Good letter. It is quite clear that the so called rehabilitation of offenders does not really work. I sadly now beleive that the only real value of prisons is to keep offenders off the streets for as long as possible. If some of them dislike prison sufficiently that they choose not to commit further offences in fear of the sentence then so be it, however since prison becomes a way of life for many of them we know that fear of prison is a nonsense. It is also usually not in the criminals mind that he will be caught otherwise he would not be likely to commit the crime in the first place. The certainty of being caught is a deterrent. A 1000 pound fine for an offence is no deterrent if it is very unlikely that a person will be caught. A 10 pound fine every time the offence is committed will stop that offence from occurring.

Report abuse

Peter you said would i the letter writer pay extra tax for bigger prisons =safer streets do not presume to answer for me peter i and many would. And would I want them in my back yard of course not and their is not a need to build them in peoples back yards we have many areas away from the general publics homes where they may be built.
As for the USA the people that are taken off the streets there do not get the chance to get back on them due to your so called hundreds of years sentences.
As to what prisoners do to each other inside prison , well their actions caused them to be put in there.

Report abuse

Andrew I do not presume to write for Peter as to do so would be arrogant; as is the presumption of anyone who claims to speak for many or the majority. One of the observations I believe Peter is making about the US is that despite their draconian laws and high levels of imprisonment the crime rate there is still quite dreadful. Those in prison may not commit offences against the wider population but crime in prison is rife and as the US proves severe sentences are no deterrant to others. Quite simply prison is ineffective as a means of punishment, deterrant or rehabilitation of offenders. If we seek to change behaviour we must address the multiple root causes and impose sentences that positively change individuals (where possible) to be useful members of society. As for back yards I’m afraid that anywhere in this country is someone’s back yard and objections will be plenty to the building of penal establishments. If wind farms can’t be built without protest then there’s no chance for large buildings housing prisoners.

Report abuse

Peter, if we did build more prisons, depending on how many were built, crime would certainly, correspondingly go down. Neither is there a shred of evidence to prove that not sending offenders to prison reduces crime and criminality, on the contrary, let’s quote that old cliche, “if criminals are in prison, they can’t commit offences outside it”. FACT
The reason Cameron came out with his speech was that your mates have given more favourable treatment to the offender rather than the victim. He was merely righting the balance should he gain power, he was setting out his stall. We can see a tightening up all around – particularly in schools if he does get in.
As to American comparisons, a rather futile exercise, their crime scene and prison regimes are totally different to ours and reflect their massive, diverse melting pot of cultures, races etc. With immigrants, legal and illegal from every corner of the world we are rapidly catching up however. Is it 1 in 7 of our current prison population is a “new Britain”. Deport them all and there would be no need for building prisons, we would have enough vacancies to take all out own.
Our approach to judicial and penal policy can be summed up by a case in todays copy of this paper. An offender defrauds the state out of £68,000 (charged with two counts), she is sentenced to a suspended sentence of 24 weeks and 100 hours of community work. Perhaps you and the other liberal bleeding hearts can say what deterrent this is to others either engaged in, or contemplating defrauding the state out of benefits which we have all contributed to through our taxes. £68, 000 for two weeks work – good if you can get it.
Your mates in this Labour Government have done what no other government of whatever pursuasion has ever done before, they, the executive have ordered the judiciary what sentences to impose by their quango, the Sentencing Guidlines lot. Utterly taboo in a democracy, yet your lot have done it. Now, not only are our prisons some of the softest in the developed world, they are also the hardest to get into. Judges and Magistrates have to consult the “guidelines” issued by the Government quango before they can sentence offenders. Prison sentences are now measured in days/weeks rather than months/years.
In the 1950s, there were two punitive/preventive sentences which made criminals really think twice about offending again after they became elligible to be sentenced to one, one was “Corrective Training” or CT, the other was “Preventive Detention” or PD, the latter being the one where, in theory, old lags or recidivists could get anything from 8 years upwards for stealing a bottle of milk. The threat of these sentences hanging over their heads if they offended again had a remarkable affect on an individuals preparedness to commit future crime. Let’s have a modern equivalent and watch crime go down.
As a country, not only in penal and judicial policy but in almost everything where individuals have to comply with rules, regulations, norms, values etc, we have gone “soft”. We all have rights which we are quick to demand but the question I ask, is when does society start demanding some responsibilities – most of all from, from criminals who have never had it better. Crime in most cases certainly pays.

