|
sleazy -> RE: Over crowded jails (1/26/2007 6:13:07 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Reasons the prisons are overcrowded (from what I recall of the Newsnight debate earlier this week);
1) There are many psychologically and psychiatrically ill people in prison, where they do not receive treatment. But there is nowhere else for them to be sent as they should be, (residential psychiatric care), for their offending behaviour to be resolved at source, since such facilities have been closed down.
I agree completely, here in London the rather large building that is now the Imperial War Museum was originally just one of many places for such people. I would guess if reverted to its former status it would now offer more places than the rest of the city combined. (Note, I am not saying I agree with the methods of treatment of the past, but least they had spaces)
quote:
2) There are 60,000 people in the system every twelve months who are sent to prison on remand. A quarter of these are later not proven guilty in court, and presumably another high proportion are released on community sentences. This raises the point as to whether most such people should ever have been held on remand in the first place. Perhaps a bail bond system such as in the US might be an idea in this regard - they go free until trial (albeit only in the case where there is no risk to the public from them) and if they should abscond then the guarantor of the bond pays up and a search for them is made and eventual penalties include an additional penality for absconding.
I agree in principle with the idea of US style bonding system, after all police bail is a joke with no real penalty for failing to appear or adhere to bail conditions. Based on speaking to police & magistrates, most held on remand either have no fixed abode, or already have a considerable list of failures adhering to bail restrictions.
quote:
3) There are many in prison who shouldnt really be there. People who havent paid their council tax, for instance; of course these are serious offences for which serious penalties are required, but being in prison does not achieve much for such people.
Agreed, such offences should have purely civil penalties.
quote:
I feel that under electoral pressure, much like the situation with addicts in MissT's other thread, that the government has caved into the idea of locking people up, for whom prison is not a solution and for whom indeed, prison is counter-intuitive to reducing their future offending.
Overall though, we need to look at what prison achieves, what it could achieve and what the purposes of it are. There has to be an element of punishment, but more important is that it achieves rehabilitation. That something like 2/3 of prisoners reoffend within a short time after release, indicates that it is neither a deterrent nor rehabilitative.
E
I personally am of the "lock 'em up" group, having lived for a short while in an area where I used to ring the police and tell them not to attend my house that evening! At the end of the day, for victims every day a car thief or burglar is locked away, it is one less day they are targetting your house, or your car etc. The problem is much bigger to me than simply crime and punishment, but society as a whole seems to need some serious attention, education, respect for self and others, the me me me something for nothing culture, all need serious work as a part of the issue.
I do however think that community penalties with some form of meaning and that actually return something to the community are a good idea, if that means having a bunch offenders scrubbing graffiti off walls whilst wearing shackles and a bright pink jump suit, then so be it. Penalties for not fulfilling a community service should be much harsher than they are.
On the subject of the peadophile, the argument of this week pictures, next week rape/murder/whatever is exactly the reasoning behind the recent violent sexual imagery legislation. Something I think all of us here were firmly against. Again I do not condone that individual or his actions.
|
|
|
|
