Make sentences longer for child abusers

How many more times are we going to read the papers to read another story of child abuse? It seems that every week there is another story, another abuser taken to so-called justice. But is it justice or is it a parody? While their rights are observed and have to be seen to be observed, what of the victims, family and friends who no longer have any rights? Their rights have been taken away – gone. Taken away by someone who has little regards for rights. Surely in this day and age – in a day when we are supposed to be Enlightened. It is every child's right to be able to grow up? Not so it seems. They have less rights than we would like to believe, and in many cases their Life has little value.
Every 10 seconds, an innocent child is abused, molested or even killed. TODAY, 5 OF THOSE CHILDREN WILL DIE….3 million cases of abuse reports are made each year. Sadly, only 28% are actually investigated. The mental, physical and sexual torture that abusers are putting our children through, is beyond all comprehension. Child abuse is preventable not inevitable. 80% killed by abuse are under the age of 4. Child abuse is everyone's business. A damning report by Ofsted recently revealed that up to 4 children die every week in England from abuse or neglect. Two thirds of the victims were less than a year old. The current judicial system does not adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. The death of a child through abuse or neglect is often punished with a prison sentence ranging from only 1-14 years, most of which are automatically halved with parole. This needs to change now. The N.S.P.C.C say that babies & toddlers are particularly vulnerable to physical abuse. If regular compulsory health checks were introduced, at least 4 times a year for ages 0-2 and three times a year for ages 2-5, they would help to reveal any signs of abuse or neglect. Social Services should be alerted if appointments become overdue.

Why is this idea important?

How many more times are we going to read the papers to read another story of child abuse? It seems that every week there is another story, another abuser taken to so-called justice. But is it justice or is it a parody? While their rights are observed and have to be seen to be observed, what of the victims, family and friends who no longer have any rights? Their rights have been taken away – gone. Taken away by someone who has little regards for rights. Surely in this day and age – in a day when we are supposed to be Enlightened. It is every child's right to be able to grow up? Not so it seems. They have less rights than we would like to believe, and in many cases their Life has little value.
Every 10 seconds, an innocent child is abused, molested or even killed. TODAY, 5 OF THOSE CHILDREN WILL DIE….3 million cases of abuse reports are made each year. Sadly, only 28% are actually investigated. The mental, physical and sexual torture that abusers are putting our children through, is beyond all comprehension. Child abuse is preventable not inevitable. 80% killed by abuse are under the age of 4. Child abuse is everyone's business. A damning report by Ofsted recently revealed that up to 4 children die every week in England from abuse or neglect. Two thirds of the victims were less than a year old. The current judicial system does not adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes. The death of a child through abuse or neglect is often punished with a prison sentence ranging from only 1-14 years, most of which are automatically halved with parole. This needs to change now. The N.S.P.C.C say that babies & toddlers are particularly vulnerable to physical abuse. If regular compulsory health checks were introduced, at least 4 times a year for ages 0-2 and three times a year for ages 2-5, they would help to reveal any signs of abuse or neglect. Social Services should be alerted if appointments become overdue.

Sentencing should mean what is said

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

Why is this idea important?

If someone is jailed for 15 years they should serve 15 years to the day. If someone is fined £300 they should pay £300. If someone is given 100 hours of community service that's what they should do. No more no less. If the judge / magistrates want to take into account the potential of them behaving in prison just give them less.

Also if someone is say given a jail sentence of two years and a ban on driving for three the driving ban should start after their release from prison.

 

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.

DELIVER JUSTICE, PROTECT THE PUBLIC: MANDATORY LENGHTY CUSTODIAL SENTENCES FOR UNPROVOKED VIOLENCE

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

Why is this idea important?

Current sentencing policy for wanton violence & sex crime is shockingly lenient, a complete abuse of the civil liberties of the peaceful majority, especially the law-abiding poor in our inner-city communities whose lives are blighted by a culture of violence

Many dangerous violent thugs are given non-custodial or short sentences for heinous acts thus causing more torment and anxiety of victims and their communities whilst completely undermining faith in the justice system. It creates a culture of lawlessness

At the same time lots of harmless non-violent offenders are imprisoned for petty offences such as low-level fraud. It’s these that should be on community sentences wherever possible (unless they breach them) to create the necessary space in our prisons to ensure all dangerous offenders can be incarcerated & those that want to change can be rehabilitated in a controlled enviroment over a lenghty period of time.

