Convicted criminals could avoid jail from next week because prisons are full

[Nick]

What do you mean prisons are less effective than non custodial alternatives ,less effective at what ,not less effective at taking criminals out of society or making sure crime doesn't pay . Its certainly not idiotic to want a society that sees us all responsible for its well being

I see we have now moved from victimless crime to crime where no one has been 'directly hurt' . Sorry no, people don't get a free pass to commit crime because they can shift the blame for their actions .

Its been my view that there should be zero tolerance on crime and tough sentencing for some time so hardly a knee jerk impulse .

The issue we have SW is that the lefty types can't see any wrong in anything these people do, whether it's crims, scumbags that don't want to work or benefit cheats, it's never their fault and always the system that is keeping them down. The rest of us live in the real world and work our 🥔 off for what we have. 

[Streetwalker]

When jail costs us a lot of money, tends to result in more crime, and is far less effective than non-custodial alternatives for crimes where no one has been directly hurt, then jailing people is frankly idiotic, and appeals more to the kneejerk impulse than to deep thoughtfulness.

What do you mean prisons are less effective than non custodial alternatives ,less effective at what ,not less effective at taking criminals out of society or making sure crime doesn't pay . Its certainly not idiotic to want a society that sees us all responsible for its well being 

I see we have now moved from victimless crime to crime where no one has been 'directly hurt' . Sorry no, people don't get a free pass to commit crime because they can shift the blame for their actions .

Its been my view that there should be zero tolerance on crime and tough sentencing for some time so hardly a knee jerk impulse . 

[srb7677]

You keep mentioning victimless crimes srb without considering or realising that all crime has victims to some degree .
Refusing to pay council tax either means that those who do pay have to pay more or that services are cut . When your carer or home help doesn't turn up you won't be so keen on victim less crime .
Driving while disqualified means your not insured either and could result in whole raft of scenario's  where someone will become a victim of your criminality . For me that should be an automatic prison sentence
Zero tolerance policing and jail time sentencing on minor crime  would IMO reduce the prison population not increase it

When jail costs us a lot of money, tends to result in more crime, and is far less effective than non-custodial alternatives for crimes where no one has been directly hurt, then jailing people is frankly idiotic, and appeals more to the kneejerk impulse than to deep thoughtfulness.

[Streetwalker]

The majority of people imprisoned for victimless crimes are in paid employment.

And as for the type of turd you describe, I have suggested deducting fines direct from incomes. And that includes dole money. If anyone refuses to show up for community service, then at that point imprison them for a time.

Most people though do have something to lose - a job, a car, a home, a family. This is particularly true of those who commit victimless crimes, eg refusing to pay council tax or a TV license out of some sort of principle, smoking a bit of weed and selling some to your mates, driving whilst disqualified, etc. We shouldnt be wasting jail space on people like these at huge public expense. There must be better more cost effective and less obviously counter-productive alternatives. Save the jail space for those who ought to be in there.

You keep mentioning victimless crimes srb without considering or realising that all crime has victims to some degree .
Refusing to pay council tax either means that those who do pay have to pay more or that services are cut . When your carer or home help doesn't turn up you won't be so keen on victim less crime .
Driving while disqualified means your not insured either and could result in whole raft of scenario's  where someone will become a victim of your criminality . For me that should be an automatic prison sentence 
Zero tolerance policing and jail time sentencing on minor crime  would IMO reduce the prison population not increase it 

[Borchester]

But we've already got "a criminal system" that has more prisoners per 100,000 of population than anywhere else in Europe — and around 25% are reoffenders returning to prison where they get hooked on more drugs learn even more criminal skills to enable them to further fund their addictions.

The current system is not only not working, but it is failing badly. So do you think that more of the same is the answer...?

I thought that was Turkey

[Nick]

But we've already got "a criminal system" that has more prisoners per 100,000 of population than anywhere else in Europe — and around 25% are reoffenders returning to prison where they get hooked on more drugs learn even more criminal skills to enable them to further fund their addictions.

The current system is not only not working, but it is failing badly. So do you think that more of the same is the answer...?

If the criteria for incarceration is met then yes, they should go to jail. Perhaps they should be in 12 man bunks like in the U.S., instead of penthouse flats with TV's and PlayStations. They might think twice about reoffending if the conditions were a bit lest like a Travellodge. 

[patman post]

A bloke on the dole that has no money breaks into your house, steals your TV and sells it down the pub for a hundred quid. Buys some drugs and gets high in his bedsit paid for by your taxes. He gets caught, goes to court and is not given a custodial sentence according to your edict. You can't fine him cause he has no money, can't give community service as he won't show up, so he gets zero punishment. Great, you've just created a criminal system that has no punishment. Well done.

But we've already got "a criminal system" that has more prisoners per 100,000 of population than anywhere else in Europe — and around 25% are reoffenders returning to prison where they get hooked on more drugs learn even more criminal skills to enable them to further fund their addictions.

The current system is not only not working, but it is failing badly. So do you think that more of the same is the answer...?

[srb7677]

I think the employment prospects go down the shitter on conviction not on receipt of a custodial sentence ....

