Do NOT bring back capital punishment and here’s why…

Horrific crimes often generate a knee jerk reaction resulting in a call for the resurrection of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. This is not the answer to crime in Britain and here is why.

1. The death penalty is often cited as being  a deterrent to crime. This is debatable but there is no conclusive evidence for this. The Southern United States has the highest execution rate in the country and also the highest murder rate. Chicken or egg? It hardly matters.

Some research suggests that far from deterring murders, capital punishment has a brutalising effect upon society and can actually increase the number of murders per year.

2. Why should people be kept in jail for the rest of their lives at the expense of the taxpayer? Believe it or not it's actually often more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. It cost the state of Florida $3 million to execute serial killer Ted Bundy, it would have cost $1.5 million to keep him in prison until he was 80.

This is due to the lengthy appeals process that MUST be undertaken in order to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death. Most defendants cannot afford the team of lawyers that are required for a capital case, so these must be provided by the state. This is very costly and can go on for years, sometimes decades while the appeals play out.

It is also more expensive to keep someone on death row than in the normal prison population. Condemned prisoners must be kept under almost 24 hour guard in solitary confinement. This is also far more expensive than life in prison.

3. No justice system is faultless. It's bad enough that people have spent years in prison before being found innocent on appeal. Executing someone is final and cannot be reversed. DNA evidence is not a magic bullet and was never intended to be. It merely provides a chronological narrative of movements. For more information on this search for 'the CSI effect'.

4. Having the death penalty for a crime where the victim does not die, such as paedophilia,is counter-productive. If the penalty is the same as if they victim dies, the perpetrator has no reason not to kill the victim to escape identification.

5. Either human life is sacred or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Once exceptions are made to human rights, it's a slippery slope.

6. Executing a murderer does not bring the victim back. Many victim's families in the United States have campaigned to save the life of their relative's killer, over their opposition to the death penalty.

Why is this idea important?

Horrific crimes often generate a knee jerk reaction resulting in a call for the resurrection of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. This is not the answer to crime in Britain and here is why.

1. The death penalty is often cited as being  a deterrent to crime. This is debatable but there is no conclusive evidence for this. The Southern United States has the highest execution rate in the country and also the highest murder rate. Chicken or egg? It hardly matters.

Some research suggests that far from deterring murders, capital punishment has a brutalising effect upon society and can actually increase the number of murders per year.

2. Why should people be kept in jail for the rest of their lives at the expense of the taxpayer? Believe it or not it's actually often more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. It cost the state of Florida $3 million to execute serial killer Ted Bundy, it would have cost $1.5 million to keep him in prison until he was 80.

This is due to the lengthy appeals process that MUST be undertaken in order to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death. Most defendants cannot afford the team of lawyers that are required for a capital case, so these must be provided by the state. This is very costly and can go on for years, sometimes decades while the appeals play out.

It is also more expensive to keep someone on death row than in the normal prison population. Condemned prisoners must be kept under almost 24 hour guard in solitary confinement. This is also far more expensive than life in prison.

3. No justice system is faultless. It's bad enough that people have spent years in prison before being found innocent on appeal. Executing someone is final and cannot be reversed. DNA evidence is not a magic bullet and was never intended to be. It merely provides a chronological narrative of movements. For more information on this search for 'the CSI effect'.

4. Having the death penalty for a crime where the victim does not die, such as paedophilia,is counter-productive. If the penalty is the same as if they victim dies, the perpetrator has no reason not to kill the victim to escape identification.

5. Either human life is sacred or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Once exceptions are made to human rights, it's a slippery slope.

6. Executing a murderer does not bring the victim back. Many victim's families in the United States have campaigned to save the life of their relative's killer, over their opposition to the death penalty.

Deport foreign criminals upon sentencing

If a foreign national commits a crime in this country and the conviction stipulates a prison sentence, they should be deported to their country of origin upon sentencing instead of being held in a British prison.

Why is this idea important?

