Conscription and the cane in schools anyone?!
*lights touch paper and runs*
I feel really sad after reading that. :-(
You, as a sworn and responsible member of the bench passing sentence, consider in (your combined) wisdom, that four months is the minimum appropriate sentence to be served, but you acknowledge that he will only serve two months?
Isn't there something wrong there?
Like leymoo (above), I feel sad.
Old Man
I also feel sad about this case. What good is going to come out of sending this young man down for 2 months? Unless he is rehabilitated in prison, he will come out even more disenfranchised with society and authority, and his brain might very well be warped by talking to other prisoners inside.
I understand you have a job to do, I really do, but is this the best (worst) you could offer him?
It seems like sending out a message to the community that we are "tackling" crime is the only thing that is important nowadays.
That's what makes me sad.
Its a really daft question, but could you suspend a sentence, conditional upon someone entering the forces - ie, "you make a success of that, you're off the hook, fail or dropout and you're in the clink"?
We get a lot of stroppy young men like this in our court. There is a huge underclass of them out there and we all know there is no easy solution.
I visited Feltham YOI not so long ago and saw a lot more of them. I also saw sterling efforts by volunteers and others on the various education and skills training schemes there. Some of that was really impressive.
But the downside at Feltham (and I am sure at other YOIs) was the antediluvian prison officer who escorted the mags around the place. 30 years in the service and knew it all. His attitude was almost as depressing as the defendant described by Bystander.
What hope can there really be for those going into the YOIs when they come up against a regime which treats them like dirt? Give rehab a chance (although Bystander's def will not make much progress in 2 months even if he gets on remedial reading courses etc on Day 1, which he won't)
Joanthan asks - "What good is going to come out of sending this young man down for 2 months?" It will probably do no good for the young man at all since little work will be done with him during his stay "inside." He is unlikely to emerge as a model citizen. However, it appears to have been his own conduct which left the court with no alternative. The law had to be upheld.
Ultimately, whatever their personal views, magistrates and judges are not social workers. The defendant whose conduct rules out any alternative to prison deserves to go there.
The automatic release at half-time is a point this young man knew full well! Indeed, the court is supposed to explain this to him. It is a pity that it is always automatic. There appears to me to be a need in the law to require a full sentence to be served in certain cases including where it was the defendant's conduct which left the court with no realistic alternative.
Having said this, it is interesting to consider whether there are defendants who actually prefer to be sent to prison. I have little doubt that they exist. Whilst it is technically a more severe sentence than a community sentence, many find the latter more demanding - e.g. they have to get up on winter's mornings and attend at a place of work.
should of added another couple of months for being an arse in your court
@Peter
I do appreciate that the law has to be upheld but if we think about this in the bigger picture, rather than this one defendant - how will society benefit from him going inside? Apart from being able to say that he has been "punished".
How will society benefit from his almost inevitable return to crime that got him in court in the first place? How will it benefit from the wealth of criminal knowledge he has learned from the others inside? How will it benefit from the disillusionment with authority that the sentence will have implanted in him.
If we want him to return and make a positive contribution to society, we should be challenging his negative behavior, spending some money offering rehabilitation (in whatever form it may be) and generally showing him that we do care and want to work with even the most surly offenders and help them. This could be delivered both inside and outside of prison.
He will get none of those things on a 2 month sentence.
Why does society insist on punishing this young chap by sending him inside in full knowledge of what he is likely to be like when he comes out? Society is shooting itself in the foot!
Judges and magistrates should have the discretion to recognise when sending someone inside is fruitless, and do something else. If nothing else, it will send a message to the Government that it's policy of "filling up the prisons whilst spending the absolute bare minimum" will not work and will only cause bad things to happen in the long run.
We all know that sending this chap inside will not work. Why therefore can we not do something that will?
Jonathan, what are the alternatives? There is the issue of protection of the public, which must be an important consideration here.
I agree the two months will probably be too short to make any sort of difference but maybe, just maybe, he won't enjoy it and might think through what a life of crime will mean. Of course, thinking things through is not high on the lost of characteristics of people like him.
In reality a decent spell of unpaid work is the only alternative.
But as Bystander comments, nobody has stood up to him before now and maybe that includes both adult and youth courts on previous occasions. So maybe he needs to be taught a lesson just as the public needs a break from him.
