s 226 and 228 CJA 2003 need abolishing or serious curtailing

Sections 226 and 228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 are the ones that provide for extended and indefinite sentences for public protection. This legislation was supposed to demonstrate the last government's ferocious approach to tackling crime and to respond to public concern about 'dangerous criminals' being released to molest the law abiding. The guidance that accompanied them was hopelessly broad and the provisions have been grossly overused. it is time to review them and, ideally, repeal them.

Why is this idea important?

Sections 226 and 228 Criminal Justice Act 2003 are the ones that provide for extended and indefinite sentences for public protection. This legislation was supposed to demonstrate the last government's ferocious approach to tackling crime and to respond to public concern about 'dangerous criminals' being released to molest the law abiding. The guidance that accompanied them was hopelessly broad and the provisions have been grossly overused. it is time to review them and, ideally, repeal them.

Overpopulated prisons – free non-violent offenders!

Our prisons are overpopulated yet we continue to incarcerate non-violent criminals.

Why not categorise criminals, leaving only the violent, criminally insane and child-abusers 'inside' and giving community service sentences to those who, for example, are (first-time?) offenders in theft/unarmed-burglary, motoring offences, embezzlement, etc.

Finding a job and reimbursing their victims, or doing community work, could be a condition of freedom, perhaps with compulsory education classes.

There would be less work for the Prison Probation Services, but these could be re-assigned to working within the community to ensure that those on community service fulfil their obligations.

Repeat offenders, however, could – as a last resort – face imprisonment.

Why is this idea important?

Our prisons are overpopulated yet we continue to incarcerate non-violent criminals.

Why not categorise criminals, leaving only the violent, criminally insane and child-abusers 'inside' and giving community service sentences to those who, for example, are (first-time?) offenders in theft/unarmed-burglary, motoring offences, embezzlement, etc.

Finding a job and reimbursing their victims, or doing community work, could be a condition of freedom, perhaps with compulsory education classes.

There would be less work for the Prison Probation Services, but these could be re-assigned to working within the community to ensure that those on community service fulfil their obligations.

Repeat offenders, however, could – as a last resort – face imprisonment.

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.