Government says that prisoners should pay for damage to their cells
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
+1.
I was about to post exactly that.
With you two agreeing like this, I'm not sure who I'm worried about the most....
He's turning into a massive commie socialist is why
(also many facts tend to have a liberal bias)Do you want higher or lower overall crime rates?.
they wouldn't though.
Before we go on do you believe the government has a duty of care to prisoners in that they should be providing a safe environment for them to live i nor are you of the thought, **** them they've done wrong they deserve whatever comes to them?
I don't see how it will make prisons cheaper to run. Prisoner X causes damage to a cell by smashing the window and wrecking the bed frame. £1k of damage. How are they going to recoup this expense?
They dock it from their prison account (the £4 a week they earn doing chores) - this is limited to two years. What's the disincentive for them to wreck something else the week after? In fact it creates an incentive for them to take the blame for everything else (for a small fee off other prisoners). Secondly shouldn't there be an appeals process to ensure they aren't taken advantage of? I can only see the administrative costs of such a scheme outweighing the money they may recoup.
They dock it from their prison account (the £4 a week they earn doing chores) - this is limited to two years. What's the disincentive for them to wreck something else the week after? In fact it creates an incentive for them to take the blame for everything else (for a small fee off other prisoners). Secondly shouldn't there be an appeals process to ensure they aren't taken advantage of? I can only see the administrative costs of such a scheme outweighing the money they may recoup.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Crimes inside or outside of jail?
actually that is an excellent point, crimes committed in jail are completely overlooked most of the time.
would be intersting to see what % of total crime they account for or if they;re excluded from statistics.
With you two agreeing like this, I'm not sure who I'm worried about the most....
LOL!
In light of this, I revoke my original statement and now think that Chris Grayling's idea is brilliant and this should be followed through on because those crims need to PAY THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Thing is, I don't think that mass rehabilitation does work, or can work.
In isolated cases it might do, but not in the majority of cases.
What if I told you that the solution was actually a different form of rehabilitation, i.e £500,000 into their bank for each year of sentence they have been passed with 1000 hours counselling.
This would stop most people from re offending, because they would have little need to (except for clinically insane people who should be sectioned as such).
Would that suffice? Would you be happy to pay it? At the end of the day in this world, who is ever going to employ an EX CON when there are over 2 million unemployed and FOBs coming in from Poland or Africa every day who have no criminal record? The Public sector already filters out all convicts when employing, what are the private sector supposed to do?
In isolated cases it might do, but not in the majority of cases.
What if I told you that the solution was actually a different form of rehabilitation, i.e £500,000 into their bank for each year of sentence they have been passed with 1000 hours counselling.
This would stop most people from re offending, because they would have little need to (except for clinically insane people who should be sectioned as such).
Would that suffice? Would you be happy to pay it? At the end of the day in this world, who is ever going to employ an EX CON when there are over 2 million unemployed and FOBs coming in from Poland or Africa every day who have no criminal record? The Public sector already filters out all convicts when employing, what are the private sector supposed to do?
Last edited:
from the linked article...
using those numbers, there's a potential to save £14m a year if every incident cost the full whack and they recover all that money. i'm guessing the real figure is actually much lower. now consider the goverment spend over 3billion a year keeping over 80,000 people locked up and you realise it's all pretty irrelevant numbers wise.
i'm not saying offenders should go unpunished but this whole story really is designed to stir up the public rather than save money on a practical level. there must be other ways they achieve savings and make the whole service more efficient. as a taxpayer, you should be more outraged that it costs 40k per person per year to keep someone locked up.
using those numbers, there's a potential to save £14m a year if every incident cost the full whack and they recover all that money. i'm guessing the real figure is actually much lower. now consider the goverment spend over 3billion a year keeping over 80,000 people locked up and you realise it's all pretty irrelevant numbers wise.
i'm not saying offenders should go unpunished but this whole story really is designed to stir up the public rather than save money on a practical level. there must be other ways they achieve savings and make the whole service more efficient. as a taxpayer, you should be more outraged that it costs 40k per person per year to keep someone locked up.