@ Jonathan
Bystander did note "Unusually, the report suggested that there was little alternative to immediate custody, as no community penalty was likely to be effective.". So where would society be served any better by sending him anywhere else than prison? Personally i'd rather they were out of the way for a little while at least, and they had served some sort of punishment in the absence of any scheme to try and change him.
As for serving half the sentence, which this person knew about and expected, does anyone else think this also sends a message that the law is only half serious?!
Although i mentioned it flippantly earlier, conscription would be the best scheme by far i think for reforming and educating these sorts of people, as they would be made to learn to accept orders, whilst actually standing a real chance of learning something to use in the outside world.
Why was he before the court? No-one seems to have mentioned this. It might give a clue as to why he should/should not be off the streets; maybe it should be at least part of the process.
Jonothan.... the tone of your posts indicates you feel sympathy for this young man and the situation he is in. Are you thinking that he has slipped up and now the nasty system is coming down on him like a ton of bricks? The reality will be that he has been aggressive and unco-operative with his parents, school, any form of authority... and finally, at the end of a very long road of hand-wringing and apologising for his behaviour (others apologising not him no doubt) he is getting a bit of something he doesn't like. What is wrong with the system today is that pure punishment is seen as something bad, not nice, something the court should not do. I say that the court is there to express society at large's disapproval of the behaviour that brought the defendant to court, and why not punish him? In this defendant's head, it's the only language he is likely to understand.
Matthew beat me to asking if anyone had considered the reason for his being before the court. He is clearly not going to cooperate with a community penalty, so the law requires that custody is imposed. Further, his own opinion on the type of sentence that might be suitable or 'easy' is irrelevant; the court has to impose an appropriate sentence commensurate with the view of society at large about the relative levels of sentencing.
If I might raise a technical point, Bystander. In the post "He May Be Right" of 24 March 2007
http://thelawwestofealingbroadwa...%22open+dock%
22
you said that the custody officers do not enter the courtroom until you have made clear that the sentence is to be imprisonment, yet here they entered "as I started my pronouncement". Could you clarify please?
PS: How do you put URL links in messages on HaloScan?
I don't necessarily feel sympathy for him but feel sad that prison is the only way of disposing with him.
Society can show it's disapproval with his behavior by sending him to prison for 2 months, which may provide the short sharp shock he needs, but on balance, probably won't.
But what about when he comes out? Again, on balance, and purely in my opinion, he will still be aggressive and disruptive, but now he will now potentially have had his mind warped by other prisoners, may be on drugs and at the very least will be disillusioned with authority.
Society has shown it's disapproval but has not considered the implications of the prison experience on this chap, and how it may make him more likely to re-offend, rather than less. How exactly has this benefited society? He has been inside for 2 months and therefore not been annoying the general public but 2 months is a short time.
I am making lots of assumptions here, but it's probably safe to say that there is no time to do any offending behavior challenging, or college courses, or anything really in prison in 2 months. He will just be sitting around, sharing cells and conversations with hardened criminals.
I'm also not saying there is a simple solution, but perhaps if we could offer him offending behavior courses, and education on an intensive basis for the 2 months he is inside, then at least we perhaps have a fighting change at helping him think there is more to life than this. Plus he gets a short sharp shock of being withdrawn from society. It seems like a better solution than just locking him up.
But that will never happen, I guess, because it requires money, and there are no votes in prisons. So people like him will continue to be locked up for 2 months at a time and will come out far more disillusioned and warped than when he went in.
If he is as Bystander made him out to be in his article, then I have no sympathy for him, or his crime, but now he is caught up in the system then surely we have both an opportunity and a responsibility to get him out of this cycle?
Our custody officers wait just outside court and enter as we make the pronouncement.
Prison is indeed quite unlikely to assist in his rehabilitation, no doubt he will learn something, but not what we would wish him to learn. Perhaps wtih sentences of six months or so we could incorporate a sound thrashing as well. He may learn that crime hurts and not do it again.
The we could spend the money prison would have cost on rehabilitation.
Surely if he was sentenced to four months he will only be released after two months if he has behaved himself and followed the rules whilst in custody, so wouldn't that be a benefit in itself?
