Jailing Killers

[benb]

Bring back Borstals for young offenders. Of those that endured the ordeal around 90% never re-offended again.

90%?
Have you got the data to back that up, as it sounds frankly unbelievable.

 

[buggi]

I would rather see the driver having to pay compensation to the victims family (along with a long driving ban) than going to prison.

In the case of a one off I agree, i don't believe prison is appropriate in all cases but there are clearly times when enough is enough. I worked in criminal law for over 10 years and spent a lot of that in crown court. Most people on our books were repeat offenders. From car driving to rape and they are simply not interested in rehabilitation, they just play the game/system, including the "I've been rehabilitated" card. Often let out early for good behaviour just go and do it again and they really don't give a crap who they hurt. In these cases you have to stop trying to find the good in people. It doesn't exist. And the people left with the anguish when they are let out early on good behaviour, to go and re-offend, are the families and victims. They feel let down. This is why I believe you should serve an absolute minimum term for punishment then a term for rehabilitation, even if that is the latter part of the sentence where you would normally have been let out for good behaviour. There have been some cases recently where women have been sent to a house to live to be rehabilitated after their crimes and it is working. I believe that this should be done for everyone, but after they have served their time. It should be a condition of them being released particularly if they are a repeat offender. They will have served their time, which gives the victims and families closure, and they will have received a full on period of rehabilitation, which serves the public interest.

 

[Turbo Rider]

In the case of a one off I agree, i don't believe prison is appropriate in all cases but there are clearly times when enough is enough. I worked in criminal law for over 10 years and spent a lot of that in crown court. Most people on our books were repeat offenders. From car driving to rape and they are simply not interested in rehabilitation, they just play the game/system, including the "I've been rehabilitated" card. Often let out early for good behaviour just go and do it again and they really don't give a crap who they hurt. In these cases you have to stop trying to find the good in people. It doesn't exist. And the people left with the anguish when they are let out early on good behaviour, to go and re-offend, are the families and victims. They feel let down. This is why I believe you should serve an absolute minimum term for punishment then a term for rehabilitation, even if that is the latter part of the sentence where you would normally have been let out for good behaviour. There have been some cases recently where women have been sent to a house to live to be rehabilitated after their crimes and it is working. I believe that this should be done for everyone, but after they have served their time. It should be a condition of them being released particularly if they are a repeat offender. They will have served their time, which gives the victims and families closure, and they will have received a full on period of rehabilitation, which serves the public interest.

Indeed. Good is entirely subjective. It's an illusion. What you really want is to boil down to maxims, to find out what makes people tick. Tragic though it may seem, a lot of people will see your bad as their good. Find out what drives people though and what ends they value and you can place the stepping stones for them to accomplish. This is, perhaps, why a prison sentence should be as short as possible, on a case by case basis and heavily involve mental rehabilitation from the get go. Otherwise, you may as we'll throw away the key in a lot of cases. Too much prison time is bad for anyone, especially without treatment.

 

[Hip Priest]

I'd say stop locking up anyone who hasn't committed a violent crime, for a start.

As someone who has been burgled twice, I'd disagree.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Its not just the maximum sentence that should be increased but the minimum. There is too much power given to judges to reduce sentences for mitigating circumstances and guilty pleas.

Currently a judge can reduce a sentence if someone pleads guilty and saves the victim or their families the ordeal of a trial. The correct way would be to INCREASE the sentence of they pleaded not guilty, but were found guilty, because they put the victim or family through the trial.

There should also be a drop dead minimum sentence for crimes and the judge should only have the power to increase the sentence depending on the severity. Eg, murder should be 25 years but time added if the victim suffered through, say, being tortured or a brutal death such as being burned alive (as opposed to instant death caused by a blow to the head).

How do I click like more than once?

 

[buggi]

How do I click like more than once?

I'll click it for you