criminals aren't learning anything, so what's to stop them from recommitting if they're in jail for 5 years, or 10 years?Nothing if i'm honest, its better for them to be in prison for 10 years and committing no crime than for them to be out every few months, committing a crime and then going back in. Prison is about protecting the law abiding majority, not pandering to criminals.

My ideal system would have people scared of prison, not wanting to end up there so they wouldnt commit the crime in the first place - if they do then they are sent to prison for a generous length of time depending on the crime itself. You say whats to stop them reoffending, well with my idea the prison walls would prevent them from reoffending, whereas with your idea the only thing that would 'prevent' them from reoffending would be their word - as a lot of them are career criminals I wouldnt hang onto their words with much hope and trust.

[Nixt]

To which both come back to the central point which is; dont commit the crime in the first place.

I am confused by your opinion, Dandertaker. It seems to me as if you are suggesting that, if someone commits a crime, we send them to prison. When they are released, if they commit another crime, we send them to prison again. I am not going to say that I do not believe we need tougher prisons and tougher penalties, but it seems silly not to attempt to rehabilitate the prisoners at the same time as punishing them. If you simply throw them back into prison, you are simply following what has already become an endless cycle of repeated crime by reoffenders who, after being sent to prison, have little prospect in life and merely return to their old ways. I am not saying they don't have a choice, because of course they do, what I am saying is that unfortunately, the majority of the great unwashed need a prod in the right direction and as such the government should be ensuring something is in place to do just that.

I do also think that the media exaggerates the problem of crime today. As far as I am aware a lot of crime has dropped and is continuing to drop - merely, certain incidents are reported and exaggerated by the tabloids in what seems to be an increasing desire to condemn "broken Britain" and the poor within it. The media is only creating a stigma attached to the lower classes and younger people that I believe only makes things worse.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am confused by your opinion, Dandertaker. It seems to me as if you are suggesting that, if someone commits a crime, we send them to prison. When they are released, if they commit another crime, we send them to prison again. I am not going to say that I do not believe we need tougher prisons and tougher penalties, but it seems silly not to attempt to rehabilitate the prisoners at the same time as punishing them. If you simply throw them back into prison, you are simply following what has already become an endless cycle of repeated crime by reoffenders who, after being sent to prison, have little prospect in life and merely return to their old ways. I am not saying they don't have a choice, because of course they do, what I am saying is that unfortunately, the majority of the great unwashed need a prod in the right direction and as such the government should be ensuring something is in place to do just that.

I do also think that the media exaggerates the problem of crime today. As far as I am aware a lot of crime has dropped and is continuing to drop - merely, certain incidents are reported and exaggerated by the tabloids in what seems to be an increasing desire to condemn "broken Britain" and the poor within it. The media is only creating a stigma attached to the lower classes and younger people that I believe only makes things worse.

I am suggesting that prison conditions be tougher in the first place (thus putting a great deal of many off the prospect of prison in the first place) and that sentences be made tougher the more they reoffend. It is not the job of the government to provide a prospect in life for these people, the rest of us get by and pay our taxes on virtually anything - criminals barely do that. I am confused by your opinion more so, because you are suggesting rehabilition which is nothing more than a chat and a talk with a criminal by an unknown offical which surely will not give them any prospects. Unless you are suggesting we provide criminals with cash grants and council housing, to which I would ask 'why should crime be rewarded?'.

The second point is not true, reported crime has dropped. A lot of crime goes unreported nowadays as the childrens representative on Question Time pointed out, therefore that does not indicate at all that crime has dropped.

[HotelUser]

I am suggesting that prison conditions be tougher in the first place (thus putting a great deal of many off the prospect of prison in the first place) and that sentences be made tougher the more they reoffend. It is not the job of the government to provide a prospect in life for these people, the rest of us get by and pay our taxes on virtually anything - criminals barely do that. I am confused by your opinion more so, because you are suggesting rehabilition which is nothing more than a chat and a talk with a criminal by an unknown offical which surely will not give them any prospects. Unless you are suggesting we provide criminals with cash grants and council housing, to which I would ask 'why should crime be rewarded?'.

The second point is not true, reported crime has dropped. A lot of crime goes unreported nowadays as the childrens representative on Question Time pointed out, therefore that does not indicate at all that crime has dropped.

Yeah. Getting 100 tough angry men and locking them up for 20 years in one cell will make them less tough and less angry :S

[Nixt]

I am suggesting that prison conditions be tougher in the first place (thus putting a great deal of many off the prospect of prison in the first place) and that sentences be made tougher the more they reoffend. It is not the job of the government to provide a prospect in life for these people, the rest of us get by and pay our taxes on virtually anything - criminals barely do that. I am confused by your opinion more so, because you are suggesting rehabilition which is nothing more than a chat and a talk with a criminal by an unknown offical which surely will not give them any prospects. Unless you are suggesting we provide criminals with cash grants and council housing, to which I would ask 'why should crime be rewarded?'.