He has learnt through school and later through contacts with Police/Probation/Courts that he can ignore any sanction and bully and bluster his way round people.
If no enforceable sanction is used this will reinforce that belief and his behaviour will probably get worse.
All the drivel about "helping" him that has been posted .... all that will happen is he will refuse to cooperate/abuse/dodge any "help".
Half wits who want to keep "helping" him and allowing him to dodge any effective sanction ; tell me, at what point do you say "this isn't going to work, he needs a metaphorical smack with a piece of 2x4" ?
For the Jonathon's of the world, the answer is never. It's never his responsibility, it's that everyone else hasn't loved, helped and supported him enough.
You're onto a loser whatever the outcome. He's got the whole potato on his shoulder and believes the world owes him a living. He will go through life bitter and angry against those who have everything he hasn't and to him it's everyone else's fault.
A sad no-hoper case.
Philip Currie shows the general lack of understanding of time to be served caused by NuLabour messing with the Criminal Justice System. Prisoners WILL be released at the half way stage of their sentence, or earlier if they are not violent or a danger to the public. That is the government's policy, it has nothing to do with keeping your nose clean whilst doing your bird.
Additional days may be added for disciplinary offences in prison.
The half-way release point is not a Labour invention; extending its use to all determinate sentences is.
This discussion seems to be going on without paying any attention to his crime.
What was it?
If he is locked away he wont harm the public while here is - this is a blessing not to be ignored
"I don't necessarily feel sympathy for him but feel sad that prison is the only way of disposing with him."
Well, it isn't. But transportation is off the cards now that Australia is full...
"Half wits who want to keep "helping" him and allowing him to dodge any effective sanction ; tell me, at what point do you say "this isn't going to work, he needs a metaphorical smack with a piece of 2x4"?"
I know the answer to that one, Paul. It's 'never'...
Jonathan is right, of course, but only in theory. The evidence appears to be that this young man will not cooperate with any attempts to rehabilitate him in the community just as he has probably failed to cooperate with parents, teachers and others who have tried to help him during his life.
This is as has been said the first time he has encountered an institution that won't take "no" for an answer & it is possible that his short spell inside may just make him think. I admit that it's unlikely but I don't see what else is more likely to work given his behaviour.
We did have a more appropriate answer in the works a couple of years back, "custody plus" which would have allowed us to pass a short custodial sentence followed by a lengthy period of supervision and training. Sadly the government dumped this option just as we were to begin training. I gather the reasons were financial but it may prove a false economy. This disposal could have been exactly what this young man needed; a couple of weeks inside (the "short, sharp shock") followed by about a year of intensive intervention.
Abusive and off-topic material removed.
Edited By Siteowner
mmm that sounds threatening from Anonymous - or is it Christopher Stables.
And I was going to comment on what an interesting post Bystander published and how considered and intelligent all the arguements and discussions on this point were and how refreshing to have such intelligent debate.
HEY! no one told me we are allowed to threaten Bystander. sheesh! all those wasted months enjoying this blog when I could have been carefully wording legal-lite threats on the interweb......
Some excellent points being made here.
Siding with those who see custody as maybe inevitable but ultimately useless, my own belief is that one of the weaknesses of our current prison system is that in order to 'benefit' from it (i.e. to address objectives of reform and rehabilitation) you actually need to be serving quite a long sentence, (a year or more).
Most prisons simply aren't set up to deal with beginning to 'reform'/re-educate someone who is only likely to be inside for a couple of months. So all they get out of it is punishment which, as has been noted, ultimately does not address the longer term problems.
A new way of thinking about how we use prisons and what we want from them is very badly needed in this country.
This government's tireless efforts to corrupt the meaning of words continues to infuriate. If a four month sentence doesn't mean a four month sentence why not double it to eight so that the correct punishment is achieved? That, after all, was the original intention. Otherwise, credibility for the law is undermined, the offender fails to be deterred and a mickey mouse justice system continues to decline. The public at large would, no doubt, show only approval that such an unpleasant, anti-social, self-pitying wretch was out of circulation for a meaningful amount of time.
At twenty isn't he a but old to be going to a YOI, (no, the cut-off is 21 - ed) he's old enough to vote, procreate and drink and I'm sure he's old enough to "know my rights" or possibly "no mi rites"
so why not an adult jail?