Report abuse

Okay so if prison doesn’t work and rehabilitation is the key how would this be approached in relation to violent crime? Let violent muggers carry on roaming the streets as along as they report to a centre for a chat once a week? Be realistic – both prisons and rehabilitation options are required to address crime

Prison does work if the criminal is in fear of it which they are not because of short sentences and comfortable lifestyle inside. The problem of re-offending is down to the lack of fear of retribution in the criminal – it’s human nature, we all think twice about doing something if we are in fear of the consequences.

Report abuse

From reading the comments about why prisons are not working I can only assume that NONE of the authors have ever been in jail. I have and in my humble opinion they do not work because, a) there is no program to actually punish an inmate, other than loss of liberty which is soon got used to. b) the sentencing is far too short. For early offenders, and in the case of more serious offenders, a sudden sharp shock would work wonders, it did for me but only after I had been mollycoddled through numerous court cases, probation, minor fines etc. Had I been given a custodial sentence measured in years, rather than months, my first offence would have been my last. Tell the judges to wake up, the police must be fed up with bringing felons to court to see them sent away with what amounts to a telling off.

Report abuse

eva land, on the subject of crime and penal policy, I probably speak with more experience and authority than all those commentators combined, on these streams in this paper – and not at a subordinate level but at a very senior level in a number of HM uniformed services both at home and abroad over the whole of my working life until retirement, and I will leave it there. Needless to say, I will give no more of my background away.
My view is as good, if not moreso than those who speak from “opinion”, books, papers, films, hearsay etc and no more. Many of these are what I term, bleeding heart liberals who view life through rose tinted spectacles, wear their hearts on their sleeve and believe implicitly that no person can be wholly bad. If they could only meet and experience some evil people, and I mean really “evil” like I have met, I guarantee that their approach would change. On the one hand, I have met with, violent murderers whilst in custody/prison, rapists, professional villains and opportunist offenders of every type under the sun, burglars, drug dealers fraudsters, you name it and on the other, the pathetic drunks and alcoholics, the social misfits, the weak willed and the others who should not be in prison but in places where they can be treated. I need no lessons or lectures on the best way to deal with persistent criminals, I sat through hundreds of lectures from “the experts” on this subject through a career spanning almost 40 years and I still don’t accept what they say. My colleagues in the main were those who had been “indoctrinated” by both the direct and implied threat of career “blockage” if they failed to accept the new fangled ideas of penal policy. If they spoke honestly, they would reject everything that these wet behind the ears sociologists would say.
The views of Simon and Peter are the simplistic ones, it is these views that have held sway for far to long and our society reflects that. I also find that many of those with those sociollogically inclined views, speak not from any first hand experience but from a wish to act and put on a facade of being intellectually superior to those who advocate a harder, stricter approach. They are the intelligent, bright, socially advanced “experts” whilst everyone else is a nincompoop far below them.
Society is done no favours by these people, the change in the criminality in our society will come from people who are fed up with the status quo brought about by our oversoft, liberal policy. The time has come for a “new” type of criminal and penal policy which, in effect, in simple terms says to us all, abuse the norms, values and laws of our society and we guarantee you a fair trial and humane treatment but, if one is found guilty after that trial, you will be severely punished, emphasise being on “severely”.

Report abuse

Andrew,

Whether or not you read the tabloids, your views coincide exactly with the sort of populist rubbish they regularly spout.

