News1 min ago
Should Second Offenders Get Another Second Chance ?
There is a very strong case for saying an unequivocal and resounding NO.
The criminal Alex Lanning in this case was released halfway through his first custodial sentence and then went out and murdered an innocent victim.
Now he's got 25 years (not nearly enough anyway) and I bet the Parole pansies will let him out again well before then. This should never ever be allowed for second offenders in my opinion.
If you screw up your second chance, that should screw you up from ever getting another.
The number of times I read of magistrates/judges giving convicts yet another "last chance" appalls me.
When are we going to get a Government which really is tough on Law - on past showing Labour are unlikely to be any better (cue for TTT to claim they would be worse).
[end of rant]
https:/
The criminal Alex Lanning in this case was released halfway through his first custodial sentence and then went out and murdered an innocent victim.
Now he's got 25 years (not nearly enough anyway) and I bet the Parole pansies will let him out again well before then. This should never ever be allowed for second offenders in my opinion.
If you screw up your second chance, that should screw you up from ever getting another.
The number of times I read of magistrates/judges giving convicts yet another "last chance" appalls me.
When are we going to get a Government which really is tough on Law - on past showing Labour are unlikely to be any better (cue for TTT to claim they would be worse).
[end of rant]
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//that would be because you are so appalled that you dont read on and find out just how lousy prison is at preventing reoffending//
When judges and magistrates pass a sentence they have three things in mind: punishment, reform and rehabilitation. The reason that the last two are not particularly well addressed by prison is this: in the UK those committed to prison for the first time have either committed a single serious offence for which prison is inevitable or, more usually, have committed a number – often a large number – of less serious offences. Those in the second group will have graduated through the sentencing system - conditional discharges, fines and community orders. The criminal justice system will have attempted “reform and rehabilitation” by a number of methods usually overseen by the probation service. This might include supervision or courses of education such as anger management and the like. Eventually when all these methods have failed, prison is the only recourse left. Even then, a minor offender very often receives a suspended sentence. This really is a “last chance” before prison. The reason that prison does not prevent reoffending among those people is that by the time they are eventually sent there the are already habitual or “career” criminals. It’s what they do – the same as a bus driver drives buses. No amount of “rehabilitation” will see them mend their ways. The prison service could save huge sums if it simply concentrated on incarceration and ditched the futile attempts it makes to reform or rehabilitate habitual criminals. However, there is one way in which prison does work:
//Prison may not work from the point of view of rehabilitation but has shown remarkable results in keeping some nasty folk off the streets and giving the rest of us a break for a while.//
Indeed. It gives the law-abiding people around them a break from the activities of criminals (albeit usually for too short a period). And if you believe those facing sentencing are fearful of “Community” sentences being passed on them, spend a couple of hours in your local Magistrates’ Court and see someone being sentenced where they have been told prison is a possibility. They could have the most onerous community order passed on them involving curfew, unpaid work or anything else and they do not particularly care. If they stay out of prison (and the most they will do when sentenced in a Magistrates’ Court is six weeks or four weeks if they plead guilty) then that’s a “result”. Nothing else matters.
When judges and magistrates pass a sentence they have three things in mind: punishment, reform and rehabilitation. The reason that the last two are not particularly well addressed by prison is this: in the UK those committed to prison for the first time have either committed a single serious offence for which prison is inevitable or, more usually, have committed a number – often a large number – of less serious offences. Those in the second group will have graduated through the sentencing system - conditional discharges, fines and community orders. The criminal justice system will have attempted “reform and rehabilitation” by a number of methods usually overseen by the probation service. This might include supervision or courses of education such as anger management and the like. Eventually when all these methods have failed, prison is the only recourse left. Even then, a minor offender very often receives a suspended sentence. This really is a “last chance” before prison. The reason that prison does not prevent reoffending among those people is that by the time they are eventually sent there the are already habitual or “career” criminals. It’s what they do – the same as a bus driver drives buses. No amount of “rehabilitation” will see them mend their ways. The prison service could save huge sums if it simply concentrated on incarceration and ditched the futile attempts it makes to reform or rehabilitate habitual criminals. However, there is one way in which prison does work:
//Prison may not work from the point of view of rehabilitation but has shown remarkable results in keeping some nasty folk off the streets and giving the rest of us a break for a while.//
Indeed. It gives the law-abiding people around them a break from the activities of criminals (albeit usually for too short a period). And if you believe those facing sentencing are fearful of “Community” sentences being passed on them, spend a couple of hours in your local Magistrates’ Court and see someone being sentenced where they have been told prison is a possibility. They could have the most onerous community order passed on them involving curfew, unpaid work or anything else and they do not particularly care. If they stay out of prison (and the most they will do when sentenced in a Magistrates’ Court is six weeks or four weeks if they plead guilty) then that’s a “result”. Nothing else matters.
They don't seem to be in for long enough to "keep them off the streets" though. And, in the majority of cases (?) are released as soon as they have done their time. Rehabilitated or not. Shouldn't we pay more attention on how safe people are to be released, than just going by a arbitrary time served?
//Prison may not work from the point of view of rehabilitation but has shown remarkable results in keeping some nasty folk off the streets and giving the rest of us a break for a while.//
To me that's the whole point of prison. If you've done something bad enough to end up there then it should be for a long time. It's not something to teach people a lesson - that's all the other stuff NewJudge talked about - it's somewhere to keep bad people the hell away from civilised society so we can be safe from their behaviour.
To me that's the whole point of prison. If you've done something bad enough to end up there then it should be for a long time. It's not something to teach people a lesson - that's all the other stuff NewJudge talked about - it's somewhere to keep bad people the hell away from civilised society so we can be safe from their behaviour.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Law20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Crosswords32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.