If a foreign national commits a crime in this country and the conviction stipulates a prison sentence, they should be deported to their country of origin upon sentencing instead of being held in a British prison.

Treat prisonors like the EXPLOITED chinese

I think that prisoners should work for extremely low wage and in poor conditions to contribute to the countries' economy. Jobs that people are not willing to do such as making batteries. This will not only increase the GDP and GNP it will also attract businesses that require cheap labour.

Furthermore, because the prisoners will still be getting paid, they will have some money once they leave prison and there will less chance that they will return back to prison.

Furthermore, this reduces the amount of prison space needed because they can work in extreme climates such as the Sahara desert.

The scheme would only be open to those in prison up to five years. Any prisoners after the age will not be accepted unless they are under the age of 25.

The scheme will be operated like a business:

– It will be profitable

– HOWEVER, it will be run the government (or regulated)

– Promotions can be given

– Training will be provided so that the job can be carried on throughout the prisoners life outside the prison.

Although:

– Positions will not be negotiable.

– Pay cannot be increased unless the government say so

The possibilities are endless, the prisoners cost money and do not give anything back (apart from enforce the government to hire police officers). We need to drain money from them!!

Why is this idea important?

I think that prisoners should work for extremely low wage and in poor conditions to contribute to the countries' economy. Jobs that people are not willing to do such as making batteries. This will not only increase the GDP and GNP it will also attract businesses that require cheap labour.

Furthermore, because the prisoners will still be getting paid, they will have some money once they leave prison and there will less chance that they will return back to prison.

Furthermore, this reduces the amount of prison space needed because they can work in extreme climates such as the Sahara desert.

The scheme would only be open to those in prison up to five years. Any prisoners after the age will not be accepted unless they are under the age of 25.

The scheme will be operated like a business:

– It will be profitable

– HOWEVER, it will be run the government (or regulated)

– Promotions can be given

– Training will be provided so that the job can be carried on throughout the prisoners life outside the prison.

Although:

– Positions will not be negotiable.

– Pay cannot be increased unless the government say so

The possibilities are endless, the prisoners cost money and do not give anything back (apart from enforce the government to hire police officers). We need to drain money from them!!

Abolish the law that lets prisoners watch colour TV – allow black & white only

Prisoners have it too easy – they don't deserve colour TV. B&W should be enough for them. And the old B&W TV shows have more suitable moral values for these miscreants.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners have it too easy – they don't deserve colour TV. B&W should be enough for them. And the old B&W TV shows have more suitable moral values for these miscreants.

Why are prison sentences linked to time

I believe that a lot of crime is because people are poorly educated. How about linking the release to academic attainment as well as time. So – if you have a 10 year sentence you could be released after 6 years if you have moved say 2 levels up in English and Maths on the national curriculum. If you haven't you may be in there for 12. There may be other courses that can be built into this. 

Why is this idea important?

I believe that a lot of crime is because people are poorly educated. How about linking the release to academic attainment as well as time. So – if you have a 10 year sentence you could be released after 6 years if you have moved say 2 levels up in English and Maths on the national curriculum. If you haven't you may be in there for 12. There may be other courses that can be built into this. 

Offenders Humanright’s

Any person who is serving a custodial sentence for a committed crime should automatically loose all their humanrights with the exception of food & water and prisons should only provide their basic needs not a "holiday camp" enviroment. 

Why is this idea important?

Any person who is serving a custodial sentence for a committed crime should automatically loose all their humanrights with the exception of food & water and prisons should only provide their basic needs not a "holiday camp" enviroment. 

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

Change the rehabilitation of offenders act that anyone, irrespective of sentence, has a rehabiltation period. Due to the 30 month ruling, people sentenced to over 30 months cannot get home insurance, car insurance, jobs etc due to having to declare unspent convictions.

If a person sentenced to 29 months and 30 days can be rehabilitated how can a person, sentenced for the same crime, to a sentence of 30 months or over, not be rehabilitated. If a person over 30 months sentence cannot be rehabilitated then they should not be released back into the community. This government wants people off unemployment and into jobs then they are going to have to change the Rehabilitation of offenders act that any sentence has a rehabiltation period of non offending. one in every four people in the UK has a criminal record but a chance has to be given to people who are rehabilitated or whats the point.