Stuart, yes, people don’t commit crime whilst in prison, but unless you are suggesting life sentences for petty criminals, then they will be let out again and the crime will continue as long as you only tackle the symptoms rather than the cause.

If you are suggesting significantly longer sentences, then you would also need to take account of the massive cost, both in building new prisons and in the day to day cost of keeping these people inside – currently something in the region of £40k per annum per head.

Cameron’s outburst was a cynical attempt to play to the tabloid audience – nothing more. It seems I have to remind you again that it was the Tories, not Labour, who increased the amount of remission from one-third to half of most sentences. As for your rose-tinted backward glance to the ’50s, crime didn’t reduce then either – despite your favoured policies being in place at the time.

Of course I accept that there will always be some who need to be kept in prison, and, ironically I actually believe that burglary should be taken more seriously as an offence. Whilst most burglars will run a mile if disturbed, nonetheless the crime itself can have similar effects to a crime of violence on the victim.

It’s also ironic that the short nature of sentences imposed actually prevent access to the limited addiction treatment programmes available in prisons.

In some circumstances I would even approve of longer sentences, but with the strict proviso that treatment programmes for those with alcohol and drug addiction and mental health problems are funded, made available and followed.

In addition I would make compulsory the sort of programmes where victims are allowed to confront imprisoned criminals to explain the effect the crime has had upon them. Such programmes have proven effective in reducing recidivism and also been beneficial to victims.

Report abuse

You feel you can decide for all of us who are the nincompoops Stuart but I sure people reading the posts here can decide for themselves.

I notice that you did not address the comments I made regarding your comment that sounded very much like an implication that people from from other cultures are responsible for most crime.
QUOTE[As to American comparisons, a rather futile exercise, their crime scene and prison regimes are totally different to ours and reflect their massive, diverse melting pot of cultures, races etc. With immigrants, legal and illegal from every corner of the world we are rapidly catching up however.]QUOTE

My sister works as an expert witness for the Home Office Stuart and meets people who have psychopathic personalities and can loosely be described as evil.
There is not a higher incidence of immigrants amongst her clientale.

I found the comments made by Cherie Blair when sentencing the Muslim chap the other day quite disturbing. She twice referred to his being a religious man during summing up which was quite irrelevant and not something she should have taken into consideration.
Again it is a simplistic attitude that when examined more closely does not hold water.
Compartmentalising people by colour, culture, religion, sexuality etc does not accord with any true justice.
It does go to show however that people can reach high positions in their careers and still have an extremely blinkered view of the world.

Report abuse

I like to contribute to discussions in these pages. On the whole it can produce a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Some opinions I may disagree strongly with, some I feel are wholly wrong, and some may actually change my perspective or viewpoint. By and large when I contribute it is because I feel I have something to add based on knowledge and my own professional and personal experiences. Sometimes my contribution is just for fun. Above all in these pages as elsewhere in life I am willing to listen. I do wonder though when Stuart advises that “I sat through hundreds of lectures from “the experts” on this subject through a career spanning almost 40 years and I still don’t accept what they say”. Obviously in the HM uniformed professions during this time period there was only one expert. The rest of us may as well give up now as our contributions are not worthy.

Report abuse

Stuart, the more I read your posts #7 and #13 the more I am taken aback. So you worked in the criminal justice system (but presumably now retired) for 40 years. That will give you a perspective (mainly from one side of the debate) on crime and punishment but it will not give you omniscience.

All those who deal directly with offenders and victims will approach the subject from their own personal or professional perspective. You have already admitted to dismissing “expert” opinions for 40 years presumably because they were not compatable with your own. Any other opinion – including mine – is similarly dismissed as soft and liberal. I absolutely respect your previous professional experience and your right to an opinion. But every professional involved in this system has a valid perspective based largely on the culture they work in or are indoctrinated with.