At present, many violent offenders given short or non custodial sentences go on to re-offend and in some cases, kill. A lengthy period of incarceration combined with a programme of hard work, education, training and excercise stands a much better chance of rehabilitating an offender than a flimsy non-custodial sentence (whilst protecting the victims) If dangerous offenders don’t conform to this they don’t get released, simple

Mandatory sentences for violent crime (unless in cases of self-defence) will also serve as a firm detterent (it’s worked with Gun Crime – gun murders are down signifiantly) whilst protecting the public. Automatic early release should also be scapped, it deceives people

Violent Young offenders should not be exempt from this policy, in many cases it will nip their activity in the bud and put them on the straight and narrow, and give them the education they need.

Don’t forget a million kids were the victims of serious violence last year commited by young offenders, they need protecting from the violent kids – if you’re kind to the cruel, you’re cruel to the kind. If most youths know they’ll be punished for commiting a crime they’ll certainly think twice beforehand – it will help keep them out of trouble

Violent Women should be equal under the law, therefore they should be subject to the same sentences as Men, it’s completely sexist otherwise. If they’re a danger to the public it doesn’t matter what their gender is

The Mentally ill who commit unprovoked violent crime should be detained in secure units (not prison) indefinitly (with a minumum period specified) and only released if it’s safe to do so

Too many people have been maimed, raped and killed by people who’ve commited previous acts of violence and should have been in detention.

DEATH BY CARELESS DRIVING

This offence, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 yrs imprisonment, should be abolished.  It was introduced in the wake of a number of media stories along the lines of "Killer Motorist Walks Free" and often focused on motorists using mobile phones when driving.

The existing (then and now) law of causing death by dangerous driving was perfectly adequate to deal with such cases.  An amendment to create a rebuttable presumption that using a mobile phone while driving is per se  dangerous would have been a far more appropriate way forward.

As it is, a motorist who makes a genuine mistake (and who does not make mistakes in 40 – 50 years of driving,) which causes death, is placed at risk of imprisonment.  It should be the act not the consequence which determines the level of culpability and the punishment.

A civilised society should not send people to prison for making a mistake.

 

I SHOULD SAY I HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST IN THIS MATTER

 

Why is this idea important?

This offence, which carries a maximum sentence of 5 yrs imprisonment, should be abolished.  It was introduced in the wake of a number of media stories along the lines of "Killer Motorist Walks Free" and often focused on motorists using mobile phones when driving.

The existing (then and now) law of causing death by dangerous driving was perfectly adequate to deal with such cases.  An amendment to create a rebuttable presumption that using a mobile phone while driving is per se  dangerous would have been a far more appropriate way forward.

As it is, a motorist who makes a genuine mistake (and who does not make mistakes in 40 – 50 years of driving,) which causes death, is placed at risk of imprisonment.  It should be the act not the consequence which determines the level of culpability and the punishment.

A civilised society should not send people to prison for making a mistake.

 

I SHOULD SAY I HAVE NO VESTED INTEREST IN THIS MATTER

 

Judges and Magistrates singing from the same hymn sheet

I'd like to see some evidence that the judiciary adopt a consistent approach to sentencing.

2 years for stealing a bottle of milk compared to 2 months for killing somebody doesn't seem right – I apologise for the exaggeration but there is a general theme there somewhere.

Why is this idea important?

I'd like to see some evidence that the judiciary adopt a consistent approach to sentencing.

2 years for stealing a bottle of milk compared to 2 months for killing somebody doesn't seem right – I apologise for the exaggeration but there is a general theme there somewhere.

Reform of UK’s sentencing system

Three teenagers have been found guilty of subjecting a young woman with learning difficulties to three days of sadistic physical and sexual torture.
Darren Hodgkinson, 18, and girls Chelsea Mills, 16, and Chelsea Williams, 14, bruised their victim so severely that people thought she was black.
Nail varnish and cream were rubbed into the woman’s hair, which was then shaved off along with her eyebrows.

On Friday ringleader Hodgkinson was jailed at Southampton Crown Court for a minimum of four years. Mills was given a two-year detention and training order, and Williams was given an 18-month detention and training order.