Jobrag
PS can some post a link so that we can all see what wound Christopher Staples up.
(No. Somebody abused the blog's hospitality by posting about someone he claims to owe him money. When I saw the post I edited it, and in the meantime someone claiming to be called Staples threatened to sue me. I referred him to Arkell v Pressdram, deleted all the offending posts, and blocked his IP address. I also blocked his address from direct email. That's the end of it. - ed)
Edited By Siteowner
Since others have mentioned it, the release at half-time on a short-term prison sentence dates from the Criminal Justice Act 1991 brought in by the Conservative government of the day. There is provsion for recall if the licence is breached. Most of the ciminal justice sentencing law brought in by the Labour government has built upon the 1991 Act.
Interesting. That strikes me as extending the reach of the sentence. If somebody can be called back in at any time, are they more likely to behave in a different way than if they serve the full term and walk away completely free?
Is there a time limit to how long the person is conditionally released, or are they under license for the rest of their lives?
Interesting comments. This is not a sad story, though. It's a sad state of affairs.
Bystander (if I am right) is admitting that neither prison nor a non custodial sentence is going to make a blind bit of difference to this 'underclass' product.
So, Bystander, I say draw a line in the sand. Send him down to the holding cells until there is a place where your conscience can send him. Won't be long before someone in power realises that the system is failing the Courts (and taxpayers) and there's a camp of tents outside your Courthouse with people awaiting trial for lack of space (your own Poll Tax riot, as it were).
If I can rehabilate my, mistreated, homed dog then a civilised country ought to be able to do the same with a humanoid.
But it won't happen with an anecdote.
You misunderstand me Rod. I am not admitting or denying anything, because I don't make the law. Parliament does that, and the higher courts tell us how to interpret it. All that I am doing is saying how the system works day by day.
Thank goodness someone pointed out that the release at the halfway point was introduced in the CJA 1991. Before that we had 1/3 remission for good behaviour, which I believe was introduced by the Conservative Government in the 1898 Prison Act.
The difference - the 1/2 is guaranteed, but following release the offender can be returned to serve the balance if they commit an offence during the other half. And additional days can be added in prison for prison offences. The 1/3 remission could be removed for bad behaviour in prison, but once the offender was released, the 1/3 could never be served.
But nothing is going to stop some people blaming everything on the current government, whether it was introduced by Mr Brown, Mrs Thatcher, or Lord Salisbury.
Just a small correction to my earlier post in which I pointed out that the Conservatives brought in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. At the present time, where a sentence is less than 12 months, the basic rules is release at half-time. Strictly, it is not "on licence" (though the term is often used loosely) but if the person commits another offence during the remainder of the original sentence they can be returned to prison using Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 section 116.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts...#pt5-ch4-
l1g116
All these "early release" rules are an absolute legislative dog's dinner. This is because of the methods used to amend legislation. Never mind, the way they do it keeps lots of people in work producing updates to legal books.
"All these "early release" rules are an absolute legislative dog's dinner."
Ain't that the truth...
IMHO, the real dog's dinner is caused by the "delegated legislation" -i.e. Parliament allowing a Minister to write up the details as he thinks fit - rather than deciding the parameters up front.
Would you trust a Minister?
"But nothing is going to stop some people blaming everything on the current government, whether it was introduced by Mr Brown, Mrs Thatcher, or Lord Salisbury."
And quite right, too.
In the late 1940s and early 1050s, when the country was near bankrupt and owing the USA billions of dollars, Government money was still being spent on national service for all 18 year olds. Every service man will remember the period of "basic training" when even the most unruly youth would be required (without physical brutality)to become physically fit, amenable to authority, and to acquire some basic skills.
For the obdurate, the ultimate threat of the Glasshouse would usually bring them into line.
Would it not be possible, with the co-operation of the services, to introduce a sentence of 2 months "Basic Training" as an alternative to prison? Who knows, upon completion of such a course youths might even achieve some self-respect.
Would 2 months be enough? I think that would be long enough to get fit, but enough to change these sort of people? We could be left with stronger and fitter surly young men/women wandering around...
6 months minimum would seem a better length of time where new skills could also be learnt and actually applied to something (basic trades), which would give a much better foundation for these people to change and work from in the future.
