Lock 'em up, throw away the key

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

All uphill

Well-Known Member
It's long been the cry from the streets, but does it do what is needed?

Could there be smarter ( and cheaper) solutions?

Is rehabilitation a thing?

Are we just locking up the products of our past political decisions?

I don't have the answers but I'm fairly confident that what we are doing at present isn't the solution.

Can NACA find any answers?
 
It does some of what is needed. It gives the public a bit of respite from persistent and serial offenders. It fulfils the need that most of us have to see bad deeds punished.

I'm not sure it is a deterrent for most offences, eg rape, as conviction rates are so low. Higher chance of being caught would be a bigger deterrent imo.

I'm not sure short prison sentences work. There's probably not enough time in 3 months to put an offender through a meaningful programme of rehabilitation, detoxification, or education.

I'm not someone who thinks the answer is always to throw more money at a problem, but the criminal justice system is woefully underfunded. As always, prevention is better than cure and early intervention pre-offending would save money and heartache in the long run. Stuff like Sure Start and nursery places helps.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Like many things in life, it is perhaps, more complicated than it first appears. I am sure, there are some reprobates for whom, the only viable solution is to remove them from society, for the protection of the rest of us. Equally, I am sure there are some (probably the majority) for whom rehabilitation is possible. The difficult bit (IMHO), is identifying which individuals fit into which group. So far, the system does not appear to be very effective at doing this.
 

matticus

Guru
I think a fine was not sufficient in this case, but imprisonment might be going too far.
Worth a try though if he doesn't resign!
 

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
For a short while I went out with a Probabation Officer

She was convinced that rehabilitation followed by proper supervision after release worked better than anything else

BUT - any sentence less than 2 years gave the rehab team in the prison no chance
hence they were released and the supervision couldn't work

I think I agree with this

Of course the prison need to be properly funded to allow the rehab to work
and the supervision after release has to be properly funded so enough time can be spent with the 'client'

Lets play a game - who can spot the problem???
 

presta

Member
For a short while I went out with a Probabation Officer

She was convinced that rehabilitation followed by proper supervision after release worked better than anything else
I think that's what the Scandinavians do, that's why they have a rate of recidivism a fraction of ours, the problem is that the psychologists know that it's not what the public want. Research shows that people are motivated by retribution, and making themselves feel better, not by rehabilitation and solving the problem. That's populism for you.
 
OP
OP
All uphill

All uphill

Well-Known Member
I agree that retribution seems more important than rehabilitation to the press and some of the public; what surprises me is that retribution clearly trumps cost.

I am probably naive but I find it difficult to reconcile the arguments for low taxes with locking up a sizeable proportion of our working age population.

To me it shows what "our" priorities are - we don't want to help people, we want to punish.
 
To me it shows what "our" priorities are - we don't want to help people, we want to punish.
They don’t call it the prison-industrial complex for nothing.
 

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
One of the problems is that 'the people' what to punish the offenders

which means putting them in prison

but they then complain that sentences are too low and demand harsher punishment

then they complain that it all costs too much

but push for a system that works far better and costs less overall

and we just go back to the top
 

matticus

Guru
I agree that retribution seems more important than rehabilitation to the press and some of the public; what surprises me is that retribution clearly trumps cost.

My general impression is that most of the time judges give less harsh* sentences than the populist media would like. Now, given that most people keep their traps shut about this, it may be that the courts actually get things "about right" most of the time.

*I'm trying to be objective here - I know I often see sentences for motorists that seem TO ME absurdly light. But I'm just one citizen ...
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
My general impression is that most of the time judges give less harsh* sentences than the populist media would like. Now, given that most people keep their traps shut about this, it may be that the courts actually get things "about right" most of the time.

*I'm trying to be objective here - I know I often see sentences for motorists that seem TO ME absurdly light. But I'm just one citizen ...

Like you, I am just one citizen, but.......

In my circle of acquaintances, I would say that most think that judges are far too lenient, but, other than moaning in the pub, they "keep their traps shut", because they don't see a viable option to do otherwise within the the choice between the two main parties and the current voting system.

This is one reason why giving people access to a referendum (on any number of subjects) produces unexpected, and, to some, undesirable results IMHO.
 
They have sentencing guidelines so they are not totally free to do as they wish. Part of it is that the cases where the sentence is considered too light are the ones we remember, out of the thousands of cases. We don't remember the ones that were 'just right' or quite harsh.

As someone said earlier, short sentences serve little purpose. I'd go for longer sentences with a far bigger element of rehabilitation. Otherwise it's just a revolving door for some criminals as they alternate between fines (they don't pay), community service (they don't attend), more offences, bail they don't answer, 3 months inside, come out ... start again. Until they grow out of it or do something very serious.

And of course, the biggest deterrent is actually being caught so we probably need to start there.
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
They have sentencing guidelines so they are not totally free to do as they wish. Part of it is that the cases where the sentence is considered too light are the ones we remember, out of the thousands of cases. We don't remember the ones that were 'just right' or quite harsh.

As someone said earlier, short sentences serve little purpose. I'd go for longer sentences with a far bigger element of rehabilitation. Otherwise it's just a revolving door for some criminals as they alternate between fines (they don't pay), community service (they don't attend), more offences, bail they don't answer, 3 months inside, come out ... start again. Until they grow out of it or do something very serious.

And of course, the biggest deterrent is actually being caught so we probably need to start there.

Indeed!
 
OP
OP
All uphill

All uphill

Well-Known Member
But what about more intelligent options than suspended sentences, fines or locked up for 23 hours per day?

Couldn't community service be extended?

Remove people from their toxic environment, put them in a secure situation with training or work?

I don't claim to have easy answers but our current approach seems to me to be the worst of all worlds.
 
Top Bottom