Today I'm angry about.....

[Hoboh]

A strange one. There is a review mechanism and it's described in the second sentence there.

Nothing strange at all Mummy, it's the EU.

[Hoboh]

The comments posted under that story in the Gazette make me rather worried about the types of people who actually read that paper!
Anyone who worries about scum like those who commit hideous crimes or worry that outer Mongolia or such places will tut tut at British Justice are frightening to the extreme!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

A strange one. There is a review mechanism and it's described in the second sentence there.

Nothing strange at all Mummy, it's the EU.

The Strasbourg court is not actually an EU institution, but I know what you mean.

[Prufrock]

I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's 'strange'. It fits with taking the decision on life tariffs away from the home second and giving it to judges. It's de-politicising it.

Again, whilst I don't agree it's necessary, it isn't going to mean folk are automatically let out, just they'll have a right to a review every so often. It isn't going to mean they're let out. Any panel will still be able to say you need to stay in jail.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

To say that there is no possibility of release and a possibility of review, when there is a process that does exactly that with the office of Lord Chancellor at the centre of it, is strange, if you ask me. If the complaint is that it shouldn't have a political dimension then let's say so.

[Hoboh]

I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's 'strange'. It fits with taking the decision on life tariffs away from the home second and giving it to judges. It's de-politicising it.

Again, whilst I don't agree it's necessary, it isn't going to mean folk are automatically let out, just they'll have a right to a review every so often. It isn't going to mean they're let out. Any panel will still be able to say you need to stay in jail.

Or

You can get out!

There have over the years been some strange results from these panels.

[thebish]

I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's 'strange'. It fits with taking the decision on life tariffs away from the home second and giving it to judges. It's de-politicising it.

Again, whilst I don't agree it's necessary, it isn't going to mean folk are automatically let out, just they'll have a right to a review every so often. It isn't going to mean they're let out. Any panel will still be able to say you need to stay in jail.

Or

You can get out!

There have over the years been some strange results from these panels.

for example??

[TANGODANCER]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders might not be so keen to do it again. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

The academic studies on this mostly suggest that the deterrence effect of harsher sentences is far less than we instinctively think.

Most criminals simply do not believe they will be caught (either because they are pathologically self-deluded or because policing is ineffective), and so do not weigh up (or even know about) the strength of the possible sanction when deciding on a crminal course of action.

[thebish]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

The academic studies on this mostly suggest that the deterrence effect of harsher sentences is far less than we instinctively think.

Most criminals simply do not believe they will be caught (either because they are pathologically self-deluded or because policing is ineffective), and so do not weigh up (or even know about) the strength of the possible sanction when deciding on a crminal course of action.

indeed - and if harsh deterrence really worked we wouldn't have needed to hang people for so many centuries....

[BWFC_Insane]

A lot of what Hoboh seems to want is very similar to some of those countries who practice Islamic Law.

I think he is one of them there muslims trying to infiltrate us.

[thebish]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders might not be so keen to do it again. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

this is often said - but I'm not sure what it means in concrete terms... what kind of things do you want the state to do more for the victims of crime?

[TANGODANCER]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

The academic studies on this mostly suggest that the deterrence effect of harsher sentences is far less than we instinctively think.

Most criminals simply do not believe they will be caught (either because they are pathologically self-deluded or because policing is ineffective), and so do not weigh up (or even know about) the strength of the possible sanction when deciding on a crminal course of action.

How many academic students have served time Mummy? I'm talking about punishment when caught being made something to fear rather than a four-square a day, TV included and no charge, rest from society problems. That very obviously isn't working, is it?

As for thebish's comment on hanging, we haven't done that for fifty years and getting hung for stealing food originally was more the fault of the establishment than the criminals. A clear case of ridiculous to the sublime. Of course if you or thebish have some solution available I'd be happy to hear it.

[Prufrock]

PB-Sorry, I meant it wasn't strange in the sense that it wasn't unexpected. I think the decision to take the setting of tariffs for life sentencing out of the hands of the home secretary came from an ECtHR decision. I think it's an extension of that school of thought. It won't be the bit that's reported, but I'd be surprised if it isn't in there.

That quote Hobes used before is properly dishonest!

[Hoboh]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders might not be so keen to do it again. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

this is often said - but I'm not sure what it means in concrete terms... what kind of things do you want the state to do more for the victims of crime?

Well...... if 'repeat' or 'serial' offenders are one way or another removed from society instead of being granted 'misunderstood' status aka BWFCi, this may in some way make victims feel their right to a law abiding peaceful live was being upheld.

[TANGODANCER]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders might not be so keen to do it again. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

this is often said - but I'm not sure what it means in concrete terms... what kind of things do you want the state to do more for the victims of crime?

Well, you could try stopping them becoming victims for a start. Less crime, fewer victims might equate? Instead of pulling my statement to bits, why not offer a solution?

[BWFC_Insane]

We could chop their hands off. That'd give em something to think about.

[Prufrock]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

The academic studies on this mostly suggest that the deterrence effect of harsher sentences is far less than we instinctively think.

Most criminals simply do not believe they will be caught (either because they are pathologically self-deluded or because policing is ineffective), and so do not weigh up (or even know about) the strength of the possible sanction when deciding on a crminal course of action.

How many academic students have served time Mummy? I'm talking about punishment when caught being made something to fear rather than a four-square a day, TV included and no charge, rest from society problems. That very obviously isn't working, is it?

As for thebish's comment on hanging, we haven't done that for fifty years and getting hung for stealing food originally was more the fault of the establishment than the criminals. A clear case of ridiculous to the sublime. Of course if you or thebish have some solution available I'd be happy to hear it.

There have been studies done in American states which abolish/ bring backthe death penalty, and the crime rates before and afterwards. They found hanging people instead of sentencing them to life had no affect on crime rates.

[thebish]

If the courts issued some more stringent sentences designed to deter/prevent crime, we might not have to worry so much about the other end of things. Some of the absolute bullshit offered by defence counsels as relevant "poor little criminal" consideration almost encourages crime. Hit them where it hurts and your repeat-offenders might not be so keen to do it again. Less worry about the human rights of career criminals and more about those of the victims might work.

this is often said - but I'm not sure what it means in concrete terms... what kind of things do you want the state to do more for the victims of crime?

Well, you could try stopping them becoming victims for a start. Less crime, fewer victims might equate? Instead of pulling my statement to bits, why not offer a solution?

it's a serious question! you said you want us do do more for victims of crime - or to worry about them more... that is often said - and i am genuinely interested to know what it actually means... I suspect it is just a meaningless slogan - but I am very open to hearing some kind of expansion as to what it actually might involve...

[Hoboh]

A lot of what Hoboh seems to want is very similar to some of those countries who practice Islamic Law.

I think he is one of them there muslims trying to infiltrate us.

Justice, if it cannot be seen to be done is no Justice at all.

The law, if toerags choose to be totally unconcerned about it, is not worth the paper it is written on.

Now't Islamic there.