Letter: UK too soft on criminals
A recent survey stated that 80 per cent of the crime in the UK was committed by a relatively small number of repeat habitual criminals.
One has to ask why and what is our justice system going to do about it?
It appears that our current penalties are no deterrent for these criminals who look on prison as an occupational hazard, especially nowadays with all the luxuries they receive whilst incarcerated.
I, for one, am in favour of the system operated in some parts of the USA: Three strikes and you are out. Three convictions and you are locked up for good, no probation and no release.
Just think what a deterrent that this would be to prospective criminals and how quickly we could reduce the crime by the 80 per cent in the UK.
This would enable citizens to walk the streets in safety and be secure in their homes.
Another part of the US system I like is that judges are elected by the people. Just think if we had that system we could remove the pussy-footing judges who give repeat offenders a slap on the wrist for the umpteenth time.
I don’t think, however, that this will happen as there are too many do-gooders in the UK looking after the criminals’ (not the victims’) human rights and the Government would not have the courage – especially with our masters in Europe breathing down their necks.
I suppose, therefore, that we will have to put up with these criminals laughing at our criminal justice system.
Graham Burns
Newport
Comments for: "Letter: UK too soft on criminals"
Dee
You have hit the nail on the head Graham - hibitual burglars & offenders are released time & time again to terrorise neighbourhoods because they know that the penalties for being caught are so lenient!
I want jails to be described as 'draconian' with little luxuries so those locked up know they have offended society; in some US states, juveniles have to pass a certain standard of education in jail before they are even considered for parole & chain gangs show that they are paying their dues ....
Harsh? I hope so because law abiding people should not have to tolerate the intolerable!
ANDREW FINCH
In all honesty i think the general public and i have little knowledge if any of what it is like to be incarcerated at her majesty's pleasure .So called luxuries i believe are given as reward and removed for punishment, some of the basics are lets be honest to keep prisoners occupied and end result a guards life is made easier and we have none if any prison riots in the UK.
Not being able to go home , see friends family, go out, told when to eat when lights out and sharing cells and wc,s etc etc etc clue is in the word incarceration personally i value all of those luxuries.
We are civilized people in the UK we incarcerate people we do not torture or abuse them when inside as we have a duty to them like it or not.
Where the problem lies is with rehabilitation and sentencing, the sentences in most case are not long enough for the rehabilitation process to have any use what so ever . Many people are able to be rehabilitated through education, and drug rehabilitation the latter is a major problem in uk jails until we have drug free uk jails where people can clean up their act you will always have issues.
Colin Dodd.
A pointless letter, but but I agree totally.
Why pointless?? Because, as stated, the powers that be, put far too much emphasis on the felon's rights, rather than ensuring that the punishment is just that, a punishment.
The ECHR must take a lot of blame for this, we never elected them, yet they sit in judgement on our legal system. We need a government with the spherical objects to tell them to go away, then elect some judges who will bang these ungodly up for a period that will make them think very hard about offending again.
Again my comment is pointless because it will never happen, we are being ruled by Europe. Sad.
R Suppards
Read UKIP's statement on Policing and the Prison system, and vote for them; they now push the imbecilic Clegg faction into fourth place, and will be force to be reckoned with at the next Election.
Peter
Once again, someone who attempts to confuse the ECHR and the EU. They are not linked.
Let's be clear about prisons. A significant number of those incarcerated are either addicted to drugs or alcohol, or have mental health problems. The impetus to get more drugs or alcohol is, unfortunately in many cases going to be stronger than the impetus not to go back to prison - whether you take their tellys off them or not.
Prisons are not nice places, as the Daily Mail/Sun etc. would have us believe. They are unpleasant places where many vulnerable inmates are manipulated and bullied. If they're so nice, why are the rates of suicide and self-harm within them so high?
All of the evidence to date points to the fact that whatever you do with the regime, other than dealing with some of the problems mentioned above, make little or no difference to rates of recidivism. Remember Michael Howard's 'Short Sharp Shock' idea? It simply didn't work.
We need to tackle the drug addiction and the alcohol addiction, and stop sending people who are clearly mentally ill to prison. Rather than spening money on just 'banging people up' we should think about tackling the shockingly high rates of functional illiteracy in the prison population as well. Until we invest in these things, we'll see no reduction in recidivism.
And. having spent 4 years working in a busy, overcrowded Victorian jail some years ago - I probably have a bit more knowledge than most here. I've seen what these places are really like - unlike the Daily Mail readers amongst you..
Watchdog
It IS sad. I wonder what our judges would make of the cigarette smoking bravado and mockery of the judicial system which I have witnessed taking place outside of our courts? The victims and witnesses for the prosecution are not spared it, but the judiciary and the legal profession are because their world is very comfortably removed from that of the general public. They are cocooned and isolated by highbrow theatrics, huge salaries and their own inflated sense of self worth. It's a game to be played at a leisurely pace (look at the Abu Hamza case) and any criticism can be loftily waved aside "in the interests of justice." They are the bobs and nabobs of a powerful, virtually untouchable empire and the real reason why human rights legislation was so enthusiastically embraced had more to do with cementing that position than improving the lot of their fellow human beings. Cynical? Me? Oh yes, and with good reason.
Roger
Once the person has accepted that jail is an occupational hazard it ceases to be a deterrent.
If life on the outside is a constant losing battle to live on benefits honestly, the prospects of time inside has no fear. In fact it is a holiday from the daily grind of life on the streets. Some even plan to be inside for Christmas, instead of sleeping rough. Did you know that housing benefits are paid to retain accommodation whilst on short sentences?
Jail is all found and an opportunity for good food and fitness training to get back to full health before release back to scrounging and thieving to keep one’s head above the water level.
It's not a life for most of us, and those that do it probably have mental health issues but for them there is no realistic alternative. I can't think of one either, no one will employ them, nobody wants to let flats to them, and everyone resents paying them benefits so they go their own way.
Watchdog
This is very true and a sad reflection of the failure to rehabilitate offenders. Despite their backgrounds and attitudes, I think many young men would benefit from a scheme intended to prepare them for guaranteed employment in the armed forces (who would not ordinarily employ former drug users or other criminals.) The military corrective training centre at Colchester, far from being a hell hole, was generally highly successful in turning out fully rehabiltated offenders who often returned to their units to achieve rapid promotion and enjoy worthwhile careers, thus illustrating the point that there must be hope for the future. Successive governments are no more able to appreciate that than they are able to understand that our legal system is long overdue radical reform as opposed to cost cutting.