Why is this idea important?

Change the rehabilitation of offenders act that anyone, irrespective of sentence, has a rehabiltation period. Due to the 30 month ruling, people sentenced to over 30 months cannot get home insurance, car insurance, jobs etc due to having to declare unspent convictions.

If a person sentenced to 29 months and 30 days can be rehabilitated how can a person, sentenced for the same crime, to a sentence of 30 months or over, not be rehabilitated. If a person over 30 months sentence cannot be rehabilitated then they should not be released back into the community. This government wants people off unemployment and into jobs then they are going to have to change the Rehabilitation of offenders act that any sentence has a rehabiltation period of non offending. one in every four people in the UK has a criminal record but a chance has to be given to people who are rehabilitated or whats the point.

Rehabilitation in prison

All prosons should have a rehabilitation centre to enable the prisoners to try and get help for the cries they have commited. Giving prisoners this opportunity would allow them to realise what they did was wrong and then as they spend there time serving for what they did they can learn the wrongs and rights , in hope that this will prevent future reofending as this is a major issue for britains prisoners.

Also, prisoners should study or leanr manual skills whilst serving their time so that when they are relieved from prison they have the right qualifications to do well if lie which could just be enough to turn around someone and give them hope that even though they messed up now they can do something in their life. Also, by completing such work in prison it will show future employers that yes thy spent time in prison but they have been reformed and now want to make something of their life instead of going on benifits and then returning to a life of crime.

Why is this idea important?

All prosons should have a rehabilitation centre to enable the prisoners to try and get help for the cries they have commited. Giving prisoners this opportunity would allow them to realise what they did was wrong and then as they spend there time serving for what they did they can learn the wrongs and rights , in hope that this will prevent future reofending as this is a major issue for britains prisoners.

Also, prisoners should study or leanr manual skills whilst serving their time so that when they are relieved from prison they have the right qualifications to do well if lie which could just be enough to turn around someone and give them hope that even though they messed up now they can do something in their life. Also, by completing such work in prison it will show future employers that yes thy spent time in prison but they have been reformed and now want to make something of their life instead of going on benifits and then returning to a life of crime.

Get rid of automatic parole.

Its time to stop sentencing criminals to spend time as guests of Her Majesty, then immediately reducing the sentence by up to 50% for 'good behaviour'. 

When a Judge or Magistrate passes sentence thats what the convicted person should be going to serve PROVIDED THEY BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Time can be added if they don't . behave. 

Also we need a proper life sentence seeing as we cannot (for good reasons) reintroduce the death penalty.  I would like to see a Whole of Life sentence which means just that. You will die in prison.  Do away with suggested minimum terms, you do what you get given.

Why is this idea important?

Its time to stop sentencing criminals to spend time as guests of Her Majesty, then immediately reducing the sentence by up to 50% for 'good behaviour'. 

When a Judge or Magistrate passes sentence thats what the convicted person should be going to serve PROVIDED THEY BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Time can be added if they don't . behave. 

Also we need a proper life sentence seeing as we cannot (for good reasons) reintroduce the death penalty.  I would like to see a Whole of Life sentence which means just that. You will die in prison.  Do away with suggested minimum terms, you do what you get given.

Get rid of automatic parole.

Its time to stop sentencing criminals to spend time as guests of Her Majesty, then immediately reducing the sentence by up to 50% for 'good behaviour'. 

When a Judge or Magistrate passes sentence thats what the convicted person should be going to serve PROVIDED THEY BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Time can be added if they don't . behave. 

Also we need a proper life sentence seeing as we cannot (for good reasons) reintroduce the death penalty.  I would like to see a Whole of Life sentence which means just that. You will die in prison.  Do away with suggested minimum terms, you do what you get given.

Why is this idea important?

