You're the economist, Wat. How about a cost analysis of the incarceration / dicking around with parole boards expense?
Cost / cost should be easier than cost / benefit. Rather a lazy post from the Major, if you ask me.
BTW, one of them is a dead ringer for my dentist, and the other is a bloke who I'd swear offered to mow my lawn. Why do the police release photos that could be of anyone to alarm the public?
"[...] convicted murderers should never ever be allowed out."
Never?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...-of-
murder.html
It's hard to understand for Labour.
What about the human cost James?
I also object to having to feed and house them once they do get out as they are partly incapable; might as well keep them in and keep the whole of society safe.
Look at certain bloggers, completely and totally unrepentant about their heinous crime, who is feed, housed and given all manner of luxury, including PC and broadband, free.
Victims first is a joke, as is Labours changes over the past 13 years.
Electronic tagging with radio-controlled scorpion venom injection should they go missing seems the obvious answer. If we must be "humane" we should be prepared to be resoundingly cruel should they transgress
Why was a shopping trip necessary for this woman's 'therapy'?
I can - just about - understand it's necessity in the case of an old lag who has been inside for twenty years, but she can't have been unfamiliar with the concept of 'shopping' after being banged up in 2007, can she?
Can't now remember where it was, but I read recently that released murderers are the lowest re-offending group, and this bt quite a margin.
Given the nature of murder it is hardly surprising they are the lowest re-offending, but also given the nature of murder any re-offending is very bad for the innocents of society, and it will get worse if the punishment is seen as soft.
Oh dear, Wat, now I know that you think that, because I am implacably opposed to the death penalty, I am therefore a wishy-washy liberal on all matters penological. In fact, I’m much closer to your p.o.v than you might think.
The problem about murder in this country is the inflexibility of the life sentence, which must be passed on all murders. Judges are unable to pass the sentences they would like to pass and any recommendation they make about a minimum term may be ignored by the executive.
Judges need to have the power to pass genuine life sentences on the evil murderers; Myra Hindley, the Yorkshire Ripper, Ian Huntley and so on must all be incarcerated until they die. No argument. You can send the psychiatrists in, you can even torture them by exposing them to visits from the likes of Lord Longford, but they must stay in jail. Permanently.
And frankly, I have little sympathy for the so called “mercy killers” like the “devoted husband” (sic) in the Torygraph article mentioned by SJB above. This was murder. He had no right to do what he did. The message needs to be sent out loud and clear that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable.
The more difficult area is rape, GBH, paedophilia and so on. Are you going to put these people away for life as well? The question of whether people like this are “safe” to be released may not arise. Once a rapist has served a determinate sentence he is automatically released without regard to whether he is likely to re-offend. Same applies to many offences.
Are you going to fill the jails (and build many more) to house people who MAY be a future danger to society? If you are not, you have to make a risk analysis and as you can never achieve complete predictive accuracy, there will be occasional disasters. And none worse than in the area of paedophilia, and offence that most people illogically but understandably regard as worse than murder.
John
Perhaps we need a new Australia, so we can ship all the undesirables out of the country. How about Rockall? Or St Helena?
The problem seems to be the Parole board, (often) lacking adequate information and analyses to make a reasoned judgement based on risk of the suitability for release. The prison system is so overstretched that many prisoners are never monitored and assessed, so parole is granted on a nod from the wing officer - so early 20th century and just as variable as it was then. Don't expect slippery Jack to improve this travesty: he always puts the prisoner's "rights" above the safety of the public.
XX If anyone sees her, please don't approach her, but call police immediately.XX Wherby we will take 10 hours to turn up, IF we can be bothered at all.
Seriously, such kind of criminals should not be allowed to go out for any reasons. After seeing all these examples if our cops would continue with this freedom for a while to prisoners then it is disgusting on there part.
Best CD Rates
"moment-of-madness type murderers" usually beat the rap. lack of a priori intent, diminished responsibility etc.
people who go down for murder are, almost always, murderers!
"And frankly, I have little sympathy for the so called “mercy killers” like the “devoted husband” (sic) in the Torygraph article mentioned by SJB above. This was murder. He had no right to do what he did. The message needs to be sent out loud and clear that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable."
Of course, when doctors do it, it's perfectly ok...
"Why was a shopping trip necessary for this woman's 'therapy'?"
Well yes. Has no on in the penal service heard of Internet shopping?
james harries
"You're the economist, Wat. How about a cost analysis of the incarceration / dicking around with parole boards expense?
Cost / cost should be easier than cost / benefit. Rather a lazy post from the Major, if you ask me."
An interesting point.
Clearly parole board release saves the government a whole load of cost, and that must partly explain why it has such wide powers.
But as Stewart says, before releasing criminals to offend again, government should also consider the cost to victims. Just looking at the £30-40 grand pa saved in prison costs is very partial.
As for the overall cost-benefit analysis, we've looked at this many times. The latest figures we uncovered say that on average, banging someone up costs costs just under £30 grand pa, and saves society £280 grand pa in less crime. (see - http://burningourmoney.blogspot....kend-
press.html )
SJB and Doc-
On the question of the "mercy killing" husband, it's clearly a difficult case, but I agree with the Doc. Murder is murder, and we need to have a very definite line in the sand.
"Are you going to fill the jails (and build many more) to house people who MAY be a future danger to society?"
Yes. Yes, I am.
My view is that we could double the number of prison places for c£3bn pa, £1bn of which we could fund by abolishing the hopeless Probation Service.
The extra places would allow us to lock up all the 100,000 persistent criminals identified by the Home Office as being responsible for half our crime.
As part of the programme I'd also introduce three strikes and you're out - see previous blogs.
XX The extra places would allow us to lock up all the 100,000 persistent criminals identified by the Home Office as being responsible for half our crime. XX
There are... OTHER solutions to persistant anti social elements. Much CHEAPER solutions, and you deffinately do NOT get "re-offenders".
Wat Tyler: "My view is that we could double the number of prison places for c£3bn pa."
But this appears to be based on just the £30k* running cost per place based on the current prison capacity and thus takes no account of the capital cost required to build the additional 100,000 prison places you are seeking, which I calculated in a previous comment will need public expenditure of £219k for each new prison place: see http://www.haloscan.com/comments...23260224471493/
*Based on your figure of "just under £30 grand pa", although the figure provided by another branch of HMG for 2007-8 is £39k: see
http://www.parliament.the-statio.../
81125w0033.htm (col 1306W, last sentence)
For the money they are SUPPOSSED to be spending on each prisoner per day, I could stay first class in the bloody Hotel Adlon. And the security is probably BETTER.
The man she meant of killed was a drugly he came at her with a steel bar beating her in hes own home, he use to ues her for sex give her drugs. Until no day she could nt take no more. It was someone else that killed the man.
True Story
ask the police
The man she meant of killed was a drugly he came at her with a steel bar beating her in hes own home, he use to use her for sex give her drugs. Until no day she could not take no more. It was someone else that killed the man.
True Story
Ask the police
Commenting by HaloScan