Judge Peter Ralls said: ‘This poor woman may never recover from the psychological damage. You picked on her because she was odd and for no motivation other than to satisfy some depraved wish to cause harm.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVuvZhD

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVqWe7c

Why is this idea important?

Three teenagers have been found guilty of subjecting a young woman with learning difficulties to three days of sadistic physical and sexual torture.
Darren Hodgkinson, 18, and girls Chelsea Mills, 16, and Chelsea Williams, 14, bruised their victim so severely that people thought she was black.
Nail varnish and cream were rubbed into the woman’s hair, which was then shaved off along with her eyebrows.

On Friday ringleader Hodgkinson was jailed at Southampton Crown Court for a minimum of four years. Mills was given a two-year detention and training order, and Williams was given an 18-month detention and training order.

Judge Peter Ralls said: ‘This poor woman may never recover from the psychological damage. You picked on her because she was odd and for no motivation other than to satisfy some depraved wish to cause harm.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVuvZhD

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297462/Trio-guilty-torturing-woman-days.html#ixzz0uhVqWe7c

start to reduce the prison population

Repeal the following sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

S.151 – allows community orders for non imprisonable offences. Can lead to custodial sentences if breached.

S154 (not yet in force) allows a magistrates' court to impose up to 12mths custody for one offence. The maximum at present is 6mths.

S181-182 – known as "custody plus" and again not yet in force.If implemented would increase the prison population in view of s.154 and breaches of licence conditions.At present release from prison following sentences of 12mths or less is without licence conditions.

S.183-186 – "intermittent custody" – not often used but experience shows that such partly custodial orders are imposed where a fully custodial sentence would not be contemplated.

S.189 – 194-suspended sentences originally known as "custody minus".These are often used where immediate custody is not contemplated. The starting point for a breach either by non compliance with a condition or a further offence (whether imprisonable or not) is implementation of the custodial period .

s.224-236 relating to dangerous offenders is widely known to have effectively increased the length of sentences for certain offences.

s.237 – 268 partly concerned with release and recall on licence. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 allowed release halfway through any period of imprisonment of up to 4 years without licence conditions.The 2003 Act amended that to 1 year.The result is a an increase in the number of recalls overall.

s280 – 283( not yet in force) increase the maximum terms of imprisonment that could be imposed in magistrates' courts.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the following sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

S.151 – allows community orders for non imprisonable offences. Can lead to custodial sentences if breached.

S154 (not yet in force) allows a magistrates' court to impose up to 12mths custody for one offence. The maximum at present is 6mths.

S181-182 – known as "custody plus" and again not yet in force.If implemented would increase the prison population in view of s.154 and breaches of licence conditions.At present release from prison following sentences of 12mths or less is without licence conditions.

S.183-186 – "intermittent custody" – not often used but experience shows that such partly custodial orders are imposed where a fully custodial sentence would not be contemplated.

S.189 – 194-suspended sentences originally known as "custody minus".These are often used where immediate custody is not contemplated. The starting point for a breach either by non compliance with a condition or a further offence (whether imprisonable or not) is implementation of the custodial period .

s.224-236 relating to dangerous offenders is widely known to have effectively increased the length of sentences for certain offences.

s.237 – 268 partly concerned with release and recall on licence. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 allowed release halfway through any period of imprisonment of up to 4 years without licence conditions.The 2003 Act amended that to 1 year.The result is a an increase in the number of recalls overall.

s280 – 283( not yet in force) increase the maximum terms of imprisonment that could be imposed in magistrates' courts.

IPP SENTENCES

The creation of the IPP sentence was made in haste and, in my opinion without any thought. The prison and probation services did not, and still do not have the resources to manage or help these offenders reduce their risks. On top of that you have a parole board which is not fit for the job it is meant to do and the cost of all this is mind boggling.

The IPP sentence should be replaced by a more robust use of the extended sentence system. We should allow judges to set the time any offender should be on licence i.e a 3 year sentence could be followed by a ten year licence(dependant on seriousness of offence and risk). With offenders who have not completed any course in custody given the time in the community. Failure to comply would mean being recalled with a further time in custody set by the parole board or similar body with recommendations on what they should do prior to release.

Why is this idea important?