The police, probation, CPS, defence solicitors and judiciary all have a view. Various partnership agencies too have a contribution to make. There has been a realisation for many years that each agency should contribute, and that all key agencies should work together, in the management of offenders. The MAPPA typifies this. In the criminal justice system there is a tendency to limit the investigative and assessment questions to who, what, when, where and how. The biggest missing question is why and that in turn, if properly explored, will unleash numerous subsidiary questions. Those questions also require answers and solutions. Now you can harp back to some former social and judicial idyll or you can deal with our society as it is now. You can dismiss and if you choose to you can insult me. But I’m on the coal face and I continue to deal with those you would describe (using a wholly unscientific biblical term) as evil. I am open to and welcome discussion or debate. I do object to being patronised by anyone purely on their work history.

Report abuse

My comment at 20 was directed to eva land at 17. I did not make that clear.
Simon, with some reluctance in the face of some silly and indeed critical remarks to me, I came out with what my working background was, now everyone knows where I come from. Now please, you say you work on the “coal face” with those who I describe as evil (the most extreme ones that I came across, may I add), just tell us all, what your job exactly is at the “coal face”, so that we are under no illusions as to the experience you speak from and who and what type of “evil” person you are dealing with. And again, please don’t be silly, sarcastic and supportive of my description of “pseudo intellectuals” by coming out with “using a wholly unscientific biblical term”. Everyone else knows in what sense I use that term. Perhaps you would like me to describe an “evil” person to you in non-scientific and non biblical terms.
When I know on what basis you speak, I may be inclined to comment further with regard to that role in the penal system – after all, we are talking about the “hard” and “soft” treatment of offenders, which may have escaped notice amongst a few here.
And Simon, I was not aware that I was being patronising to anyone. Perhaps you can explain how. Perhaps, who knows, you were one of those “experts” whos’e lectures I sat through and disregarded everyone.

Report abuse

Stuart I will not share with you my profession for two reasons. Firstly I am still in employement and would prefer to keep my professional capacity and Shropshire Star letters debates separate. Secondly my professional role to you is of no relevance. Were I to disclose my role you would use that as a means to attack me. I come to this conclusion as I see from earlier posts on this and other topics that you appear to respect no opinion apart from your own and value no career history other than yours. Indeed you have already stated that you disagreed with hundred of experts over a 40 year period. Presumably these same experts were invited by your employers to give lectures to better your role and understanding of the job at hand.

As for patronising try these: “on the subject of crime and penal policy, I probably speak with more experience and authority than all those commentators combined, on these streams in this paper – and not at a subordinate level but at a very senior level in a number of HM uniformed services both at home and abroad over the whole of my working life until retirement”, or “In the main it is beneath my dignity to even comment on your silly remarks”, or “I am not in the least interested in your sister being an alleged “expert” witness for the Home Office and now, the favourite “fall-back” of the pseudo intelligent”…need I give more examples.

Finally I doubt very much that I was one of the lecturers you sat through and disregarded. I too often have to attend lectures and further training. I at least do so whilst exercising the courtesy of an open mind, a willingness to listen and a receptiveness to the possibility that I may learn and be better equipped to do my job.

Report abuse

Stuart
How unbelievably arrogant, narcissistic and self important you are. You are wrong on my profession. Your frustration at not knowing what I do is clearly the frustration of a man used to the power of the bully. I know your work history because you make it known on a regular basis. In doing so you show in these exchanges that your opinion comes from a limited perspective of prison work in times gone by. Your grade and where you worked in the prison estate is not important to me. Prisons (as you know)are many and varied from YOIs, to open and Cats C to A. Then you have the different needs of female prisoners. If you take a step back from the blinkered view of an ex prison officer then the needs of offenders can be seen to be met and managed by a broad range of disciplines. The prison perspective is but one perspective. It is worthy of respect (although not when articulated by you) but it is only one side of the issue. Now the only reason that I can see for you wanting to know my professional role is because I am willing to challenge your views, and that, in the arrogant world of Stuart is not allowed. I am frankly pleased (for both staff and inmates)that the prison service is gradually being freed of the malign influence of some old school officers.