Its time to stop sentencing criminals to spend time as guests of Her Majesty, then immediately reducing the sentence by up to 50% for 'good behaviour'. 

When a Judge or Magistrate passes sentence thats what the convicted person should be going to serve PROVIDED THEY BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Time can be added if they don't . behave. 

Also we need a proper life sentence seeing as we cannot (for good reasons) reintroduce the death penalty.  I would like to see a Whole of Life sentence which means just that. You will die in prison.  Do away with suggested minimum terms, you do what you get given.

Stop confiscating the State Pension from elderly prisoners

Few people are aware that elderly prisoners are deprived of the state pension to which most will have contributed for many years. Prison is not the life of luxury the newspapers would have you believe: the cost of extra food to supplement the very basic prison diet comes at highly inflated prices, as does the cost of phone calls to keep in touch with family. I have to fund my husband’s “living costs” from my own pension, as well as maintaining the family home and paying the cost of travel to prison visits, all on half our usual income. 

My husband paid into the state pension scheme for 50 years and had already been receiving his state pension for over 4 years at the time he was (wrongly) convicted. When any person is sent to prison the punishment is loss of freedom, but if that person is a pensioner he loses his freedom and his income.

The Department of Works & Pensions (DWP) say: “The Government considers that payment of benefit to prisoners is unnecessary. They are already maintained at considerable public expense and to pay benefit would amount to double provision”  and   “ Forfeiting benefit to which they may have contributed is commonly regarded as being a legitimate aspect of the punishment.”

The DWP do not explain (a) why a pension to which the recipient has contributed for many years is classed as a “benefit”, nor (b) why the elderly are the only group of prisoners forced to pay a huge fine imposed by the government in addition to the sentence imposed by the Court

This is not a minor problem. Men aged 60 and over is the fastest growing age group coming to prison, an increase of 145% between 1998 and 2008. For many it is for the first time, and they have already paid full contributions for the pension now denied to them. This is not “double provision”, it is “double punishment” and blatant discrimination against the old and vulnerable.

Why is this idea important?

Few people are aware that elderly prisoners are deprived of the state pension to which most will have contributed for many years. Prison is not the life of luxury the newspapers would have you believe: the cost of extra food to supplement the very basic prison diet comes at highly inflated prices, as does the cost of phone calls to keep in touch with family. I have to fund my husband’s “living costs” from my own pension, as well as maintaining the family home and paying the cost of travel to prison visits, all on half our usual income. 

My husband paid into the state pension scheme for 50 years and had already been receiving his state pension for over 4 years at the time he was (wrongly) convicted. When any person is sent to prison the punishment is loss of freedom, but if that person is a pensioner he loses his freedom and his income.

The Department of Works & Pensions (DWP) say: “The Government considers that payment of benefit to prisoners is unnecessary. They are already maintained at considerable public expense and to pay benefit would amount to double provision”  and   “ Forfeiting benefit to which they may have contributed is commonly regarded as being a legitimate aspect of the punishment.”

The DWP do not explain (a) why a pension to which the recipient has contributed for many years is classed as a “benefit”, nor (b) why the elderly are the only group of prisoners forced to pay a huge fine imposed by the government in addition to the sentence imposed by the Court

This is not a minor problem. Men aged 60 and over is the fastest growing age group coming to prison, an increase of 145% between 1998 and 2008. For many it is for the first time, and they have already paid full contributions for the pension now denied to them. This is not “double provision”, it is “double punishment” and blatant discrimination against the old and vulnerable.

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.

Restore transportation for lifers (use South Georgia in the Falkland Islands)

Anyone given a life term would be transported to South Georgia, which would become a giant open prison. Prisoners could support themselves through ariculture, hunting and fishing.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone given a life term would be transported to South Georgia, which would become a giant open prison. Prisoners could support themselves through ariculture, hunting and fishing.

The penal system should be focussed on rehabilitation and reintegration into society — NOT vengence

For the last three decades politicians have been making political capital out of building ever more prisons and imposing ever tougher sentences on offenders.