The creation of the IPP sentence was made in haste and, in my opinion without any thought. The prison and probation services did not, and still do not have the resources to manage or help these offenders reduce their risks. On top of that you have a parole board which is not fit for the job it is meant to do and the cost of all this is mind boggling.

The IPP sentence should be replaced by a more robust use of the extended sentence system. We should allow judges to set the time any offender should be on licence i.e a 3 year sentence could be followed by a ten year licence(dependant on seriousness of offence and risk). With offenders who have not completed any course in custody given the time in the community. Failure to comply would mean being recalled with a further time in custody set by the parole board or similar body with recommendations on what they should do prior to release.

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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

The sentence needs to fit the crime

 

 

When did you last hear that someone convicted of a crime and given a life sentence is told that means something like seven years? And that is when the sentence is handed down, not later!

When did you hear of a murderer getting a lesser sentence because… well because of anything? Does it really matter unless it was accidental? Life should mean life (if not capital punishment) and the prisoner having to earn his keep and not live in luxury. He should only have a piss pot and a toothbrush in a small space except when he is at work earning his rent, the cost of heating in the winter, a bit of Dickensian nosh and a basic bed to sleep on.

Of course, this is very draconian and you do not need to be that cruel, but why are sentences so short and soft? Why do we pay for them when prisoners should pay for themselves in prison and be made to dread so much a second term that being more law abiding is likely merely out of self-interest if not remorse?

Can we also please get rid of Brussels on human rights. What human right do they have over the Brits in the name of European trade?

Can we also put people before property and private property before business. Have a look and you will find it is anything but the case.

And last but most, when a person commits a crime he forsakes his human rights. If I attack him directly because of it he has no comeback on me unless my response is wildly disproportionate.

Why is this idea important?

 

 

When did you last hear that someone convicted of a crime and given a life sentence is told that means something like seven years? And that is when the sentence is handed down, not later!

When did you hear of a murderer getting a lesser sentence because… well because of anything? Does it really matter unless it was accidental? Life should mean life (if not capital punishment) and the prisoner having to earn his keep and not live in luxury. He should only have a piss pot and a toothbrush in a small space except when he is at work earning his rent, the cost of heating in the winter, a bit of Dickensian nosh and a basic bed to sleep on.

Of course, this is very draconian and you do not need to be that cruel, but why are sentences so short and soft? Why do we pay for them when prisoners should pay for themselves in prison and be made to dread so much a second term that being more law abiding is likely merely out of self-interest if not remorse?

Can we also please get rid of Brussels on human rights. What human right do they have over the Brits in the name of European trade?

Can we also put people before property and private property before business. Have a look and you will find it is anything but the case.

And last but most, when a person commits a crime he forsakes his human rights. If I attack him directly because of it he has no comeback on me unless my response is wildly disproportionate.

Increase gaol (jail) sentences to reflect increased life expectency.

Minimum and maximum sentences for most crimes were set based upon a much shorter life expectency. As a result the percentage of life a criminal spent behind bars for a crime commited now compared to the time spent behind bars when the legislation was created is much shorter.

The impact of this is that gaol sentences are less of a deterent than they were. 

Fo example a person given a 20 year sentence in the past at age 30 may not have expected to get out of gaol. However, a person of equal age given a 20 year sentence now would come out as a fit and kicking 50 year old ( assuming the sentence was actually enforced in full).

I would expect to see all gaol sentences reviewed and the maximum penalty potentially doubled.

Why is this idea important?

Minimum and maximum sentences for most crimes were set based upon a much shorter life expectency. As a result the percentage of life a criminal spent behind bars for a crime commited now compared to the time spent behind bars when the legislation was created is much shorter.

The impact of this is that gaol sentences are less of a deterent than they were. 

Fo example a person given a 20 year sentence in the past at age 30 may not have expected to get out of gaol. However, a person of equal age given a 20 year sentence now would come out as a fit and kicking 50 year old ( assuming the sentence was actually enforced in full).

I would expect to see all gaol sentences reviewed and the maximum penalty potentially doubled.

Review Sentencing Laws, Adopt American Style Sentencing

I'm not  suggesting anything like 'life should mean life' or anything to that effect.

Currently if you commit 14 crimes in Britain, each with a certain servicable sentence you get a sentence on the judges calculations. Usually this would not be anything close to what the sentence would be if all the terms were added together.