Report abuse

Stuart
A final point in response to your post #26, because I probably find you more tiresome than you find me. I have seen inside (all categories) many, many prisons. I have worked in prisons too. I have also worked across the broader criminal justice system. Without divulging my profession (to satisfy some perverse ‘need to know requirement’ of yours) I do see and understand the whole picture, not just the prison perspective. I have dealt with thousands of perpetrators (and victims) of crime at all stages of proceedings from arrest onwards. Prison is but one part of that process. It’s from that knowledge base that I pass comment. Trouble yourself less on what my job/profession is, and try to discuss the issues instead. I couldn’t give a monkey’s about your previous career, but your opinions I will hear, listen to, agree with on occasion and dispute when I feel appropriate. Debate is about opinion not about comparing CVs.

Report abuse

Stuart
FACT “indisputable truth not open to interpretation”. Just because you venomously type the word in upper case does not make your conjecture any more true. You really must learn to relax man, be less preoccupied with that which you will never know, and just have a good old healthy debate. Instead you have some uncontrollable urge to name various professions in an endeavour to identify mine. I fear for your well being if you can get so wound up over so little. I trust that if this was so when you were working that your retirement was on health grounds. Deep breaths and keep taking the tablets.

Report abuse

Stuart
I intend to add only one more set of comments. I have never, ever purported to be an expert. I have truthfully asserted that I work in the system of which we debate (why lie). From that I rightly claim a knowledge base upon which to comment. You refer to the “charge room” and a small group of professionals that in your time might have worked from arrest to case disposal, or would have been privileged to enter that police environment. Times have changed particularly since PACE was introduced and in most police custody suites, and indeed courts and prisons, you will find a range of allied partnership agencies working towards the same objectives. Where I fit in is not of relevance. Time after time you resort to personal attack on those who disagree with you. You’re retired so obviously you are adult. You held a managerial position so clearly at some point in your career you were perceived as being responsible. As you worked in the prison service you will know full well that I cannot share my role in these posts. I will share the fact that I am not a prison officer, but consider the simple hypothesis that I am (and I stress hypothesis). If I was to offer opinions as a serving prison officer I would run the risk of inadvertently breaching data protection and other legislation. I would also reveal myself as a potential security risk because as you know security is not just environmental. Now if (using the same hypothesis) as a prison officer I offered opinions merely as an informed professional the debates goal posts shift to somewhere safer. I will happily and at times argumentatively debate and dispute with you. Forget about what my role is and try and merely exchange opinions. If you want to swap insults I can do that but so many interesting opinions on crime and punishment are raised in these columns it seem a shame to waste column inches on the unnecessary. This is the only time I will offer an olive branch until normal hostilities resume. Take it or reject it.

Report abuse

You mention PACE, I am fully aware of it, I wrote the “Handbook of Guidance” for it in the force I was in. I will try another one, you are possibly a Civilian Custody Officer in a Police Custody Suite. Possibly at Malinsgate or another Police DHQ. I make no further comment and leave it at that.

Report abuse

Stuart
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Why should you arrogantly presume to know my profession and why West Mercia? This is after all an online debate. Do you want a civilised discussion on these issues or just to continue this bizarre game of guess my job? I’ll never let on for the multiple reasons I’ve given. Debate is about opinion sharing not comparing career paths. I am willing to discuss issues relating to crime and punishment and will fully respect that you have (as you never miss an opportunity to mention) a wealth of relevant experience, but you do so let youself down with this continuing odd behaviour. It does not befit a man who apparently held senior positions to be so easily disturbed by matters that are surely not worth the energy you waste. If you are so easily irritated and perplexed by a mere letters page how did you cope in the face of the truly challenging behaviour you would have faced from former “customers”? You doubt my experience. If your hostile and belittling responses to other contributors are anything to go by I would have grounds to doubt yours; but in the interests of civility and courtesy I will accept your word.

Report abuse