For those urging a return to National Service I offer the follwoing dialogue from Yes Prime Minister showing how it can be labelled good and bad:-
Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Thousands of pounds, countless hours of work time have been spent on keeping this person out of gaol.
They come in expecting gaol but end up with everyone around them making excuses for bad behaviour and giving them chances.
This person, like millions of others in the system end up with no regard for the rule of law and do anything but fear the justice system.
They are for all intensive purposes “untouchable” due to the liberal industry which has grown around them.
PCM - if he's untouchable, how come the system has just managed to send him inside?
When the police say 'untouchable' they mean they get in trouble with the liberals if they get caught beating suspects up without (or even with) a trial.
Obviously it's a case of 'too little too late', which is just the sort of recipe that out liberal do-gooders like to offer, as it keeps them in jobs - jobs that 'do nothing for society', to (mis)quote dear Jonathan and his group of hand-wringing Guardian readers.
Am I alone in believing that I don't really care what happens to this idiot of a prisoner, as long as he's kept out of society's way? I don't really think so. So he's been 'let down by society'. Really? And so what? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?
When I was at college I studied alongside two foreign women who had been abandoned by their (British) husbands and left to bring up several kids on their own. They didn't whinge and shout their plight to every liberal sucker who'd listen - they just got on with their studies, graduated, and went into good careers.
Show this ignorant creep the options available to him now, and point out that if he wants to change, he can do it. The alternative, as we all know, is far too obvious - except to him!
@sandy. It's not entirely obvious to me, to be honest.
I am assuming of course that you don't mean longer term custody. Not least because I'm not too sure our economy could afford custody for every criminal who is an idiot.
So what IS the 'alternative'?
It seems the eternal question is "what do we, the public, want?"
Do we want the system to attempt to reform Mr X or do we want the system to lock Mr X up for as long as we think necessary? Are we, the public prepared to pay properly for either solution? It seems the answer is "no".
I found that despite the huge increase in prisoners in the US, the crime rate is not falling, at least so this report claims.
I question what his real release date will be. Assuming you dealt with him last week, ie on or before 23 November, by Christmas Eve he will have served at least 31 days (day of arival and departure both counted. Assume he had one night in police custody.
I have a feeling that if he behaves himself, he will be released by the governor on Home Detention Curfew - ie be home for Christmas....
Anonimouse - Lock them up as long as it takes to reform them! As for the cost of this, i don't get to choose where the money goes from my taxes, but i guess i could start voting to change the people that do decide.
I'm still not sure why this should cost that much, given that with so many people in prison, that's an awful lot of hands with time to spare... Make them work?! At least then the offenders would actually give something back (paying for more prisons if needed!) whilst in prison and possibly also learn something to take out with them.
Punishment and reform are both needed, though i would place more emphasis on punishment as this provides a good basis/reason for reform. Stopping at the national hotels we currently call prisons hardly seems like punishment, and doesn't seem to offer much in the way of deterrence from booking in again.
Bystander:
But how long did it take before he was given a custodial?
Offence 1) Reprimand
Offence 2) Final warning
Offence 3) Refferal order
Offence 4) Supervision Order
Offence 5) Extention on supervision order.
Offence 6) Custodial sentance.
When will the liberal brigade undestand that by offence number 4, this person is now frimly of the belief that his actions will not meet any consequence.
How many times can you tell a person "if you do it again you will be in real trouble" before they realise they wont be?
The state let this person down at offence number 2 by NOT sending him to gaol.
PS I apologise for any spelling mistakes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/
7117089.stm
This person, if one can call him that, is a complete waste of space. He will never amount to anything and will probably commit a murder or two later on. For the sake of the non criminals who will eventually become his victims, my solution would be a humanely administered lethal injection.
"This person, if one can call him that, is a complete waste of space. He will never amount to anything and will probably commit a murder or two later on. For the sake of the non criminals who will eventually become his victims, my solution would be a humanely administered lethal injection."
Bravo, well said. The gene pool just needs a little chlorine in it to get rid of the undesirables and everything will be fine.
@Anonymous(s) - My problem with anonymous comments is that we can't find the people to administer these injections to.
PC Midland brings our attention above to a fine young gentlemen who was released afer doing just 7 months of an 18-month sentence for burglary. Being apparently bored and broke (as congenital losers tend to be) AND tagged, he decided to do another burglary - and killed a woman in the process.
