prisoners paying back the country

Send life time prisoners out to serve their country, put them in the army.Make them serve their sentance by fighting for the country they live in.Make short term prisoners clean the streets, help the community, clean graffittit ect.

Why is this idea important?

Send life time prisoners out to serve their country, put them in the army.Make them serve their sentance by fighting for the country they live in.Make short term prisoners clean the streets, help the community, clean graffittit ect.

Use offenders on Community Service to increase recylcing levels and ensure that real work is done.

At my local recycling centre the majority of stuff brought in seems still to go to landfill because it is mixed (e.g. plastic and metal). In the third world recycling rates often approach 90% because of rubbish pickers who break just about everything into usable constituent parts. Clearly, with staff on at least minimum wage, it is not in the interest of most of the waste handling companies to, for example, separate the metal from the wood on an old trouser press I found in my loft – which went to landfill. But someone on  community service could have separateed the wood and the metal. Further, there has been a great deal of complaint about people on CS (community payback etc.) not actually doing anything. Rather than measuring hours of elapsed time which may or may not represent any real work, offenders could be sentenced to recover a certain weight, volume or value of material from items that would otherwise go to landfill. This would result in a fairer punishment (if you do no work, your "sentence" doesn't go down) , no loss of jobs at recycling sentence and a considerable reduction in materials going to landfill. With a nationwide scheme all kinds of materials could be collected that are currently not always used e.g. rag, type 5 plastic etc.

Why is this idea important?

At my local recycling centre the majority of stuff brought in seems still to go to landfill because it is mixed (e.g. plastic and metal). In the third world recycling rates often approach 90% because of rubbish pickers who break just about everything into usable constituent parts. Clearly, with staff on at least minimum wage, it is not in the interest of most of the waste handling companies to, for example, separate the metal from the wood on an old trouser press I found in my loft – which went to landfill. But someone on  community service could have separateed the wood and the metal. Further, there has been a great deal of complaint about people on CS (community payback etc.) not actually doing anything. Rather than measuring hours of elapsed time which may or may not represent any real work, offenders could be sentenced to recover a certain weight, volume or value of material from items that would otherwise go to landfill. This would result in a fairer punishment (if you do no work, your "sentence" doesn't go down) , no loss of jobs at recycling sentence and a considerable reduction in materials going to landfill. With a nationwide scheme all kinds of materials could be collected that are currently not always used e.g. rag, type 5 plastic etc.

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

Tagging vs Prison

I support tagging of minor offenders to prevent costly prison sentances and the potential harm that this can do to the individuals chances of being a positively contributing memeber of society.

Tagging should not be an easy option, it must be enforced and be a real punishment. So those tagged ought to have their freedom curtailed by being required to do community service at least 4 sessions per week (definitely Fridays and Saturdays) and unless the individual has a night-shift job, then the sessions should be early evening through to relatively late at night. This would enable the offender to continue working (and not be a burden on society). Those offenders with relatively long sentances that demonstrate remorse and committment to the community service could rise to become trustees and in this position help administer the scheme and potentially counsel others.

The remainder of their tagged leisure time should be spent at theri home address.

Why is this idea important?

I support tagging of minor offenders to prevent costly prison sentances and the potential harm that this can do to the individuals chances of being a positively contributing memeber of society.

Tagging should not be an easy option, it must be enforced and be a real punishment. So those tagged ought to have their freedom curtailed by being required to do community service at least 4 sessions per week (definitely Fridays and Saturdays) and unless the individual has a night-shift job, then the sessions should be early evening through to relatively late at night. This would enable the offender to continue working (and not be a burden on society). Those offenders with relatively long sentances that demonstrate remorse and committment to the community service could rise to become trustees and in this position help administer the scheme and potentially counsel others.

The remainder of their tagged leisure time should be spent at theri home address.

Removal of All SPENT Criminal Records from PNC, etc

If British society truly believes in rehabilitation (and I often doubt it does) then when a conviction becomes SPENT  the record should be removed from the PNC, local police databases, IDENT 1 fingerprint and photograph databases.

