Victims and restorative justice

All victims, whether or not a successful conviction is achieved, should be offered the chance of restorative justice. Equally, offenders should be given the chance to 'say sorry' to the people they have harmed. This should take place as a separate issue from the criminal justice system.

Restorative justice should be expanded early throughout the schooling system-people should be accountable for their own actions and realise their actions may often impact on others. victims may go on to become offenders-angry and with no voice-its the oldest trick in the book-you hurt me and i'll hurt you back.

Restorative justice is one of the few ways victims can truly be "at the heart of the criminal justice system"

There are many "silent victims" out there-just think of the number of rapes and sexual assaults that go unreported

Why is this idea important?

All victims, whether or not a successful conviction is achieved, should be offered the chance of restorative justice. Equally, offenders should be given the chance to 'say sorry' to the people they have harmed. This should take place as a separate issue from the criminal justice system.

Restorative justice should be expanded early throughout the schooling system-people should be accountable for their own actions and realise their actions may often impact on others. victims may go on to become offenders-angry and with no voice-its the oldest trick in the book-you hurt me and i'll hurt you back.

Restorative justice is one of the few ways victims can truly be "at the heart of the criminal justice system"

There are many "silent victims" out there-just think of the number of rapes and sexual assaults that go unreported

Require All New Laws to pass the Liberty Test

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

Why is this idea important?

Any criminalisation of any action should be required to fall under one of the following four categories:

  1. Infringement upon another person or company
  2. Infringement upon another person or company's land
  3. Infringement upon another person or company's property
  4. Infringement upon another person or company's privacy (this would cover slander, libel etc as well as copyright infringements)

Expunge the past criminal records for youthful misdemenours.

Criminal records are held on people whose offending stopped when they were still young. Many have committed no offences for 30-40-50 years, but an unforgiving state never forgets and never allows them to forget either.

Many were given Borstal, Detention Centre and even prison, for offences which would never attract a custodial sentence today. In fact there are youths today who have committed far, far more serious crimes than these youths of yesteryear and yet they have no criminal record.

Many of these people have gone on to become very industrious and successful, yet, they dare not apply to be school governors, or stand for election on the local council because their past will be dragged up and they have spent years trying to live it down. Can they become an MP for one of the major parties?

Not a chance, yet their "criminal records" are in many cases almost laughable in the realm of crime.

It isn't fair and the problem should be addressed.

Clearly some offences could not be expunged from the record….sexual crimes, offences of violence, carrying firearms and so on. In such cases there is a real reason to keep the record. But do stealing a bike, breaking a window, driving without a licence or throwing stones at aeroplanes really warrant the resources and facilities used to keep them.

Keep it if it is relevant and dump it if it isn't. Make sure that the threshold for relevant is set fairly high. Make the decision on the crime committed, not the sentence received, which are more and more severe the longer ago it happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Criminal records are held on people whose offending stopped when they were still young. Many have committed no offences for 30-40-50 years, but an unforgiving state never forgets and never allows them to forget either.

Many were given Borstal, Detention Centre and even prison, for offences which would never attract a custodial sentence today. In fact there are youths today who have committed far, far more serious crimes than these youths of yesteryear and yet they have no criminal record.

Many of these people have gone on to become very industrious and successful, yet, they dare not apply to be school governors, or stand for election on the local council because their past will be dragged up and they have spent years trying to live it down. Can they become an MP for one of the major parties?

Not a chance, yet their "criminal records" are in many cases almost laughable in the realm of crime.

It isn't fair and the problem should be addressed.

Clearly some offences could not be expunged from the record….sexual crimes, offences of violence, carrying firearms and so on. In such cases there is a real reason to keep the record. But do stealing a bike, breaking a window, driving without a licence or throwing stones at aeroplanes really warrant the resources and facilities used to keep them.

Keep it if it is relevant and dump it if it isn't. Make sure that the threshold for relevant is set fairly high. Make the decision on the crime committed, not the sentence received, which are more and more severe the longer ago it happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MP’s should have to do the same as the rest of us

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

Why is this idea important?

Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.

1.  MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.

2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.

Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.

I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.

 

De-criminalize the carrying of ALL knives whose purpose is peaceful

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Why is this idea important?

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Allow “previous history” to be fully taken into consideration when sentencing

At present, when a judge decides a sentence for an offender, only previous *related* offences are taken into consideration.

