Anyone a magistrate?

[Russinating]

The irony here is amazing as Russ never did anything. He gave up! Beautiful.

How is it ironic? I'm not complaining about the system.

And I never gave up.

 

[Freakbro]

Is it? Do you have data to back that up? Anecdotally I've heard that it does nothing to deter addicts and career criminals.

Precisely. It's clearly not a threat from the demonstrable fact that repeat offending is so high.

Well, addiction should be treated as the health issue it is, not just left for the justice system to deal with and 'career criminals' as you put it are just that, someone who has decided the risk/reward ratio is worth the life they've chosen. No level of extreme punishment is going to deter them, hence you still have criminals in countries with the death penalty.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

So are you saying then that the sentences weren't lenient?

No, I'm not saying that, as you know.

 

[Dis86]

No, I'm not saying that, as you know.

I know nothing of the sort. Clearly these magistrates think these people clearly represent no harm to the public so perhaps you do too.
You know, despite many of them having dozens of convictions proving that they're a threat.

 

[hurfdurf]

I know nothing of the sort. Clearly these magistrates think these people clearly represent no harm to the public so perhaps you do too.
You know, despite many of them having dozens of convictions proving that they're a threat.

Why don’t you become a magistrate or a special and sort these criminals out yourself?

 

[York]

Is it? Do you have data to back that up? Anecdotally I've heard that it does nothing to deter addicts and career criminals.

Yes:

Research has previously indicated that offenders who receive short term custody of under 12 months are more likely to re-offend than similar offenders who receive a community or suspended sentence order (e.g. Ministry of Justice, 2013). This finding was replicated in the present study, bringing it up-to-date and showing that it is a consistent effect.

This study found short term custody was associated with significantly higher proven re-offending compared to ‘court orders’ (community orders and suspended sentence orders combined)

For each year cohort examined, the one year re-offending rate was higher for those sentenced to short term custody than for those given ‘court orders’ overall (around 4 percentage points), community orders (around 3 percentage points) and suspended sentence orders (around 7 percentage points)

Additional analyses were undertaken to test the potential effect of different follow-up periods, examining cumulative proven re-offending over 1, 2 and 3 years follow-up. The increases in re-offending associated with short term custody compared with ‘court orders’ persisted over different follow-up periods

All of the above is taken directly from "The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on re-offending" published by the Ministry of Justice in 2015.
You can read it here

If you want a more recent study then:

This study found that sentencing offenders to short term custody with supervision on release was associated with higher proven reoffending than if they had instead received community orders and/or suspended sentence orders

• The one year reoffending rate following short term custodial sentences of less than 12 months was higher than if a court order had instead been given (by 4 percentage points), with this impact being similar regardless of whether the court order was a community order or a suspended sentence order.
• The one year average number of reoffences per sentencing occasion1 was also higher following short term custodial sentences of less than 12 months than if a court order had instead been given (by around 65 reoffences more per 100 sentencing occasions).
• Additional analysis showed that the one year reoffending impact of short term custodial sentences compared to if community orders had instead been given was of similar magnitude (around 4 percentage points) regardless of whether the short term custodial sentence length was less than 3, 6 or 12 months.

All taken from "The impact of short custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders on reoffending, 2019" by the Ministry of Justice.
You can read it here.

Short-term custodial sentences are not the panacea that some people would believe. Anyone that has ever visited a jail knows that there is little support available for those on short-term sentences, and they are often (by many a Prison Governor that I've spoken to's own admission) ignored or sidelined as they will be gone in such a short amount of time. If they are on benefits, or in secure housing this is ripped away from them when they are dumped out by the system, often leaving them with only crime as an option to survive. If they are in some form of rehab program, obtaining mental health treatment or anything else of this ilk this also ends up being stopped and the person having to start again.
Prisons are not clean environments: there are (unfortunately) drugs and corrupt prison officers that will supply those drugs, and they are also a way for many to associate and build further criminal connections.

Ultimately there are times when a prison sentence (even a short one) is appropriate, but the goal of the justice system is not just to punish. It should always be a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

 

[Dis86]

Why don’t you become a magistrate or a special and sort these criminals out yourself?

I don't want to. Just because you don't agree with how something is done, doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Didn't see you running against Trump.

 

[Dis86]

but the goal of the justice system is not just to punish. It should always be a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Wrong. It is there to protect the public.

 

[Quartz]

Yes:

The bits you quote don't actually back up the claim that suspended sentences deter crime. There's a whole 4% difference. Wow. That's almost in the margin of error.

 

[York]

The bits you quote don't actually back up the claim that suspended sentences deter crime. There's a whole 4% difference. Wow. That's almost in the margin of error.

My claim was that it's a deterrent to someone committing a further crime while they're on a suspended sentence. The fact that in similar cohorts those with a suspended sentence were 7% (as in the 2015 study) less likely to re-offend than those given an immediate custodial sentence backs this up.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have 4 in 100 to 7 in 100 fewer offenses committed by criminals subject to a custodial sentence while also costing the taxpayer less rather than just throwing everyone inside a jail for a few weeks and thinking that fixes all ills.

 

[Werewolf]

Wrong. It is there to protect the public.

And how do you do that if you don't you know, try and do something to reduce the re-offending rate as well?

You can protect the public by executing everyone who commits a crime, but that's a little drastic even if it does reduce the reoffending rate to zero...

Or you can try and protect the public by a combination of punishment and sorting out what leads to some crimes, or punishment that leave the offender with nothing and few if any options other than to commit more crimes.
Oddly enough putting people in prison for a short period of time resulting in things like lost jobs and housing, then releasing them with nothing planned for once they're out tends to be really bad for crime prevention compared to punishments that often cost far less, but are also still punishments, often more so than a short stay in jail (a community sentence that say requires you to give up what is effectively weeks of free time is in some ways a harsher punishment than on that puts you inside for a week or two, whilst also leaving you able to work).

I'm sure you'd agree that jailing everyone who is caught speeding would be counter productive, but the argument could be made it would protect the public. But back in the real world the loss of the ability to drive is a huge and very disruptive punishment for most people.

Personally I'd like to see a massively increased detection and (safe) conviction rate for all crimes because it's usually not the severity of the punishment that causes criminals to stop but a combination or how likely they are to get caught and convicted, but combined with much more assistance to get people off drugs and to offer assistance to those who are committing crimes because of things like mental health problems or circumstances. This is pretty much the combination that has been shown to work time and time again as opposed to ever harsher and longer sentences with nothing else (back in the days of the "bloody code" crime was rife, despite the extremely harsh punishments, mainly because for many it was a choice of committing a crime or going without food/shelter etc).

 

[hurfdurf]

I don't want to. Just because you don't agree with how something is done, doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Didn't see you running against Trump.

Im not American, if I was I’d be as active there in civic life as I am in the UK.

I don’t think people like you get to comment on justice or politics if you aren’t willing to get involved and fix the things you complain about. Your opinion isn’t worth anything if you aren’t willing to do anything with it.