Certainly a contributor
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/07/longer-prison-sentences-cut-crime
Considering they are in cells most of the day and sex is generally unavailable, then could we just call them incels?
Well if you want to do that through harsher sentencing the best approach would be to lock all criminals away for life, as there's little evidence that increased sentences will stop people committing crime when they're released.
It's not all about stopping them re-offending, long(er) sentences are supposed to be a deterrent prior to the crime being committed and obviously justice for the victim(s) in some cases. You can't possibly know if a person will re-offend or not but what you can do is make it clear that committing a particular crime to begin with shouldn't be worthwhile.
"Research by the last government supports claims made since by Kenneth Clarke that factors such as a benign economy and improved home security had greater roles to play in the fall in crime in England and Wales than an increase in the use of imprisonment."
Neilson also said that the research ignores the "clear failure of prison as spelled out in reoffending rates". He added: "Lengthening prison sentences at additional cost when prisons are already failing will not provide lasting solutions to crime."
The thing is as far as I can see there's very little evidence that longer sentences actually act as a deterrent. The "justice for the victims" angle is a valid argument, but not one I sign up to particularly. In terms of re-offending you absolutely can't be sure whether or not they will re-offend when you sentence, but the point isn't about predicting re-offending rates, it's about implementing a system that gives as many people as possible the opportunity for rehabilitation.
For me the argument is summed up pretty well in the article's final two paragraphs:
Here's some evidence
https://www.economist.com/free-exch...ntences-do-deter-crime-but-only-up-to-a-point
So they do work to a certain point. Either way I care less about rehabilitation of criminals and rather prevention of crime in the first place.
Here's some evidence
https://www.economist.com/free-exch...ntences-do-deter-crime-but-only-up-to-a-point
So they do work to a certain point. Either way I care less about rehabilitation of criminals and rather prevention of crime in the first place.
…while longer sentences do have some deterrent effect, they are concentrated in the first few years. A mandatory minimum sentence of ten years with a threat of an extra ten depending on the nature of the crime may deter some crimes. But the extra ten years will be less effective as a deterrent than the threat of five years on top of a five year mandatory minimum. According to the estimates in the paper, criminals worry about the extra five years four times as much as the extra ten.
This is true: short sentences are no benefit to anyone. Keep people in for a month, no rehabilitation is possible, keep them in for a year, and it is.What it's showing however is that mandatory minimum is of benefit. Take the ****** that tried to break in to my house last month. He's been in court 4 times for attempted/burglary and not once has he received a custodial sentence. He then keeps reoffending. He broke in to 2 people's homes on the night He tried mine. A week before Christmas. That was 2 families Christmases ruined. If he'd been locked up that wouldn't have happened.
If prison worked, the USA would be crime free.
The goal of prison isn't for a crime free society, that's not realistic and can't be achieved with any system.
Don't these countries with 'lax prisons' also have some of the lowest re-offending rates in the world and some of the best justice systems?
I think the key is the environment and society you release the offender back into and this may be an important cultural difference between here and Norway.
If we release all offenders back into villages in the lake district and find them jobs it might work. Send them back to drug ridden urban estates and they will be back in no time.
Considering they are in cells most of the day and sex is generally unavailable, then could we just call them incels?