But prisons are a failure to society. (And politicians, who are not stupid, know this.) Prisons turn minor offenders into criminals and criminals into cleverer criminals. And they cost a fortune both in government funds and to society.

In Norway, by contrast, the criminal justice system is run on an entirely different model. On Balstoy island a rehabilitation centre houses a diversity of miscreants, from minor to serious. Inmates live in chalets and are free to go around the island. They can go horse-riding and skiing.

But they must work during the day. They are taught responsibility.  The island is guarded.

Result? A 20% recidivist rate. For prisons this figure is 60%.

So why on earth are our politicians bent on the expensive failing system of prison?

Votes. They are pandering to the vengence instincts of the baying mob to win popularity.

This is all cleverly packaged as “the rights of the victim”. But what right has any one victim to impose a system that will make more victims out of the rest of us? (Not to mention insufferable policing while we go about our business.)

We should adopt Norway’s model now.

Why is this idea important?

For the last three decades politicians have been making political capital out of building ever more prisons and imposing ever tougher sentences on offenders.

But prisons are a failure to society. (And politicians, who are not stupid, know this.) Prisons turn minor offenders into criminals and criminals into cleverer criminals. And they cost a fortune both in government funds and to society.

In Norway, by contrast, the criminal justice system is run on an entirely different model. On Balstoy island a rehabilitation centre houses a diversity of miscreants, from minor to serious. Inmates live in chalets and are free to go around the island. They can go horse-riding and skiing.

But they must work during the day. They are taught responsibility.  The island is guarded.

Result? A 20% recidivist rate. For prisons this figure is 60%.

So why on earth are our politicians bent on the expensive failing system of prison?

Votes. They are pandering to the vengence instincts of the baying mob to win popularity.

This is all cleverly packaged as “the rights of the victim”. But what right has any one victim to impose a system that will make more victims out of the rest of us? (Not to mention insufferable policing while we go about our business.)

We should adopt Norway’s model now.

When given a Life Sentence it should actually mean LIFE!!!

I believe that those who are given Life Sentences for the crime that they have committed should indeed have to serve life meaning that they die in prison.

Where is the justice in so many cases when you know a cold blooded killer will one day be allowed to roam the streets once more, as free as one of us.

That i believe is wrong. Dead Wrong. Murderers should never, ever be allowed to see the other side of a prison wall was convicted.

The House of Lords years ago, to strip the Home Secretary of the power to increase the length of time that murderers must serve before they can apply for parole. It seemed, on the face of it, an eminently sensible decision that will remove from politicians the temptation to chase votes by making effortless "tough-man" decisions to win the approval of the tabloid press. But there is more to this than initially meets the eye-for-an-eye.

Life imprisonment has always been something of a misnomer. The term came about at the time of the abolition of the death penalty. In the days when judicial hanging was still legal, it was common ­ where there were particularly mitigating circumstances ­ for those who had been found guilty of murder to have their death sentences commuted, by royal prerogative, to one of imprisonment for life. But since, by definition, this happened only to those with immensely extenuating circumstances, it happened that public and governmental sympathy was such that the offenders were often released after eight or nine years.

With the Murder (Death Penalty Abolition) Act of 1965, all sentences of hanging were replaced by mandatory life imprisonment. This one sentence covers all offences ­ from the sadistic torture of children to those crimes we now know as mercy killings. Which is why the "life" sentence takes as its guideline starting point imprisonment for 14 years, though this is routinely reduced to 12 years in cases of lesser seriousness and often extended to 16 years.

Yet it has a downside. The idea of a tariff evolved under a series of home secretaries in the Thatcher years. It has come to be seen as the "punishment, retribution and deterrence" element of the sentence. Once that is served, the only function of jail is to protect the public, so if offenders are at that point deemed to be of no danger to the community, they may be allowed to apply for parole.

The trouble here comes with those prisoners who insist that they are innocent. The Parole Board, in all its public policy statements, insists that it "can, and does, direct or recommend the release of prisoners who deny their guilt, where the level of risk they present to the public is acceptable".