Thus, for instance, if the current crime being judged is for car theft, a previous history of convictions for shoplifting or housebreaking or assault is not taken into consideration because these are not considered relevant to car theft.

A single person can become an entire crime wave, yet still get off with nothing more than a trivial punishment for each crime, as long as they remain *unrelated* to each other.

Which seems pretty daft to me, and shows that justice in this country is aimed more at raising revenue for the government than setting the standards that people should live by.

Why is this idea important?

At present, when a judge decides a sentence for an offender, only previous *related* offences are taken into consideration.

Thus, for instance, if the current crime being judged is for car theft, a previous history of convictions for shoplifting or housebreaking or assault is not taken into consideration because these are not considered relevant to car theft.

A single person can become an entire crime wave, yet still get off with nothing more than a trivial punishment for each crime, as long as they remain *unrelated* to each other.

Which seems pretty daft to me, and shows that justice in this country is aimed more at raising revenue for the government than setting the standards that people should live by.

Wheel Clamping And Seizure Of Assets (Cars) By Casual Operators.

To repeal laws that permit seizure of assets in the form of cars that they allege are parked in the wrong place or other. It should be forbidden for anyone to seize assets without due procedure and a (legal) reason. This requirement should cover all property. Parking can be controlled by the issue of parking tickets and due process thereafter in order to keep streets and public highways clear and useable. 

Why is this idea important?

To repeal laws that permit seizure of assets in the form of cars that they allege are parked in the wrong place or other. It should be forbidden for anyone to seize assets without due procedure and a (legal) reason. This requirement should cover all property. Parking can be controlled by the issue of parking tickets and due process thereafter in order to keep streets and public highways clear and useable. 

Covert survailance via Regulation of Investigatory powers act

This act gives the power for the government to request any infomation from telecommunications services, and makes it a criminal offense to tell anyone about it.

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"The government can demand that a public telecommunications service intercepts an individual's communications
The act's "interception warrants" can be served for purposes of "national security", "preventing or detecting serious crime" or "safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK". These (undefined) terms are so vague as to be applicable to just about anyone.

For example, the communications of businessmen negotiating deals with foreign companies could easily fall under "safeguarding of the economic well-being of the UK" within the plain English meaning of the term.

The definition of public telecommunications services is broad and could apply to internet services providers, phone companies, or even someone running a web site.

When an ISP is served with an interception warrant, it has to comply and it may not reveal this fact to anyone ever. "

Reference:

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/rip/#interception

Why is this idea important?

This act gives the power for the government to request any infomation from telecommunications services, and makes it a criminal offense to tell anyone about it.

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"The government can demand that a public telecommunications service intercepts an individual's communications
The act's "interception warrants" can be served for purposes of "national security", "preventing or detecting serious crime" or "safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK". These (undefined) terms are so vague as to be applicable to just about anyone.

For example, the communications of businessmen negotiating deals with foreign companies could easily fall under "safeguarding of the economic well-being of the UK" within the plain English meaning of the term.

The definition of public telecommunications services is broad and could apply to internet services providers, phone companies, or even someone running a web site.

When an ISP is served with an interception warrant, it has to comply and it may not reveal this fact to anyone ever. "

Reference:

http://www.magnacartaplus.org/bills/rip/#interception

Community Services

For years now we have seen Courts handing out community Service Orders (None paid work in the community) but I have NEVER seen anyone actually doing any work in the community!!! Clearly the Labour do gooders did not want the criminals embarrased whilst doing their sentance, so allowed them to be out of sight to the general public.  I would, and I am sure most other people, would like to see Community Service being done IN the community.

Why is this idea important?

For years now we have seen Courts handing out community Service Orders (None paid work in the community) but I have NEVER seen anyone actually doing any work in the community!!! Clearly the Labour do gooders did not want the criminals embarrased whilst doing their sentance, so allowed them to be out of sight to the general public.  I would, and I am sure most other people, would like to see Community Service being done IN the community.

Repeal CRB checks – we’re not all criminals!

Put the names of convicted criminals on a register NOT the names of innocent citizens who just want to get involved with their community.

 

STOP the CRB paranoia.  It's not foolproof.  It's not necessary.  It's not just.

 

Why is this idea important?

Put the names of convicted criminals on a register NOT the names of innocent citizens who just want to get involved with their community.

 

STOP the CRB paranoia.  It's not foolproof.  It's not necessary.  It's not just.

 

Repeal the age of consent for sex

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

Why is this idea important?

