Community Service / Community Payback

[AuroraSaab]

The justice system has to work for everybody, including the victim or the the victim's family. A system based on punishment alone doesn't stop reoffending and often won't be a deterrent, but a punitive element to sentencing can bring closure to victims and demonstrate how seriously a society regards certain crimes.

There are several purposes to sentencing, all valid in my opinion, including the punitive element, but the difficulty is balancing them, especially within an underfunded legal system and an over stretched prison and probation service..

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Funny? something about true colors and such

Yep, you’ve shown yours.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Those are not all crime statistics. Those are statistics solely based on perception of crime based on a survey.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime/table

that why i was hesitant to come with links in the first place because like i said before you can read them in each and every way.

Those last two are entirely subjective and based on opinion again. If capital punishment and severe sentencing works, why is their murder rate so much higher than ours (669 times higher) ? Why is their violent crime 4x higher? Their violent crime murder rate 18 times higher?

Let me re-quote a other stat '' ''total crimes per 1000'' the UK ranks 4th, the US 22nd.'' a difference between 4th vs 22th so you're focussing on the wrong numbers. The US is much bigger and yes they do have their issues, but despite that the crime per 1000 people is much lower then the UK. so if punishment doesn't work why are off every 1000 people more people affected by crime in the UK then the us?

I'm not sure that you can use a totalitarian police state as a demonstration that punitive justice works. Obviously if you remove all freedom, it works.

If something it ineffective it's ineffective right? So clearly it is not so ineffective is previously claimed by you, i stand by my point that you need both, because if there is no punishment there is no deterrent, assuming and offender is an victim in the first place is wrong

I don't believe it. It can be proven by comparing crime and homicide rates.

Would you house a serial killer with the intention to how you call it cuddle him so he won't re-offend? Or is it like most lots of talk but no readyness to put you money where your mouth is?

Yep, you’ve shown yours.

A UCLA student organising those ''hamas is great'' protest did dare look at a hamas victim who was taken hostage, would you? Off course not, just laugh at other people suffering from behind you computer.

 

[icowden]

Let me re-quote a other stat '' ''total crimes per 1000'' the UK ranks 4th, the US 22nd.'' a difference between 4th vs 22th so you're focussing on the wrong numbers. The US is much bigger and yes they do have their issues, but despite that the crime per 1000 people is much lower then the UK. so if punishment doesn't work why are off every 1000 people more people affected by crime in the UK then the us?

They aren't. You really do have to read what the statistic means. The specific note for this stat states that this particular statistic is often a better indicator or the prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime than actual prevalence of crime. It just means that Americans are far more afraid to report a crime to the police than Brits are. Plus that stat is from 2002 - 22 years ago. Additionally there is no information about how the stat has been measured and what each country included in the information that was used to create it.
If punishment worked, including execution - America would not have the highest prison occupancy per capita in the world - 716 people per 100,000. Ours is 159 per 100,000. It also has the highest murder rate - seemingly people are not put off by the risk of prison or execution.

Would you house a serial killer with the intention to how you call it cuddle him so he won't re-offend? Or is it like most lots of talk but no readyness to put you money where your mouth is?

Obviously not which I why I clearly stated that there will always be a small percentage of offenders who will spend life in prison.

A UCLA student organising those ''hamas is great'' protest did dare look at a hamas victim who was taken hostage, would you? Off course not, just laugh at other people suffering from behind you computer.

Not sure what you were trying to write here as it doesn't make any sense.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Would you house a serial killer with the intention to how you call it cuddle him so he won't re-offend?

I only come here for the enlightened level of debate.

 

[Ian H]

I only come here for the enlightened level of debate.

Not just for a how you call it cuddle then?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Incarceration is a poor deterrent (usually anyway) because the rate of detection for many crimes is so low. If there were say a 99% arrest rate for burglary, then a year in prison might well be a deterrent. As it is, some areas have no arrests for any burglaries in their area.
It can't act as a deterrent when the chances of being caught are so slim. A high chance of being caught is the best deterrent for most planned crimes imo.

 

[All uphill]

Incarceration is a poor deterrent (usually anyway) because the rate of detection for many crimes is so low. If there were say a 99% arrest rate for burglary, then a year in prison might well be a deterrent. As it is, some areas have no arrests for any burglaries in their area.
It can't act as a deterrent when the chances of being caught are so slim. A high chance of being caught is the best deterrent for most planned crimes imo.