The second point is not true, reported crime has dropped. A lot of crime goes unreported nowadays as the childrens representative on Question Time pointed out, therefore that does not indicate at all that crime has dropped.

I quite agree that prison sentences and prison itself should lose some of the privileges it currently holds. What are you doing though, in sending people to prison is hiding the problem temporarily, rather than addressing it head on. If reoffending is such a problem in your eyes, sending more people to prison is hardly going to help that problem. Indeed it may put some people off, but at the end of the day criminals will only try and find more effective ways to avoid criminals, or the nature of crime will adapt to the new system. Punishment should come hand in hand with rehabilitation. How you believe that should be done is obviously subjective. I don't think that should involve a simple chat with a probation officer - in my opinion rehabilitation should inherently be a punishment at the same time. I don't pretend to know what I would do, I don't pretend to know how I would do it but as far as I am concerned simply throwing people in prison is not a solution.

Crimes go unreported, yes... but it seems to make sense to say that if reported crime is going down, then unreported crime is going down hand in hand with that. Without solid evidence that is the only logical way to look at it. Unreported crime obviously takes place, but there is no solid way of saying if it's risen / dropped / stabilised and, as such, it's logical to say it has decreased with crime that is reported.

[Dinosaurawrr]

my teacher chris was talking to my tutor kevin he works in a prison teaching them media.
they have cooking classes
have more musical instraments than the college
and they have knives for art............... with only one non officer in the room.
so yeah

[GommeInc]

I think most of you have missed the most important point completely.
We should be helping to stop people from committing crime in the first place, we need communities to join together and work together to fight crime.
We can't just rely on the morons we call the police or the government, because quite clearly they cannot stop crime, we need youth projects and REAL rehabilitation services to those who have become a victim of the times.
Think about it, what makes more sense, locking people up and letting them re-offend, or setting up projects and helping out deprived communities to stop crime at the first stage?
I'm from Middlesbrough, our crime record is high and we're a failing town to put it quite bluntly - set up projects and schemes for these teenagers and young adults falling victim to offending crimes.
Indeed, youth projects and community involvement is incredibly important - knowing who you're surrounded by and so forth. It works really well in villages in this area, and no dobut makes some people think twice. Of course it wouldn't eliminate the whole problem as life isn't that simple, but it does work :)

We should be looking at IFs. IF prison isn't working, assuming they are watched inside, then alternatives could be looked at. Or, perhaps the way prisons treat prisoners could looked into? Insider counselling, making them acknowledge the crime and what they did. Annoyingly, we do not really know what happens inside, as TV only ever dramatises it and the media is too brief on it.

[Swastika]

After the war and before the modern day people didnt have a thing, especially kids - they didnt feel the need to smash up bus stops/attack people/form gang wars and all the rest. The excuse of 'theres nothing to do' is a poor one, often I have nothing to do yet I dont expect the taxpayer to pay for some entertainment for me to stop me turning to crime and violence.
Smashing up bus stops isn't exactly a despicable crime now is it? How on earth can you not agree that in THIS DAY AND AGE, not back in the times you keep talking about, that youth and rehabilitation projects work wonders? If you hit the nail in the head before the problem criminality starts, your doing something right and positive, what's the point in sending somebody to prison, waiting for them to come back out, they re-offend, and send them back? And repeat the process over and over again, there is just absolutely no point, we're just going to end up like the United States - where nobody can get an occupation or be accepted back into the world because of their past. Stop the problems before they start.


Indeed, youth projects and community involvement is incredibly important - knowing who you're surrounded by and so forth. It works really well in villages in this area, and no dobut makes some people think twice. Of course it wouldn't eliminate the whole problem as life isn't that simple, but it does work :)
I completely agree that it doesn't 100% fully stop crime because it doesn't - but it does help quite considerably right?
Youth projects and anti-gang centres would work wonders for inner city youths in Britain, the government need to really consider something like this otherwise our gang problems are just going to get worse and worse and before we know it, gangs are going to be the "norm" and accepted like some other countries in the world.

Stop the problems, before they start.
Start with the next generation, and help those who are in prison now.

[Nixt]

I completely agree that it doesn't 100% fully stop crime because it doesn't - but it does help quite considerably right?
Youth projects and anti-gang centres would work wonders for inner city youths in Britain, the government need to really consider something like this otherwise our gang problems are just going to get worse and worse and before we know it, gangs are going to be the "norm" and accepted like some other countries in the world.

Stop the problems, before they start.
Start with the next generation, and help those who are in prison now.

I quite agree. An area in Bristol - Henbury, was rife with problems to do with young people and gangs. Recently they set up what is called a "Youth Inclusion Project" near the centre of the problem area and it appears to have done wonders to reduce the problems that were occurring there. It won't solve all the problems but it most definitely helps.