The weeding of this information will save money. And it would allow those individuals who have rehabilitated themselves to move on with their lives -and contribute to this new "Big Society" that the government talks about.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is outdated and needs to be brought up to date to reflect CRB, ISA, ECHR (Human Rights Laws).

Furthermore, court records must also be subject to weeding – fully subject to the Data Protection Act.

 

Why is this idea important?

If British society truly believes in rehabilitation (and I often doubt it does) then when a conviction becomes SPENT  the record should be removed from the PNC, local police databases, IDENT 1 fingerprint and photograph databases.

The weeding of this information will save money. And it would allow those individuals who have rehabilitated themselves to move on with their lives -and contribute to this new "Big Society" that the government talks about.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is outdated and needs to be brought up to date to reflect CRB, ISA, ECHR (Human Rights Laws).

Furthermore, court records must also be subject to weeding – fully subject to the Data Protection Act.

 

Employment and Privacy on Convictions

Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.

Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.

The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.

This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.

And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.

But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.

In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).

Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=search&lang=en&catId=2590&parentId=0

Why is this idea important?

Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.

Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.

The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.

This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.

And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.

But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.

In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).

Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=search&lang=en&catId=2590&parentId=0

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Helping Prisoners Reform Their Lives

Contact with animals is beneficial for most people.  Prisons often have a large amount of land and a lot of people with time on their hands.  Animal sanctuaries are often short of money, help and space.  Why not let prisoners look after unwanted animals until they can be re-homed.  They would pick up useful skills, and enjoy the unconditional affection provided by the animals.

Why is this idea important?

Contact with animals is beneficial for most people.  Prisons often have a large amount of land and a lot of people with time on their hands.  Animal sanctuaries are often short of money, help and space.  Why not let prisoners look after unwanted animals until they can be re-homed.  They would pick up useful skills, and enjoy the unconditional affection provided by the animals.

removing trivial, old offences from enhanced disclosure

remove trivial, old offences-say more than 5 years old from criminal records. Use technology to keep the fingerprints and DNA- but 'hide' the identity details so that lives are not blighted by trivial offences that are more than 5 years old- so long as they were not for serious offences such as sexual, murder etc. There should be a clean sheet- even countries like the USA should not be able to get the information after 5 years for trivial offences. The UK should learn to stick up for itself and its Citizens- if the Government are cowardly and timid, what hope is there for the country? 

 I have seen many people who are unable to get work because so many jobs even where there is no danger to anyone because of someone's old, spent and minor offences -have to be disclosed.  for example a young 23 year old man used his boss' garage to do private work for customers on their cars -he was taken to court for theft and could not find any other work in a garage because he had to disclose the offence- he could not travel abroad. He ended up committing more offences because he could not get work- a waste of tax payers money and his life

Why is this idea important?

remove trivial, old offences-say more than 5 years old from criminal records. Use technology to keep the fingerprints and DNA- but 'hide' the identity details so that lives are not blighted by trivial offences that are more than 5 years old- so long as they were not for serious offences such as sexual, murder etc. There should be a clean sheet- even countries like the USA should not be able to get the information after 5 years for trivial offences. The UK should learn to stick up for itself and its Citizens- if the Government are cowardly and timid, what hope is there for the country? 

 I have seen many people who are unable to get work because so many jobs even where there is no danger to anyone because of someone's old, spent and minor offences -have to be disclosed.  for example a young 23 year old man used his boss' garage to do private work for customers on their cars -he was taken to court for theft and could not find any other work in a garage because he had to disclose the offence- he could not travel abroad. He ended up committing more offences because he could not get work- a waste of tax payers money and his life

Justice for victims

I wish to suggest repealing the legislation which allows convicted criminals to appeal against     compensation orders awarded by the courts.

Having been a victim of crime, I was appalled when I was told that the offender, who had been given 6 months in prison for 5 offences of receiving goods by deception, had appealed against the compensation orders which would merely have reimbursed the victims for the amounts they had lost as a result of these crimes.

I refused to agree to this request but don't know what happened after that because I did not receive any further communication from the court. The offender was released from prison after about 2 months without paying a penny in compensation and the court refused to provide any information regarding his whereabouts to enable the victims to pursue a civil claim.     