Agreed, and I believe there is evidence that the speed of justice is critical - in other words the prospect of being in gaol next month is much scarier than the prospect of being banged up in two years.

 

[icowden]

Agreed, and I believe there is evidence that the speed of justice is critical - in other words the prospect of being in gaol next month is much scarier than the prospect of being banged up in two years.

Two years? At the moment it can be up to five years!

 

[AuroraSaab]

I haven't seen a 5 year wait yet but saw a November 2026 trial date the other day. Such delays will deter people from reporting crimes as having the stress of giving evidence at a trial hanging over you for 2 years will be too much for some people.

 

[spen666]

I haven't seen a 5 year wait yet but saw a November 2026 trial date the other day. Such delays will deter people from reporting crimes as having the stress of giving evidence at a trial hanging over you for 2 years will be too much for some people.

I'm involved in several matters where time from committing crimes to trial is over 10 years. Time from charge to trial can often be 3+ years if suspect is on bail

 

[AuroraSaab]

Are these historic offences though? I can see why complex fraud cases can take several years from arrest date to trial. Covid backlog has added a lot too I guess.

 

[spen666]

Are these historic offences though? I can see why complex fraud cases can take several years from arrest date to trial. Covid backlog has added a lot too I guess.

You are correct in this. That is why I quoted the times from charge to trial of 3+ years.

By the time a charge is laid, the investigation is complete and it is primarily the court backlog in hearing cases. This is getting worse not better (not blaming any political party or making any political point). It is simply not fair on victims or the accused that courts cannot hear the cases for 3+ years after charges have been laid.

Do investigations take too long to complete? Yes - that is a whole different issue and there are many factors that contribute to that


Covid I do not think is relevant except as a convenient excuse for the authorities. In practical terms it is not a factor in trial delays and shouldn't be used as an excuse 4 years later

 

[icowden]

Are these historic offences though? I can see why complex fraud cases can take several years from arrest date to trial. Covid backlog has added a lot too I guess.

@moodybarrister reports that two courts are now pulling trials from December 2024 and relisting for Sept to Dec 2027.
@secretbarrister has reported delays in rape trials of up to 5 years.
@davieslaw reported a bail trial listing for the first week of 2028.
@joanna_hardy reports that 1436 criminal court hearings were delayed last year because there was no barrister available to represent one or other of the parties.
@courtsidle report that one third of courtrooms are idle (Nov 8th). They also report that Woolwich Crown Court has had to close 4 out of 12 courtrooms due to funding cuts with cases adjourned from 2020 to 2025 and beyond.

Statement from @thecriminalbar

Autumn Budget Statement from the Criminal Bar Association: Whilst we recognise that there has been an overall increase in the budget for the criminal justice system it will not make a difference to those waiting for justice unless there are court rooms to hear the cases and criminal barristers to prosecute and defend them. We await with interest the information from the Government following the Budget as to how it intends to rebuild the criminal justice system, how it will invest to reduce delays for those awaiting trial in serious criminal trials and how it will invest to ensure that there are sufficient criminal barristers to prosecute and defend them. A failure to invest in the criminal barristers and solicitors is a failure to value victims of crime and a failure to protect us all from the harm caused by a broken criminal justice system. The 81,000 serious crimes which form the basis of the cases which are waiting to get on may take years to be reached. They involve witnesses, those accused of crimes and victims of crime. That means at least 160,000 people are waiting to be heard. And it will only get worse. There is no point in talk of investing in police investigations, in the protection of women and girls, in “swift justice” and building new prisons if the essential part of the justice system, the trial process, is so underfunded that by the time a trial can take place, the witnesses have walked away. If six years or so are allowed to pass before a matter comes to trial, even more will do so. It is not just the complainants who walk away, it is also witnesses. Criminal Solicitors’ firms are walking away. Criminal Barristers are walking away.

People are not interested in becoming Criminal Barristers because the pay is so poor. A year one criminal barrister can expect to earn between £12k and £20k. A barrister with a few years experience may turn over far more - £50 to £70k but travel costs, chambers rent, clerks fees, tax, VAT and more have to be taken out of that amount. Why bother to spend 3 or 4 years earning <£20k when your friends working in libel, contract or property law are coining it in?