Sentencing

[DaisyNonna]

Why is it so complicated? Jailed for so many years, could be out in ?
Makes a mockery of it.

[Mamyalynne]

Crazy system it is Daisy.

[Georgiesmum]

I agree. It doesnt make sense does it?

[kvalidir]

It's so there is an incentive to behave well inside prison Daisy. If you were sentenced to 5 years and served five years no matter how difficult or easy a prisoner you were, you might choose to be as difficult as you could be. Times that by the thousands of people serving sentences and you would need more staff, the work would be more dangerous so would need to be higher aid and it would all cost the tax payer. this way if you behave well, they release you often at the halfway mark, which is something to be worked towards. It's not a mockery, it's practical.

[murraymints]

I agree with shar ...if it seems hopeless then all manner of unfortunate scenarios may present....the trick is at initial sentencing, make it longer ? But nevertheless the carrot of early release for good behaviour is still there..

[TWR]

It makes it quicker for them to re-offend, go back into court at the Publics expence, to return to prison for them to get fed 3 meals a day, heating, the lot whilst some of the decent people outside have to struggle going to the food banks.

[Sqad]

Instead of shortening the sentence for good behaviour, why not lengthen it for bad behaviour?

[kvalidir]

It doesn't really matter which way around it is though does it Sqad, because take Rolf Harris for example- the Judge clearly think he deserves to spend 34 months in prison- so this way he sentences him to 5 years 9 months, your way he sentences him to 34 months- either way it's more or less the same:) If sentences weren't halved, they would simply get shorter and I'm not sure that's a good idea.

[Sqad]

Shari....aaah! but Joe Public sees halving a sentence for good behaviour as questionable, but would view increasing a sentence for bad behaviour as "justice."

[murraymints]

I've heard of cases where sentences are indeed increased when further assaults take place inside...in some cases like Manson, the British one, who has gone on to commit murder inside , his stay is ever increasing !

[kvalidir]

As Murray says they do go up for serious breaches, but my concern would be that the public perception of punishment would actually be lower because it would stick in people's minds that you only get 34 months for being a child sex abuser, whereas at the moment psychologically they have nearly 6 years floating around their heads.

[Sqad]

Shari....one doesn't give them 34 months, one gives them 6 years from the outset.

[woofgang]

don't forget that "out" means out on licence. Any breach of that licence puts you back in again.

[Peter Pedant]

.

You can start of with David Thomas: Principles of Sentencing
available on amazon

I had to read it: there is no reason why you shouldnt


Part of the complication is that the crimes were committed so long ago,
you cant say - you get a hundred years in prison for this ! in a law passed on a year ago....
why not say instead - it was so long ago and we know peoples memories are duff after a few years and we also know that money has been demanded BY the witnesses - that we call the whole thing off....

My father in the seventies said he wouldnt like to give sworn evidence about what happened in the prison camps, 40 -45 because he couldnt be sure of chapter and verse, and so far I have nt seen anything to change my opinion.

[RATTER15]

I totally agree with what kvalidir is saying, I know people cant get their heads around it and I have had the same discussion many times. It works, it just depends how people view it. He has basically been sentenced to 34 months with the option for it to be increased, the court system just word it differently. The court didn't want him to serve 5 years 9 months, but they can increase it to that if deemed necessary.

[Peter Pedant]

// the Judge clearly think he deserves to spend 34 months in prison- so this way he sentences him to 5 years 9 months, your way he sentences him to 34 months // No sorry there is case law about this:

Melford stevenson I think, said he wanted X to spend 5 y in prison and so he would be out under the old rules in half the time so his sentence was set by dear old 'Melly' at 10, and the appeal court said sorry you cant do that.

[kvalidir]

Peter the judge could have sentenced Rolf Harris to up to 10 years if he chose, because that's within the sentencing guidelines. No sane judge is going to actually say ' I WANT him to spend 5 years behind bars so I'll sentence him to 10', that is however how it works in practical terms. The fact that Melford Stevenson was stupid enough to actually say it caused the problem, but I am led to believe that judges indeed do behave like this- they just don't usually say so.

[TWR]

And poor old Alwen has to suffer humiliation for the rest of her life, the poor woman.

[Peter Pedant]

kval you have certainly got the bit about sane
Dunn J said of dear old Melly - the worst judge since the War...

I think they have sentencing guidelines to rein the madder ones in.

People including lawyers were commenting that since the old law allowed 7 years or whatever ( lots of laws go around in units of 7. 14 or life ) he should have the max even tho at the time you got thirty days. It seems clear now that if the norm was 3 1/2 mo in 1975... then he should get that.

[Peter Pedant]

.

and Bindi gets her eleven million - there is justice after all ...

[New Judge]

"He has basically been sentenced to 34 months with the option for it to be increased,"

"Instead of shortening the sentence for good behaviour, ..."

"It's so there is an incentive to behave well inside prison Daisy. "

It's not actually that complicated but there seems to be some serious misunderstanding here, particularly linking release at the half way point with "good behaviour". With a few exceptions (see below) there is no such link. Almost all prisoners serving determinate sentences are released having served half of their time. The release is automatic (they do not have to "apply" for it) and unconditional (behaviour, good or otherwise, is not a consideration). Those sentenced to 12 months or less are released unconditionally. Those serving more than 12 months serve the remainder of their sentence "on licence". Furthermore, those serving sentences of between 3 months and four years are usually eligible for release under the "Home Detention Curfew" arrangements which sees many of them serving only one quarter of their sentence. Only if they commit further offences whilst in custody (for which they must be prosecuted and convicted by a court) can time be added to their sentence.

There is an exception and the Rolf Harris case possibly fits into this category. A Parole Board decision (where behaviour may be a consideration) is necessary on the release of prisoners sentenced for a serious violent or sexual crime committed before 4th April 2005 and for which they received a sentence of more than four years. (I'm not sure without looking it up whether Harris's offences fall into the "serious sexual offences" definition.

Prisoners used to get up to a third off their sentences for "good behaviour". Prison governors had powers to order a reduction in this remission for bad behaviour. Some years ago this was deemed unlawful as it was seen that the sentences were being arbitrarily increased by somebody who was not "a properly convened tribunal".

In January 2013 Chris Grayling, MP, the Justice Secretary, sought an end to these current arrangements which were introduced by the Labour Government. He announced plans to review the current release arrangements and return to linking early release with good behaviour. It's only 18 months since then so, unsurprisingly, nothing's happened thusfar.