   

Why is this idea important?

I wish to suggest repealing the legislation which allows convicted criminals to appeal against     compensation orders awarded by the courts.

Having been a victim of crime, I was appalled when I was told that the offender, who had been given 6 months in prison for 5 offences of receiving goods by deception, had appealed against the compensation orders which would merely have reimbursed the victims for the amounts they had lost as a result of these crimes.

I refused to agree to this request but don't know what happened after that because I did not receive any further communication from the court. The offender was released from prison after about 2 months without paying a penny in compensation and the court refused to provide any information regarding his whereabouts to enable the victims to pursue a civil claim.     

   

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.

End the use of extended sentences

A person who has a prison sentence of a short time has the hope to reform and become
a ex-offender, however its possible for a person who has a one year prison sentence to
to have many more years added to the original sentence with the use of a extended sentence
so will have no hope of becoming a ex offender and from that the sentence will never
become spent and from this more problems come to light, like the no hope of finding work
and having a stable life, if the person does not have work or a stable life they stand a chance
to re-offend as they have nothing to lose.

I am now looking at Sky news with the shootings in Northumbia who is classed by the news
as a ex-criminal but who has also said he has no future and lost everything in his life and i
feel this will happen more as he has lost all that he had in life, so yes as can be seen he has
now gone back to crime as he has nothing to lose. If he had a chance of a normal life its
possible that the events that are going on will not happen.

In psychology there is a “ maslow’s pyramid” that sets out what people need in life and
by many people not having a chance in life due to the extended sentence and that is a additional
sentence how come you can be punished more than one time for one offence?

Its also known that many people in prison have problems, so a extended sentence will give
more problems by never being able to be a ex criminal even tho prison may help them
as well as probation deal with problems they may have and its help they need not prison.

Its also known that the UK lock more people up that other EU countries.

What i would like to see is, if a person is handed a one year sentence than that's that, if they
re-offend then yes they will go back to prison and for longer that next time, this way its upto
the offender knowing what to expect if they do re-offend.

Also if the ex-criminal can get work then that's less people on the dole and the person
could lead a normal life and this fact is know by the home office, but it was the Labour
Party that made the extended sentence, what they have done is make it harder for people
with a short sentence to lead a normal life “ after paying for there crime”

Law should be equal for everyone so its not right that SOME people can get a extended
sentence and others not as in the results of this are some people get a chance to turn
there life around and others will not.
 

Why is this idea important?

A person who has a prison sentence of a short time has the hope to reform and become
a ex-offender, however its possible for a person who has a one year prison sentence to
to have many more years added to the original sentence with the use of a extended sentence
so will have no hope of becoming a ex offender and from that the sentence will never
become spent and from this more problems come to light, like the no hope of finding work
and having a stable life, if the person does not have work or a stable life they stand a chance
to re-offend as they have nothing to lose.

I am now looking at Sky news with the shootings in Northumbia who is classed by the news
as a ex-criminal but who has also said he has no future and lost everything in his life and i
feel this will happen more as he has lost all that he had in life, so yes as can be seen he has
now gone back to crime as he has nothing to lose. If he had a chance of a normal life its
possible that the events that are going on will not happen.

In psychology there is a “ maslow’s pyramid” that sets out what people need in life and
by many people not having a chance in life due to the extended sentence and that is a additional
sentence how come you can be punished more than one time for one offence?

Its also known that many people in prison have problems, so a extended sentence will give
more problems by never being able to be a ex criminal even tho prison may help them
as well as probation deal with problems they may have and its help they need not prison.

Its also known that the UK lock more people up that other EU countries.

What i would like to see is, if a person is handed a one year sentence than that's that, if they
re-offend then yes they will go back to prison and for longer that next time, this way its upto
the offender knowing what to expect if they do re-offend.