Sentencing is concurrent so when you go to prison you serve sentences for all your crimes and convictions at the same time.

I suggest adopting American sentencing policy where you serve each sentence and conviction one after the other. When one sentence/conviction ends another begins.

Why is this idea important?

I'm not  suggesting anything like 'life should mean life' or anything to that effect.

Currently if you commit 14 crimes in Britain, each with a certain servicable sentence you get a sentence on the judges calculations. Usually this would not be anything close to what the sentence would be if all the terms were added together.

Sentencing is concurrent so when you go to prison you serve sentences for all your crimes and convictions at the same time.

I suggest adopting American sentencing policy where you serve each sentence and conviction one after the other. When one sentence/conviction ends another begins.

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. 

Sentencing rules with regards to consent

Scrap the sentencing guidelines which allow this:

Paedophiles who abuse children of 12 or under may receive shorter jail terms if their victims "consent" to sex, according to sentencing rules published this week.

The law currently considers such youngsters incapable of giving consent – so sexual intercourse is automatically classed as rape.

However, judges have now been told that it may be "material in relation to sentence" if the child agreed to intercourse.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the sentencing guidelines which allow this:

Paedophiles who abuse children of 12 or under may receive shorter jail terms if their victims "consent" to sex, according to sentencing rules published this week.

The law currently considers such youngsters incapable of giving consent – so sexual intercourse is automatically classed as rape.

However, judges have now been told that it may be "material in relation to sentence" if the child agreed to intercourse.

No jail sentance for non payment of council tax

People not working but unable to claim benefits should not be fined nor jailed for failing to pay council tax if they have no weekly living wage coming in and are soley surviving on savings of £40.000 and less and running their own home. Thier cases should be individually assessed. many of these people are not working due to illness/disability/ or as carers but cannot claim benefits due to their savings, thus throwing them into stress, panic, and poverty – they cannot access any help and are off the radar as a disabled person, vulnerable adult or carer.

surely your ability to pay should be based of wage and not on savings under a certain amount if that amount is an inheritance and the person lives in their own home and has a morgauge or other over heads

Why is this idea important?

People not working but unable to claim benefits should not be fined nor jailed for failing to pay council tax if they have no weekly living wage coming in and are soley surviving on savings of £40.000 and less and running their own home. Thier cases should be individually assessed. many of these people are not working due to illness/disability/ or as carers but cannot claim benefits due to their savings, thus throwing them into stress, panic, and poverty – they cannot access any help and are off the radar as a disabled person, vulnerable adult or carer.

surely your ability to pay should be based of wage and not on savings under a certain amount if that amount is an inheritance and the person lives in their own home and has a morgauge or other over heads

abolish ipp sentences

the ipp sentence is barbaric it totally destroys prisoners and their familys not knowing when the sentence will end and be home with familys.the sentence is unjust and should be abolished,ok protect the public but not like this .the public are protected when someone goes into prison so theres no need to have a sentence like this.

Why is this idea important?

the ipp sentence is barbaric it totally destroys prisoners and their familys not knowing when the sentence will end and be home with familys.the sentence is unjust and should be abolished,ok protect the public but not like this .the public are protected when someone goes into prison so theres no need to have a sentence like this.

Make the Punishment fit the Crime

With prisons being overcrowded, keep some non-violent criminals out of prison. 

 Two examples:  where someone is caught counterfeiting Software they should be made to work, for no pay on the customer helpdesk of a reputable IT retailer.

Where someone is convicted of a drink-driving offence they should spend a designated number of hours in a very busy A&E  seeing other victims brought in.

 

Why is this idea important?

With prisons being overcrowded, keep some non-violent criminals out of prison. 

 Two examples:  where someone is caught counterfeiting Software they should be made to work, for no pay on the customer helpdesk of a reputable IT retailer.

Where someone is convicted of a drink-driving offence they should spend a designated number of hours in a very busy A&E  seeing other victims brought in.

 

Loss of Rights on conviction of crime

It is a basic right not to have others impinge on your law abiding life.

By committing a crime against others (theft,burglary etc.) and being convicted of that offence then imprisonment should remove the rights of that offender. ALL rights.

Their action did not take into account the effect on thevictim and in most cases I believe that it is a life changing experience that was not optional for the recipient.