But they can usually still keep the job they already have if not imprisoned, depending upon the type of job of course. I mean if you are convicted of a victimless crime, unless you actually work in law enforcement, there would be no threat to your employment. If I myself for example chose not to pay my TV License, but got caught still owning and watching a TV and got fined for it, no way in a million years would I lose my job over that, and if I did I would probably win a union-funded unfair dismissal case. Much more serious offences, eg sexual assault, kiddy fiddling, armed robbery, and even lesser crimes like shoplifting, almost certainly would cost someone like me my job, but these are the type of offences I think you should be going to jail for anyway.

[srb7677]

A bloke on the dole that has no money breaks into your house, steals your TV and sells it down the pub for a hundred quid. Buys some drugs and gets high in his bedsit paid for by your taxes. He gets caught, goes to court and is not given a custodial sentence according to your edict. You can't fine him cause he has no money, can't give community service as he won't show up, so he gets zero punishment. Great, you've just created a criminal system that has no punishment. Well done.

The majority of people imprisoned for victimless crimes are in paid employment.

And as for the type of turd you describe, I have suggested deducting fines direct from incomes. And that includes dole money. If anyone refuses to show up for community service, then at that point imprison them for a time. 

Most people though do have something to lose - a job, a car, a home, a family. This is particularly true of those who commit victimless crimes, eg refusing to pay council tax or a TV license out of some sort of principle, smoking a bit of weed and selling some to your mates, driving whilst disqualified, etc. We shouldnt be wasting jail space on people like these at huge public expense. There must be better more cost effective and less obviously counter-productive alternatives. Save the jail space for those who ought to be in there.

[Nick]

I don't see why jail should be for anyone who doesn't pose actual danger of harm to other people. Aren't there better ways of steering people off a life of crime than putting them through crime college that prisons appear to have become?

Face it, the present policies don't appear to be reducing the crimes such as theft and criminal damage.

For instance, why give a parent a few months inside for stealing to keep their children fed and clothed and housed when such a sentence is going to ultimately cost the state more...?

A bloke on the dole that has no money breaks into your house, steals your TV and sells it down the pub for a hundred quid. Buys some drugs and gets high in his bedsit paid for by your taxes. He gets caught, goes to court and is not given a custodial sentence according to your edict. You can't fine him cause he has no money, can't give community service as he won't show up, so he gets zero punishment. Great, you've just created a criminal system that has no punishment. Well done. 

[patman post]

I don't see why jail should be for anyone who doesn't pose actual danger of harm to other people. Aren't there better ways of steering people off a life of crime than putting them through crime college that prisons appear to have become?

Face it, the present policies don't appear to be reducing the crimes such as theft and criminal damage.

For instance, why give a parent a few months inside for stealing to keep their children fed and clothed and housed when such a sentence is going to ultimately cost the state more...?

[johnofgwent]

I think burglars ought to be in prison. But those who have not hurt anyone nor damaged or stolen anyone's property are probably best kept out of prison. After all, it costs us a fortune to keep them in there, they are likely to lose any job they might have had and cease paying tax, are likely to find it difficult to get another job when they come out, so continue to be a burden upon us and are more likely to resort to crime, aided and abetted by the criminal contacts they met inside.

It is utterly counterproductive to place those who pose no risk to us in prison at all when harsh non-custodial sentences could potentially be applied which would cost us a lot less.

I think the employment prospects go down the shitter on conviction not on receipt of a custodial sentence ....

[srb7677]

Very confusing Steve, who do you think should be in jail exactly?

Anyone who has hurt anyone, damaged or stolen anyones property, or committed a sexual offence. There are surely cheaper and more effective sentences for anyone else, freeing up prison space for the sort of people we should be putting in jail.

It is not a difficult concept to understand.

[Nick]

I think burglars ought to be in prison. But those who have not hurt anyone nor damaged or stolen anyone's property are probably best kept out of prison. After all, it costs us a fortune to keep them in there, they are likely to lose any job they might have had and cease paying tax, are likely to find it difficult to get another job when they come out, so continue to be a burden upon us and are more likely to resort to crime, aided and abetted by the criminal contacts they met inside.

It is utterly counterproductive to place those who pose no risk to us in prison at all when harsh non-custodial sentences could potentially be applied which would cost us a lot less.

Very confusing Steve, who do you think should be in jail exactly?

[srb7677]

The other viable option is just keep cramming them in . I don't really care if there are 2 burglars in a cell or 20 .Making prisons a little more uncomfortable would maybe make some of them think twice about their life choices .

I think burglars ought to be in prison. But those who have not hurt anyone nor damaged or stolen anyone's property are probably best kept out of prison. After all, it costs us a fortune to keep them in there, they are likely to lose any job they might have had and cease paying tax, are likely to find it difficult to get another job when they come out, so continue to be a burden upon us and are more likely to resort to crime, aided and abetted by the criminal contacts they met inside.

It is utterly counterproductive to place those who pose no risk to us in prison at all when harsh non-custodial sentences could potentially be applied which would cost us a lot less.