Also if the ex-criminal can get work then that's less people on the dole and the person
could lead a normal life and this fact is know by the home office, but it was the Labour
Party that made the extended sentence, what they have done is make it harder for people
with a short sentence to lead a normal life “ after paying for there crime”

Law should be equal for everyone so its not right that SOME people can get a extended
sentence and others not as in the results of this are some people get a chance to turn
there life around and others will not.
 

Scale back CRB checks

CRB checks should be restricted only to people who work directly and regularly with children. They should also be scaled back so that the only offences revealed in a check are relevant ones, eg: sexual offences or violent offences against children.

Why is this idea important?

CRB checks should be restricted only to people who work directly and regularly with children. They should also be scaled back so that the only offences revealed in a check are relevant ones, eg: sexual offences or violent offences against children.

Prisoners To Do Charity Work

I believe it would be a good idea to give prisoners the option of reducing their sentance a little, if they manage to achieve a set amount of charity work. This may involve producing hand made nets for protecting crops, making useful tools, tents or cultivating plants for example.

Why is this idea important?

I believe it would be a good idea to give prisoners the option of reducing their sentance a little, if they manage to achieve a set amount of charity work. This may involve producing hand made nets for protecting crops, making useful tools, tents or cultivating plants for example.

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.

THE SEX OFFENDERS ACT

I feel this need not be abolished but a total review a sex offender can be given a very short sentence spend seven years on the Register but still be hounded by authourities several years later even though they have not committed any further crimes and given no help to deal with their offending behaviour. If they were a credit card fraudster or someone that robbed and beat up old people five yrs after leaving prison if they committed no further offence they would be classed as rehabilitated.

Why is this idea important?

I feel this need not be abolished but a total review a sex offender can be given a very short sentence spend seven years on the Register but still be hounded by authourities several years later even though they have not committed any further crimes and given no help to deal with their offending behaviour. If they were a credit card fraudster or someone that robbed and beat up old people five yrs after leaving prison if they committed no further offence they would be classed as rehabilitated.

Criminal records should be deleted after a suitable period

Criminal records are currently kept on the police computers for 100 years. This does not allow a person with a criminal record to become rehabilitated and find work without their past record being known. There are many well qualified people with criminal records that are spent, but still cannot find work. Why not delete criminal records after a suitable period and allow these people to find work, and get on with their lives.

Why is this idea important?

Criminal records are currently kept on the police computers for 100 years. This does not allow a person with a criminal record to become rehabilitated and find work without their past record being known. There are many well qualified people with criminal records that are spent, but still cannot find work. Why not delete criminal records after a suitable period and allow these people to find work, and get on with their lives.

Spent convictions table and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

The whole matter of spent convictions, their retention on CRB and police files and the obligation for offenders to disclose them needs urgent review.    Offences should be categorised along with a table of time limits, beyond which those offences are automatically removed from the records.

In particular, concern should be shown about indictments against young people, where the need to rehabilitate carries even greater import.

Sensible rehabilitation must mean sensible rehabilitation …  and the law must be seen as having been enacted in good faith.   

Why is this idea important?

The whole matter of spent convictions, their retention on CRB and police files and the obligation for offenders to disclose them needs urgent review.    Offences should be categorised along with a table of time limits, beyond which those offences are automatically removed from the records.

In particular, concern should be shown about indictments against young people, where the need to rehabilitate carries even greater import.

Sensible rehabilitation must mean sensible rehabilitation …  and the law must be seen as having been enacted in good faith.   

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.

CRB checks and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974)

 Most sensible people are in favour of measures that promote the safety and security of children and vulnerable adults. However, vetting legislation has gone too far and it is making a mockery of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA).

The ROA was a piece of progressive legislation, designed to give a second chance to individuals who had committed minor offences which, in time, could become ‘spent’. This meant that the slate would be wiped clean and that, with a few exceptions, an ex-offender was free to secure employment without too many problems. Serious offences can never become spent.

Unfortunately, over time, so much vetting and barring legislation has been passed to make the ROA almost meaningless. CRB checks have been in place for a long time, but they used to be restricted to people working in direct contact with children or vulnerable adults: e.g. teachers and social workers. Now, CRB checks are the norm for practically all NHS and education positions (from cooks to cleaners, from admin assistants to electricians) and for many other public sector jobs. All CRB checks in England contain information about spent convictions. This means that people in their forties with decade old spent convictions have problems with employment.