Once someone has been convicted in Britain then it is for British Justice System to operate. Allowing the offender to appeal to Europe when the reality hits them is just  not acceptable.

It is long awaited that the punishment should fit the crime. Someone has yet to convince me that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent against murder.

Getting tough on crime might just improve the lives of the innocent victim who lives in a law abiding way. It is time to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Why is this idea important?

It is a basic right not to have others impinge on your law abiding life.

By committing a crime against others (theft,burglary etc.) and being convicted of that offence then imprisonment should remove the rights of that offender. ALL rights.

Their action did not take into account the effect on thevictim and in most cases I believe that it is a life changing experience that was not optional for the recipient.

Once someone has been convicted in Britain then it is for British Justice System to operate. Allowing the offender to appeal to Europe when the reality hits them is just  not acceptable.

It is long awaited that the punishment should fit the crime. Someone has yet to convince me that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent against murder.

Getting tough on crime might just improve the lives of the innocent victim who lives in a law abiding way. It is time to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Powers of Court Sentencing Act 2000.

There are certain sections within this act that are so harsh they have to surely be Repealed.

 

Since this act was introduced in 2000 it gave the Police powers to sieze anyones vehicles even if they were only a suspect in a crime the car is not released until the officer making enquiries says the poor suspect can have it back "it's wrong" and should be repealed where's the innocent till prooven guilty here? Then they use a private recovery firm to sieze the vehicle at a cost of £150 to the suspect to get their vehicle returned. No charges are ever brought so in essence a person has already received punishment from the Police with the humiliation the inconvenience caused and a hit in the wallet area and that's Justice?? Without being convicted of ever any wrong doing.

 

They use these kind of methods in N Korea where the state rules all are we going down that route too i ask you?

 

If an individual is suspected of wrong doing then arrest them i agree there but to seize peoples vehicles is a whole abuse of our civil rights and human too and is a worrying what comes after this mindset.

 

Another part of this disturbing Act is that if a defendant is convicted of say of  theft the court dealing withthe issue has the powers to Ban the person from driving now i ask you Coalition Goverment what the bloody hell does a theft have to do with driving?????

 

Driving punishments are for driving offences this bit of the Act beggers belief it's like saying a person gets a parking ticket and a Ban too neither have any connection with each other or relevance so this should be repealed ASAP.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There are certain sections within this act that are so harsh they have to surely be Repealed.

 

Since this act was introduced in 2000 it gave the Police powers to sieze anyones vehicles even if they were only a suspect in a crime the car is not released until the officer making enquiries says the poor suspect can have it back "it's wrong" and should be repealed where's the innocent till prooven guilty here? Then they use a private recovery firm to sieze the vehicle at a cost of £150 to the suspect to get their vehicle returned. No charges are ever brought so in essence a person has already received punishment from the Police with the humiliation the inconvenience caused and a hit in the wallet area and that's Justice?? Without being convicted of ever any wrong doing.

 

They use these kind of methods in N Korea where the state rules all are we going down that route too i ask you?

 

If an individual is suspected of wrong doing then arrest them i agree there but to seize peoples vehicles is a whole abuse of our civil rights and human too and is a worrying what comes after this mindset.

 

Another part of this disturbing Act is that if a defendant is convicted of say of  theft the court dealing withthe issue has the powers to Ban the person from driving now i ask you Coalition Goverment what the bloody hell does a theft have to do with driving?????

 

Driving punishments are for driving offences this bit of the Act beggers belief it's like saying a person gets a parking ticket and a Ban too neither have any connection with each other or relevance so this should be repealed ASAP.

 

 

 

Sentencing Policies

Review all laws which include prison sentences for minor / non crimes.  Examples:-

1st class carriages misuse on trains  ( Says fines or imprisonment for abuse)

Selling goods which do not accord with EU weight or numbers ( ie selling by pound weight )

Not paying TV licence.

Defending yourself in the home

citizens trying to stop crime or hooligans

Why is this idea important?

Review all laws which include prison sentences for minor / non crimes.  Examples:-

1st class carriages misuse on trains  ( Says fines or imprisonment for abuse)

Selling goods which do not accord with EU weight or numbers ( ie selling by pound weight )

Not paying TV licence.

Defending yourself in the home

citizens trying to stop crime or hooligans