[Hecktix]

I am not narrow minded, you are narrow minded i'm afraid in that what yourself and the left in general cannot grasp is that people have a choice when committing crime. The rest of us dont have to commit crime even when we are skint/in terrible situations, so why are these people any different? i'm sick to the back teeth of advocates with opinions the likes of yours caring more about the criminal than the victim - try living on a council estate where you are scared to walk out of your home at any given time, try putting yourself in the position of elderly and young people who are scared of going outside in fear of being mugged, try living in a neighbourhood where petty crime drives away jobs and opportunity.. I suspect the likes of Ken Clarke and yourself have never even experienced crime hence why you are determined to be so soft on the subject. Crime is a massive issue, it can ruin areas economically, socially and can trap people in those areas into a life of being on the dole in which their children then follow.

It is not about being heartless,it really is as simple as do the crime do the time.
Oh come off it, do you really think a criminal is going to care? of course not! because if they did they wouldnt commit the crime in the first place.

Oh so now we resort to baseless assumptions to support your argument, I have experienced crime in two instances - both rather violent crimes however at no point did I think the offender should go to Prison - and I laugh how you say I would care more about the criminal than the victim because in one of these cases I was the victim (but yeah don't worry I was more bothered about the criminal:rolleyes:).

The criminal in this case was given a fine of nearly £4000 and had to complete 200 hours of a community sentence and undergo six months of alcohol and anger guidance. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this man to the bone - yet I'd pretty much say he wouldn't commit a crime similar to what he did to me and my family again.

When offenders are put in prison victims are not necessarily any safer than they were when the person was "at large" and then they have the fact that when the prisoner gets out they aren't gonna be rehabiliated and are likely gonna be incredibly pissed off that the victim caused them to go to prison (we all know that's not true but the mind of a criminal is different to the mind of a person that can think logically).

Criminals are of a different mindset to normal people and this is what needs to be targetted, by all means lock up the people that murder, rape and seriously assault people - as long as you're giving them rehabilitation in the process.

It's clear prison isn't successful and different means at preventing crime should be used for crimes in which the offender is not really a danger so doesn't need to be put into prison. You are one that often complains of this countries debt, slashing prison numbers and replacing prison with community sentences and a good bit of restorative justice or counselling would sure help out there - along with reducing crime dramatically.

[Hitman]

help those who can be or want to be helped, lock those who cannot be helped or who are not safe to have on the streets at all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah. Getting 100 tough angry men and locking them up for 20 years in one cell will make them less tough and less angry :S
Who said 20 in one cell? I could not care less if they are angry about being in prison, if they dont like being put into prison and the justice system then they should not commit the crime in the first place.


I quite agree that prison sentences and prison itself should lose some of the privileges it currently holds. What are you doing though, in sending people to prison is hiding the problem temporarily, rather than addressing it head on. If reoffending is such a problem in your eyes, sending more people to prison is hardly going to help that problem. Indeed it may put some people off, but at the end of the day criminals will only try and find more effective ways to avoid criminals, or the nature of crime will adapt to the new system. Punishment should come hand in hand with rehabilitation. How you believe that should be done is obviously subjective. I don't think that should involve a simple chat with a probation officer - in my opinion rehabilitation should inherently be a punishment at the same time. I don't pretend to know what I would do, I don't pretend to know how I would do it but as far as I am concerned simply throwing people in prison is not a solution.

Crimes go unreported, yes... but it seems to make sense to say that if reported crime is going down, then unreported crime is going down hand in hand with that. Without solid evidence that is the only logical way to look at it. Unreported crime obviously takes place, but there is no solid way of saying if it's risen / dropped / stabilised and, as such, it's logical to say it has decreased with crime that is reported.

Prison isnt supposed to be a 'solution' to help these people, prison is supposed to be the last resort - we already try all leaner ways of stopping and preventing crime but many push it and push it until they end up going to prison. The difference is that with the system we have now (basically what you are in support of) and the one I propose; under the present system they are allowed to go rampant in terms of crime, ruining more peoples lives than need be - with my proposed system crime would still happen of course but many would be spared from the crime that is committed well past the time they have pushed it to the limit.

As for the bottom I guess so, but over recent years you must also take into account that a lot of people have lost faith in the police/the police cannot do much anymore - people are that put off nowadays that many do not even bother phoning the police in the first place.


Smashing up bus stops isn't exactly a despicable crime now is it? How on earth can you not agree that in THIS DAY AND AGE, not back in the times you keep talking about, that youth and rehabilitation projects work wonders? If you hit the nail in the head before the problem criminality starts, your doing something right and positive, what's the point in sending somebody to prison, waiting for them to come back out, they re-offend, and send them back? And repeat the process over and over again, there is just absolutely no point, we're just going to end up like the United States - where nobody can get an occupation or be accepted back into the world because of their past. Stop the problems before they start.