 In addition to spent convictions, there are other major issues:

  1.  With enhanced CRB checks, all sorts of incidents and allegations that did not result in prosecution or conviction can be made available to an employer.
  2.  Some employers ask for CRB checks for roles that do not require them, effectively using the vetting system as a form of recruitment selection.
  3.  The CRB is aware that some employers abuse the system but turn a blind eye to it.

It’s easy to see the need to ensure that anyone who has been convicted of a sexual assault may be unsuitable for work with children or vulnerable adults, and that such a crime should continue to show up permanently on CRB checks. What causes concern is that people with old  and spent convictions for offences which did not involve harm to children or vulnerable adults, should be in a position years later, where what they did when they were young still comes back to cause problems.

Spent convictions should really be spent and employers should not have access to them. In fact, they should be wiped from the Police National Computer database.

Why is this idea important?

 Most sensible people are in favour of measures that promote the safety and security of children and vulnerable adults. However, vetting legislation has gone too far and it is making a mockery of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA).

The ROA was a piece of progressive legislation, designed to give a second chance to individuals who had committed minor offences which, in time, could become ‘spent’. This meant that the slate would be wiped clean and that, with a few exceptions, an ex-offender was free to secure employment without too many problems. Serious offences can never become spent.

Unfortunately, over time, so much vetting and barring legislation has been passed to make the ROA almost meaningless. CRB checks have been in place for a long time, but they used to be restricted to people working in direct contact with children or vulnerable adults: e.g. teachers and social workers. Now, CRB checks are the norm for practically all NHS and education positions (from cooks to cleaners, from admin assistants to electricians) and for many other public sector jobs. All CRB checks in England contain information about spent convictions. This means that people in their forties with decade old spent convictions have problems with employment.

 In addition to spent convictions, there are other major issues:

  1.  With enhanced CRB checks, all sorts of incidents and allegations that did not result in prosecution or conviction can be made available to an employer.
  2.  Some employers ask for CRB checks for roles that do not require them, effectively using the vetting system as a form of recruitment selection.
  3.  The CRB is aware that some employers abuse the system but turn a blind eye to it.

It’s easy to see the need to ensure that anyone who has been convicted of a sexual assault may be unsuitable for work with children or vulnerable adults, and that such a crime should continue to show up permanently on CRB checks. What causes concern is that people with old  and spent convictions for offences which did not involve harm to children or vulnerable adults, should be in a position years later, where what they did when they were young still comes back to cause problems.

Spent convictions should really be spent and employers should not have access to them. In fact, they should be wiped from the Police National Computer database.

Drugs and prostitution

Legalise all drugs and tax them. Use every penny of tax paid on them to fund rehabilitation and direct advertising of the dangers (in real non scare terms). This is a win win win situation. People who do this to themselves won't be cast out of society. The dealers with guns will go away and the drugs themselves will pay for the rehabilitation programmes. Label alcohol and tobacco as drugs and treat them the same. Ban all advertising of all drugs (including alcohol)  to protect people who want to leave the drugs alone. Have a legal age of use based on science rather than politics. Impose strict penalties on publicans and off sales who sell to young people or to people who are completely wasted. Add a minimum price per unit on all drugs – including alcohol. This extra tax should go towards rehabilitation. 

Legalise prostitution but impose strict procedures to ensure the people involved are protected .Tax it  and pay the money into both welfare schemes (such as education and training and drug rehabilitation programmes. Impose proper sentences for people caught trafficking (i.e. life in prison). Make all brothels closely regulated and controlled. If people are brought to the country and repeatedly raped many times a day when found they should be treated with dignity and allowed to stop here with lots of help rather than treated as illegal immigrants. Severity punish anyone working outside of the state control.  

Why is this idea important?