I propose we repeal the sexual age of consent, replacing it with existing rape laws and a new system of 'relationship assessment', whereby all sex involving persons aged 13-18 will be illegal if deemed coercive or harmful by a court.

Free care for the old, make prisoners pay instead.

My suggestion is to repeal the laws that compel the old to sell their homes and instead charge criminals for the cost of their sentences. To prevent the impact of negative cash flow sending people back to crime, my suggestion has two potential penalties: additional tax and a charge on the criminal's estate.

For a first offence I suggest a tax surcharge of 0.5% to be applied for every year of the sentence (not time served) after release, possibly to be paid into a bond which could be repaid after ten years of good behaviour. For a second offence I would raise that charge to 1% and for a third offence 5%. As an alternative for well heeled individuals who could avoid tax I would apply a charge to their estate to paid when they die.

Why is this idea important?

My suggestion is to repeal the laws that compel the old to sell their homes and instead charge criminals for the cost of their sentences. To prevent the impact of negative cash flow sending people back to crime, my suggestion has two potential penalties: additional tax and a charge on the criminal's estate.

For a first offence I suggest a tax surcharge of 0.5% to be applied for every year of the sentence (not time served) after release, possibly to be paid into a bond which could be repaid after ten years of good behaviour. For a second offence I would raise that charge to 1% and for a third offence 5%. As an alternative for well heeled individuals who could avoid tax I would apply a charge to their estate to paid when they die.

Repeal the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965

To repeal the 1965 Act removing the right of the courts to impose the death sentence on what were previously termed capital murderers – capital murder being murder committed in the course of or furtherance of theft; murder by shooting or explosion; murder while resisting arrest or during an escape; murder of a police or prison officer or persons assisting them; or two or more murders committed on different occasions.  Aspects of EU law preventing member states from restoring or introducing capital punishment would of course also need to be addressed.

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the 1965 Act removing the right of the courts to impose the death sentence on what were previously termed capital murderers – capital murder being murder committed in the course of or furtherance of theft; murder by shooting or explosion; murder while resisting arrest or during an escape; murder of a police or prison officer or persons assisting them; or two or more murders committed on different occasions.  Aspects of EU law preventing member states from restoring or introducing capital punishment would of course also need to be addressed.

Prison sentences could be served in the army instead of prison

Most criminals are young males. Young males from broken homes, with poor education and poor future prospects. They want nice things, but sadly resort to crime to get it.

Currently, when such a person commits a crime, they are either sent to prison for a few months (where they are among like minded criminals who "normalise" their criminal activities and teach them more advanced methods) or they are let back into the same communities that they have terrorised for months, on the tag system, where they can proudly show off their "tag" as a badge of honour to their peers.

It needs to change. Ken Clarke said that prisons aren't working. He's right. They're overcrowded with people whose lives are on pause, sleeping and waiting for food whilst watching tv' and playing on PlayStations.

We need to instill a sense of national pride and respect into these people. We need to place them into an environment that teaches them the skills they never learned. We need them to be surrounded by people they can look up to and have respect for. We need the condition to be "if you can't learn to work as part of this team, it could cost you your life tomorrow".

Conscript these wrongdoers into the army for the length of their sentence. Give them a uniform and boots and ship them out to the nearest drill camp in preparation for their duty of service either in the uk or abroad.

Let them complete an NVQ in engineeering, vehicle mechanics, catering or similar…basically teach them a trade whilst in the army. Let them learn from our respected soldiers before they return to our communties and let them come back into society reformed, re-educated and with a new found respect as well as a brighter future ahead.

Why is this idea important?

Most criminals are young males. Young males from broken homes, with poor education and poor future prospects. They want nice things, but sadly resort to crime to get it.

Currently, when such a person commits a crime, they are either sent to prison for a few months (where they are among like minded criminals who "normalise" their criminal activities and teach them more advanced methods) or they are let back into the same communities that they have terrorised for months, on the tag system, where they can proudly show off their "tag" as a badge of honour to their peers.

It needs to change. Ken Clarke said that prisons aren't working. He's right. They're overcrowded with people whose lives are on pause, sleeping and waiting for food whilst watching tv' and playing on PlayStations.

We need to instill a sense of national pride and respect into these people. We need to place them into an environment that teaches them the skills they never learned. We need them to be surrounded by people they can look up to and have respect for. We need the condition to be "if you can't learn to work as part of this team, it could cost you your life tomorrow".