I completely agree that it doesn't 100% fully stop crime because it doesn't - but it does help quite considerably right?
Youth projects and anti-gang centres would work wonders for inner city youths in Britain, the government need to really consider something like this otherwise our gang problems are just going to get worse and worse and before we know it, gangs are going to be the "norm" and accepted like some other countries in the world.

Stop the problems, before they start.
Start with the next generation, and help those who are in prison now.

How can you stop crime before it starts? people know crime is wrong. These people are not stupid, they are not deluded - they are criminals who know the law and decide to flout it. If they already know something is wrong, I cannot see how telling them again (which would cost an awful lot of money to the taxpayer with poor results) would or will do anything different.

We are acting as though we can change these people with a faceless offical sitting down and telling them it is wrong - many of these people have been cut off from their families because their families have told them it is wrong and want nothing to do with them because of it. If they will not listen to their family, why will they listen to a government offical telling them so?

As for these youth projects and the rest of it - why should taxpayers pay for utter scum to be entertained so that they do not go around smashing our [the taxpayers] houses? it's like blackmail.


Oh so now we resort to baseless assumptions to support your argument, I have experienced crime in two instances - both rather violent crimes however at no point did I think the offender should go to Prison - and I laugh how you say I would care more about the criminal than the victim because in one of these cases I was the victim (but yeah don't worry I was more bothered about the criminal:rolleyes:).

The criminal in this case was given a fine of nearly £4000 and had to complete 200 hours of a community sentence and undergo six months of alcohol and anger guidance. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate this man to the bone - yet I'd pretty much say he wouldn't commit a crime similar to what he did to me and my family again.

When offenders are put in prison victims are not necessarily any safer than they were when the person was "at large" and then they have the fact that when the prisoner gets out they aren't gonna be rehabiliated and are likely gonna be incredibly pissed off that the victim caused them to go to prison (we all know that's not true but the mind of a criminal is different to the mind of a person that can think logically).

Criminals are of a different mindset to normal people and this is what needs to be targetted, by all means lock up the people that murder, rape and seriously assault people - as long as you're giving them rehabilitation in the process.

It's clear prison isn't successful and different means at preventing crime should be used for crimes in which the offender is not really a danger so doesn't need to be put into prison. You are one that often complains of this countries debt, slashing prison numbers and replacing prison with community sentences and a good bit of restorative justice or counselling would sure help out there - along with reducing crime dramatically.

So Oli, what do you class as rehabilitation?

I will hazard a guess that its one of these/a few of these put together;


Social housing to keep them off the streets (in normal speak, rewarding them with a house courtesy of the taxpayer for their crimes).
Social welfare to keep them above the poverty line (in normal speak, rewarding somebody who has done bad with money).
A talk/councilling with a rehabilitation officer (in normal speak, a faceless government offical telling somebody who knows what they have done is wrong, that what they have done is wrong).
Youth/community projects (in normal speak, my parents and many others across the country paying for bad kids/bad people to be entertained at my expense).

I complain about debt yes because the debt is out of control. I hate big government because history shows it does not work and its expensive. However I have outlined how you can cut down the cost of prison as it is at the moment (by spending less per prisoner as they do on the continent) and more importantly, sending people away for longer so that they will be less likely to reoffend which costs more in court cases/police time in the first place. The safety of the public is one of the big jobs of government and instead of spending billions on the EU/foreign aid/red tape +the rest of the utter rubbish we spend money on - spending it on keeping the public safe is well worth the money. We are a very wealthy country, the only problem is we dont spend it on what it needs to be spent on.

The criminal in your case is still out and about and will most likely reoffend again. Often a criminal has reoffended dozens or even hundreds of times before they are finally caught and dealt with. These people play the system, and theres no doubt in my mind that this man (whatever he did to your family) will do it again and again to other families.

[HotelUser]

Who said 20 in one cell? I could not care less if they are angry about being in prison, if they dont like being put into prison and the justice system then they should not commit the crime in the first place.

Each locked up individually is worse--lets just isolate them from the outside world AND from all social interaction completely!


Prison isnt supposed to be a 'solution' to help these people, prison is supposed to be the last resort - we already try all leaner ways of stopping and preventing crime but many push it and push it until they end up going to prison. The difference is that with the system we have now (basically what you are in support of) and the one I propose; under the present system they are allowed to go rampant in terms of crime, ruining more peoples lives than need be - with my proposed system crime would still happen of course but many would be spared from the crime that is committed well past the time they have pushed it to the limit.

If prison was more of a solution to help these people then we wouldn't have recommitting criminals How on Earth could you say they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place if a lot of the people committing the crimes are mentally unstable and genuinely NEED help.