Legalise all drugs and tax them. Use every penny of tax paid on them to fund rehabilitation and direct advertising of the dangers (in real non scare terms). This is a win win win situation. People who do this to themselves won't be cast out of society. The dealers with guns will go away and the drugs themselves will pay for the rehabilitation programmes. Label alcohol and tobacco as drugs and treat them the same. Ban all advertising of all drugs (including alcohol)  to protect people who want to leave the drugs alone. Have a legal age of use based on science rather than politics. Impose strict penalties on publicans and off sales who sell to young people or to people who are completely wasted. Add a minimum price per unit on all drugs – including alcohol. This extra tax should go towards rehabilitation. 

Legalise prostitution but impose strict procedures to ensure the people involved are protected .Tax it  and pay the money into both welfare schemes (such as education and training and drug rehabilitation programmes. Impose proper sentences for people caught trafficking (i.e. life in prison). Make all brothels closely regulated and controlled. If people are brought to the country and repeatedly raped many times a day when found they should be treated with dignity and allowed to stop here with lots of help rather than treated as illegal immigrants. Severity punish anyone working outside of the state control.  

Reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was originally introduced in order to "wipe the slate clean" for minor offenders, after a suitable elapse of "spent" time – usually 7 years.

This was a progressive libertarian idea, aimed at giving – especially younger/ minor – offenders a better chance of securing employment later in life.  (i.e. A  "spent" £1 fine for misguided student drunkeness at University should not then remain as an ongoing CRB punishment impacting upon an individual's career prospects for the remainder of their life).  

The younger offenders targeted at the time of the passage of the original legislation have now matured and many are seeking middle to senior ranking posts, ordinary/basic CRB checks or not.

However, over recent years, a trend has emerged in the Cabinbet Office Public Appointments Unit, general Civil Service management recruitment, local authorities, universities, the Public Sector generally (and its public recruitmment agents) indicating that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to the majority of their advertised posts. Hence "spent" convictions must be declared and subjected to "Enhanced" (i.e. gilt-edged) CRB checks,entirely excluded from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act..

In short,  Public Sector recruitment has steadily exempted itself from compliance with both the spirit and provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

So, either as a Society we should now repeal the now toothless Act and accept that offenders of any age will be CRB scarred for life or, if we are to opt for progressive liberalism, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should be strengthened to permit "enhanced" CRB check exceptions ONLY in the cases of posts associated directly with national security.  (Child abuse being already covered separately by the register of secual offenders). 

Why is this idea important?

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was originally introduced in order to "wipe the slate clean" for minor offenders, after a suitable elapse of "spent" time – usually 7 years.

This was a progressive libertarian idea, aimed at giving – especially younger/ minor – offenders a better chance of securing employment later in life.  (i.e. A  "spent" £1 fine for misguided student drunkeness at University should not then remain as an ongoing CRB punishment impacting upon an individual's career prospects for the remainder of their life).  

The younger offenders targeted at the time of the passage of the original legislation have now matured and many are seeking middle to senior ranking posts, ordinary/basic CRB checks or not.

However, over recent years, a trend has emerged in the Cabinbet Office Public Appointments Unit, general Civil Service management recruitment, local authorities, universities, the Public Sector generally (and its public recruitmment agents) indicating that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to the majority of their advertised posts. Hence "spent" convictions must be declared and subjected to "Enhanced" (i.e. gilt-edged) CRB checks,entirely excluded from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act..

In short,  Public Sector recruitment has steadily exempted itself from compliance with both the spirit and provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

So, either as a Society we should now repeal the now toothless Act and accept that offenders of any age will be CRB scarred for life or, if we are to opt for progressive liberalism, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act should be strengthened to permit "enhanced" CRB check exceptions ONLY in the cases of posts associated directly with national security.  (Child abuse being already covered separately by the register of secual offenders). 

Review of cases of registration of offenders beyond ten years.

A recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat.

Every case should be reviewed after ten years and each year thereafter, to reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place.

Why is this idea important?

A recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights stated that sex offenders should not be required to continue registering each year without having their case reviewed to see if they still pose a threat.

Every case should be reviewed after ten years and each year thereafter, to reduce the workload of the police having to monitor those who no longer pose a threat, or never posed a threat in the first place.