Now he's got life. And his victim has none. Well done - another cracking success story!
@Sandy - Whatever we feel, they can't do the time until they've done the crime.
Whilst no doubt PC Midland has some good reasons for feeling as he does, I suspect he is spinning the truth a tad with his mantra...
Offence 1) Reprimand
Offence 2) Final warning
Offence 3-6) Etc etc.
The suggestion is that this is the norm, but it is of course far from being so. I had a 20 year old in front of me yesterday for instance charged with robbery : he had a perfectly clean record, no reprimands, no orders etc. But if found guilty in the Crown Court there is no doubt he will go inside for a few years.
This may not sit easily with stereotypes of the 'liberal brigade' running the country but it is nearer the truth I suspect than our PC's less accurate ( but no doubt founded in frustrations from real experience) picture.
Our legal system may be far from perfect for sure : but surely that is why it is best and more helpful to focus on the real flaws rather than painting exaggerated pictures.
I agree with Biker Mag, there are 'short-cuts' to proper sentences which show the system to be working at the more serious end of the scales.
The problem is the slow progress of more minor offending which does create the impression of being let off time and time again.
I don't have easy answers either but IMHO prison should be much harsher for offenders on their 2nd or 3rd visit. We need a 'first offender prison' which throws loads of money at rehabilitation and gives offenders a real prospect of changing their ways. If it doesnt work then play hardball and lets have solitary confinement on the cheap.
Locking someone up for 8 weeks (if that) is pointless. He is alienated already from society and authority. he blames society (wrongly). After 8 weeks of inconvenience he come out with nowhere to live, no job, no money and a worse attitude. Guess what he does next?
@not_surprised - Mother?, girlfriend? Sounds like plenty of Benefits and a roof over his head.
Blame the mother... Probably didn't buy him his weed that week :)
Rod: Yes it is true, you can not do the time unless you have done the crime.
But at the very least you must have to serve time for what you have already done. Especially if there are early warning signs.
Biker Mag. Whilst I agree my post is ever so slightly exaggerated it nonetheless demonstrates a complete unwillingness of the system to cope with persistent (if not serious) criminals. Leading of course to latter serious offending which does no one any good (victim or offender).
Also as a percentage, how many times do you see someone at court with no convictions? I think it would be very low.
I fear what this will all look like in ten years time, when the true effects of this social tinkering have taken shape. The liberal brigade very much runs this country, to the detriment of this once great nation.
How wrong can you be PCM?
Of course one can be made to do the time even if one hasn't done the crime.
28 days...
(Prevention of Terrorism and all that.)
A number of people have now been held for the full 28 days under that legislation, and then released without charge.
28 days is almost as much as a convicted burglar gets from a Magistrates' Court!
How much 'better' can things get?
Shades of 'Minority Report' indeed.
William
philjrob - If only all offenders got the Glasshouse effect. That place does seem to change most people and for the better too.
I don't think the glasshouse deters people from committing the crime but when they know they might be going there it certainly scares them.
William:
"Of course one can be made to do the time even if one hasn't done the crime."
It rarely happens though. Most go through the range of sentences that I have described above. You haven’t much experience of the justice system if you believe otherwise.
As for the terrorism rules, it is a minute of a fraction of people.
Unless of course you want to desperately believe the guardian and liberty hype it isn’t a major part of the UK.
Further to Peter's comment asking if there are defendants who actually prefer to be sent to prison, I've known a few people who did.
One in particular was an ex-Guardsman, who was living rough in London due in part to his experiences in the Falklands.
I'd got to know him fairly well over some months, so when he disappeared one December I assumed the worst. But then I met him again about six months later.
When I asked where he'd been, he said he preferred prison in winter. He'd committed a variety of petty offences in front of police officers, but to his annoyance hadn't got the prison sentence he wanted.
So he kicked a police officer in the bollocks, went through the system, and got the result he wanted. Well, it was actually longer than he'd wanted but, as he said, he got regular washes, clean clothes, hair cuts, decent grub, a warm bed and the fixed, ordered routine he craved.
When I lived in London I knew several people like him. Prison was their best option for escaping chaotic lives.
It's a sad world.
Commenting by HaloScan