But the rider at the end of that last sentence is often taken to mean, in practice, that continued protestations of innocence reveal the prisoner doesn't possess the remorse that is a precondition for parole. The result of that, as we saw only this month, can be that injustice is magnified, as it was in the case of Robert Brown who had his conviction quashed after 25 years in jail ­ the last 10 of which he could have avoided if only he had agreed to lie to the Parole Board and admit his guilt.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that those who are given Life Sentences for the crime that they have committed should indeed have to serve life meaning that they die in prison.

Where is the justice in so many cases when you know a cold blooded killer will one day be allowed to roam the streets once more, as free as one of us.

That i believe is wrong. Dead Wrong. Murderers should never, ever be allowed to see the other side of a prison wall was convicted.

The House of Lords years ago, to strip the Home Secretary of the power to increase the length of time that murderers must serve before they can apply for parole. It seemed, on the face of it, an eminently sensible decision that will remove from politicians the temptation to chase votes by making effortless "tough-man" decisions to win the approval of the tabloid press. But there is more to this than initially meets the eye-for-an-eye.

Life imprisonment has always been something of a misnomer. The term came about at the time of the abolition of the death penalty. In the days when judicial hanging was still legal, it was common ­ where there were particularly mitigating circumstances ­ for those who had been found guilty of murder to have their death sentences commuted, by royal prerogative, to one of imprisonment for life. But since, by definition, this happened only to those with immensely extenuating circumstances, it happened that public and governmental sympathy was such that the offenders were often released after eight or nine years.

With the Murder (Death Penalty Abolition) Act of 1965, all sentences of hanging were replaced by mandatory life imprisonment. This one sentence covers all offences ­ from the sadistic torture of children to those crimes we now know as mercy killings. Which is why the "life" sentence takes as its guideline starting point imprisonment for 14 years, though this is routinely reduced to 12 years in cases of lesser seriousness and often extended to 16 years.

Yet it has a downside. The idea of a tariff evolved under a series of home secretaries in the Thatcher years. It has come to be seen as the "punishment, retribution and deterrence" element of the sentence. Once that is served, the only function of jail is to protect the public, so if offenders are at that point deemed to be of no danger to the community, they may be allowed to apply for parole.

The trouble here comes with those prisoners who insist that they are innocent. The Parole Board, in all its public policy statements, insists that it "can, and does, direct or recommend the release of prisoners who deny their guilt, where the level of risk they present to the public is acceptable".

But the rider at the end of that last sentence is often taken to mean, in practice, that continued protestations of innocence reveal the prisoner doesn't possess the remorse that is a precondition for parole. The result of that, as we saw only this month, can be that injustice is magnified, as it was in the case of Robert Brown who had his conviction quashed after 25 years in jail ­ the last 10 of which he could have avoided if only he had agreed to lie to the Parole Board and admit his guilt.

REALISTIC PRISON SENTENCING WITHOUT PAROLE

Prison sentencing is very much about bringing some sort of closure to the unfortunate victims.  

A 5 year sentence does not eradicate the crime in the mind of the victim, or ease the pain and memory, but it can give a sense and understanding that justice has been done.   How devastating it is for the victim to find out that the criminal is released 'on good behaviour' and only serving up to half of the sentence imposed.

The punishment should fit the crime and I feel that the judge should set an actual time frame that will be adhered to.   

To get out on the grounds of good behaviour is nannying to the criminals.     Surely, society expects good behaviour from prisoners as a matter of norm and should not be used to reduce the length of the sentence.     The attitude to good behaviour should be the other way round, in that for bad behaviour a prisoner should have his day to day privileges curtailed.

This will mean more prisoners staying longer in prison but with Ken Clarke's excellent proposals on how to deal with lesser crimes this should free-up the required space.

Also, this will give clarity to sentencing making for clearer and better understanding by all concerned.

Why is this idea important?

Prison sentencing is very much about bringing some sort of closure to the unfortunate victims.  