Conscript these wrongdoers into the army for the length of their sentence. Give them a uniform and boots and ship them out to the nearest drill camp in preparation for their duty of service either in the uk or abroad.

Let them complete an NVQ in engineeering, vehicle mechanics, catering or similar…basically teach them a trade whilst in the army. Let them learn from our respected soldiers before they return to our communties and let them come back into society reformed, re-educated and with a new found respect as well as a brighter future ahead.

Tougher and fairer fines for criminals

Fines issued to criminals by the court are often very small in comparison to the amount of damage caused or property stolen. For example and individual who stolen a car and caused £1000’s of damage to other peoples cars while joy riding only for them to receive a £100 fine and a suspension.

This has to stop, criminals should be held accountable for a significant, if not the full cost of any damage done to another individuals property. This should include making good any damage and replacement of any property taken.

Obviously there will be additional cost to running a system like this for which an admin fee should be passed to the criminal.

Why is this idea important?

Fines issued to criminals by the court are often very small in comparison to the amount of damage caused or property stolen. For example and individual who stolen a car and caused £1000’s of damage to other peoples cars while joy riding only for them to receive a £100 fine and a suspension.

This has to stop, criminals should be held accountable for a significant, if not the full cost of any damage done to another individuals property. This should include making good any damage and replacement of any property taken.

Obviously there will be additional cost to running a system like this for which an admin fee should be passed to the criminal.

Legalisation and control of all drugs

If drugs were legalised and controlled by the government as alcohol is nowadays this would open up an increased revenue for the state and could help deal with Britain's debt and help with other public services. It would also take off 99% of all drug dealers off the street and it would mean clean and controlled substances would be made available. In addition to this, it would take away a lot of the glamour and mystery surrounding drugs and stop several people from ever getting involved. Controlled drugs mean a certain quality and quantity for sale can and should be fixed. A place to consume these drugs should also be designated and ensure anyone breaking these laws should be punished with a heavy fine. No child should be subjected to narcotics until they reach adulthood breaking this boundary should incur heavy fines and the like. Also people who pose a risk for others eg: those with mental health problems should not be sold narcotics. Changing the law would mean police time could be better spent tracking down dangerous criminals and deal with actual problems instead of a few kids smoking cannabis in a park. Although this is very brief and not incredibly accurate. The evidence is out there already and has been since the start of this war on drugs. I should not need to state the full case by myself.

Why is this idea important?

If drugs were legalised and controlled by the government as alcohol is nowadays this would open up an increased revenue for the state and could help deal with Britain's debt and help with other public services. It would also take off 99% of all drug dealers off the street and it would mean clean and controlled substances would be made available. In addition to this, it would take away a lot of the glamour and mystery surrounding drugs and stop several people from ever getting involved. Controlled drugs mean a certain quality and quantity for sale can and should be fixed. A place to consume these drugs should also be designated and ensure anyone breaking these laws should be punished with a heavy fine. No child should be subjected to narcotics until they reach adulthood breaking this boundary should incur heavy fines and the like. Also people who pose a risk for others eg: those with mental health problems should not be sold narcotics. Changing the law would mean police time could be better spent tracking down dangerous criminals and deal with actual problems instead of a few kids smoking cannabis in a park. Although this is very brief and not incredibly accurate. The evidence is out there already and has been since the start of this war on drugs. I should not need to state the full case by myself.

Remove human rights for convicted prisoners and deport crimial foreign nationals regardless of human rights

The fact that convicted prisoners are locked up indicates they are a menace to society. Therefore, if they cannot respect other peoples human right to security/safety, then remove all their rights to enable effective punishment. This would also generate a significant cost saving to the prison service.

As their time in jail comes to an end, introduce a rehabilitation plan (with human rights reinstated depending on behaviour).

For foreign nationals claiming they will be victimised upon return to their contry of origin – don't commit the crime here in the first place, simple. It is good for Britain to have a wide number of nationalities arriving on our shores, but abide by our rules or leave.

Why is this idea important?

The fact that convicted prisoners are locked up indicates they are a menace to society. Therefore, if they cannot respect other peoples human right to security/safety, then remove all their rights to enable effective punishment. This would also generate a significant cost saving to the prison service.

As their time in jail comes to an end, introduce a rehabilitation plan (with human rights reinstated depending on behaviour).

For foreign nationals claiming they will be victimised upon return to their contry of origin – don't commit the crime here in the first place, simple. It is good for Britain to have a wide number of nationalities arriving on our shores, but abide by our rules or leave.