A 5 year sentence does not eradicate the crime in the mind of the victim, or ease the pain and memory, but it can give a sense and understanding that justice has been done.   How devastating it is for the victim to find out that the criminal is released 'on good behaviour' and only serving up to half of the sentence imposed.

The punishment should fit the crime and I feel that the judge should set an actual time frame that will be adhered to.   

To get out on the grounds of good behaviour is nannying to the criminals.     Surely, society expects good behaviour from prisoners as a matter of norm and should not be used to reduce the length of the sentence.     The attitude to good behaviour should be the other way round, in that for bad behaviour a prisoner should have his day to day privileges curtailed.

This will mean more prisoners staying longer in prison but with Ken Clarke's excellent proposals on how to deal with lesser crimes this should free-up the required space.

Also, this will give clarity to sentencing making for clearer and better understanding by all concerned.

Bring back corporal punishment

As there seems to no deterrent to minor criminal acts, as prison usually creates a martyr of anybody who receives a sentence. Bring back the CANE and use it for these types of crimes.

This seems old-fashioned but I never knew of anybody re-offending after receiving strokes from the cane.

Possibly introduce it’s use on a regular basis in prison (monthly), this would stop people from returning to prison. Do away with ASBOS and give the miscreants strokes with the cane- they will not be in such a hurry to re-offend.

Why is this idea important?

As there seems to no deterrent to minor criminal acts, as prison usually creates a martyr of anybody who receives a sentence. Bring back the CANE and use it for these types of crimes.

This seems old-fashioned but I never knew of anybody re-offending after receiving strokes from the cane.

Possibly introduce it’s use on a regular basis in prison (monthly), this would stop people from returning to prison. Do away with ASBOS and give the miscreants strokes with the cane- they will not be in such a hurry to re-offend.

Prison should primarily be a Punishment and once completed a course for Rehabilitation

Prisoners seem to get off far too easily in the modern system.  I belive there should be a 2-stage approach to prison, stage 1 is punishment (say 75% of the term), stage 2 is rehab (say 25% of the term).

At present criminals don't receive the punishment section!!  If they don't get off completely, they get reduced term sentences; all whilst the victim / victims family still suffer the grief.  Criminals should pay for their actions.  All assets (subject to it not affecting any dependents) should be seized by the state, sold and the money paid to the victim and paid towards their stay in prison.

Prisons should operate a work system whereby dependent on the prisoners classing (low / medium / high security) they should be required to tend to there own crops for a portion of the food they eat, work on local farms, work in chain gangs, work for the community picking up litter, we could even re-open and get them working down the coal mines!!  Things that could earn the prison as a whole money, money that can be used to pay for it's running costs.  Why should the taxpayer be forced to fund some low-life child rapist? Why should the taxpayer pay for that said rapist to have a satelite tv, a pool table, brand new gym equipment and 'excercise time', state of the art facilities etc.  These are criminals and should be punished for what they have done.

Once the punishment sentence is over, the rehabilitation process can begin.  This last 25% of their term in prison can be used to teach them, GCSE's, Diploma's, Trades etc. This can give them some self-respect and through this community respect.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners seem to get off far too easily in the modern system.  I belive there should be a 2-stage approach to prison, stage 1 is punishment (say 75% of the term), stage 2 is rehab (say 25% of the term).

At present criminals don't receive the punishment section!!  If they don't get off completely, they get reduced term sentences; all whilst the victim / victims family still suffer the grief.  Criminals should pay for their actions.  All assets (subject to it not affecting any dependents) should be seized by the state, sold and the money paid to the victim and paid towards their stay in prison.

Prisons should operate a work system whereby dependent on the prisoners classing (low / medium / high security) they should be required to tend to there own crops for a portion of the food they eat, work on local farms, work in chain gangs, work for the community picking up litter, we could even re-open and get them working down the coal mines!!  Things that could earn the prison as a whole money, money that can be used to pay for it's running costs.  Why should the taxpayer be forced to fund some low-life child rapist? Why should the taxpayer pay for that said rapist to have a satelite tv, a pool table, brand new gym equipment and 'excercise time', state of the art facilities etc.  These are criminals and should be punished for what they have done.

Once the punishment sentence is over, the rehabilitation process can begin.  This last 25% of their term in prison can be used to teach them, GCSE's, Diploma's, Trades etc. This can give them some self-respect and through this community respect.

Education and the creative use of cannabis

Because it's illegal, it isn't possible to educate people into its safe and positive uses.

Drug use is not the same as drug abuse.

There are many who do know how to use it well, for relaxation, fun, pain relief, and to aid the states of imaginative concentration so valuable to musicians, artists and software designers (without it, we probably wouldn't have personal computers or the internet). 

There are others who out of ignorance mix their drugs and dangerously lose control.

There are yet others who out of ignorance, fear and bigotry insist on enforcing irrational control on normal people.

The substance is a hypnotic.  It restores natural sensitivity to whatever you're up to, expanding your awareness of that and letting you turn the rest of the world down.

If all you do is smoke and then watch TV, of course you go psychotic, because that's the way of the Media, to terrify people into accepting control and buying more stuff.

If you know smoking it makes you into a criminal, you feel more and more excluded from society.

The alternative is to learn how to use it well, which depends on a freedom to educate.

Why is this idea important?

Because it's illegal, it isn't possible to educate people into its safe and positive uses.

Drug use is not the same as drug abuse.

There are many who do know how to use it well, for relaxation, fun, pain relief, and to aid the states of imaginative concentration so valuable to musicians, artists and software designers (without it, we probably wouldn't have personal computers or the internet). 

There are others who out of ignorance mix their drugs and dangerously lose control.

There are yet others who out of ignorance, fear and bigotry insist on enforcing irrational control on normal people.

The substance is a hypnotic.  It restores natural sensitivity to whatever you're up to, expanding your awareness of that and letting you turn the rest of the world down.

If all you do is smoke and then watch TV, of course you go psychotic, because that's the way of the Media, to terrify people into accepting control and buying more stuff.

If you know smoking it makes you into a criminal, you feel more and more excluded from society.

The alternative is to learn how to use it well, which depends on a freedom to educate.

Free The Naked Rambler

Why keep someone in prison for life, just because they refuse to wear clothes,

Stephen Gough, has been told, that he will spend life behind bars, if he refuses to wear clothes, and by life, they mean life, not a twelve year tariff, a whole life tariff, made up of short sentences, followed by a few seconds of freedom, before re arrest. 

This is an extremely imature attitude of the judiciary towards him, and attitude that reaks of "we are the toughest gang, you are going to obey us, you will never win, we will"

Make the judiciary grow up, send the guy on his way, and save us, the thirty thousand pounds a year it costs to keep the guy in jail, not to mention the re prosecution costs, every twelve months or so.

 

Why is this idea important?

Why keep someone in prison for life, just because they refuse to wear clothes,

Stephen Gough, has been told, that he will spend life behind bars, if he refuses to wear clothes, and by life, they mean life, not a twelve year tariff, a whole life tariff, made up of short sentences, followed by a few seconds of freedom, before re arrest. 

This is an extremely imature attitude of the judiciary towards him, and attitude that reaks of "we are the toughest gang, you are going to obey us, you will never win, we will"

Make the judiciary grow up, send the guy on his way, and save us, the thirty thousand pounds a year it costs to keep the guy in jail, not to mention the re prosecution costs, every twelve months or so.

 

Rights of Victims

Get rid of the of the laws which give criminals more rights than their victims.

A felon who commits a crime and is sentenced, should lose all their rights until the sentence is served in full, and the do gooders who bray like donkeys for these criminals to have rights should be made to serve a sentence alongside them.

Castrate all child molesters

 

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the of the laws which give criminals more rights than their victims.

A felon who commits a crime and is sentenced, should lose all their rights until the sentence is served in full, and the do gooders who bray like donkeys for these criminals to have rights should be made to serve a sentence alongside them.

Castrate all child molesters