Prison sentences under review.

[Harrowby Hall]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46847162

I am putting this here rather than in the Politics section because I think there are wider ethical considerations than the merely political. If the Mods think otherwise then so be it.

It is proposed that prison should not be used where the term of incarceration would be six months or less.

There seems to be a perception that sending offenders to prison for short periods does more damage than did the original offence - personal, familial and social damage created by using short-term prison sentences can be considerable. This is in addition to the actual cost of incarceration (which I once heard described as being equivalent to staying in a three-star hotel).

My impression is that the tabloid press works itself into an orgasmic fury insisting that all kind of offenders are locked up but - in many cases, I'm sure - the public shame associated with being found guilty of some offence may be the greatest punishment experienced by some offenders.

Any views?

[Steve H]

Prison does have the advantage that it stops them offending for the time they're inside, so the public get some protection, and it enables the authorities to do something with them: get them off drugs, give them some education or training, start dealing with any mental illness, etc., all of which will help prevent them re-offending.
I doubt if shame is much of a punishment for your average recidivist scroat.
I'm not necessarily arguing for prison as opposed to other measures, but there are some things to be said for it. It depends on the individual case - some might benefit from a prison sentence (and certainly their potential victims would), some wouldn't. I'm not sure it's a good idea to lay down hard and fast rules.
I don't understand why imprisonment costs so much (though I don't doubt that it does): if prisoners are given productive work, either for outside contractors or cleaning, cooking, etc., their wages should go a long way towards paying for their upkeep, I'd've thought.

[ad_orientem]

Prison does have the advantage that it stops them offending for the time they're inside, so the public get some protection, and it enables the authorities to do something with them: get them off drugs, give them some education or training, start dealing with any mental illness, etc., all of which will help prevent them re-offending.
I doubt if shame is much of a punishment for your average recidivist scroat.
I'm not necessarily arguing for prison as opposed to other measures, but there are some things to be said for it. It depends on the individual case - some might benefit from a prison sentence (and certainly their potential victims would), some wouldn't. I'm not sure it's a good idea to lay down hard and fast rules.
I don't understand why imprisonment costs so much (though I don't doubt that it does): if prisoners are given productive work, either for outside contractors or cleaning, cooking, etc., their wages should go a long way towards paying for their upkeep, I'd've thought.

Good post. What judges need is more flexibility that is so they can decide these things, as you say, on a case by case basis.

[Harrowby Hall]

Prison does have the advantage that it stops them offending for the time they're inside

One of the arguments being put forward for reducing the number of prisoners is that - while inside - young people may be in the criminal version of a university. They can be tutored in how to be come successful miscreants by experts in the field. It's where "your average recidivist scroat" receives his post-graduate training.

It reinforces his (or her) recidivism.

[jeremyp]

Prison does have the advantage that it stops them offending for the time they're inside, so the public get some protection, and it enables the authorities to do something with them: get them off drugs, give them some education or training, start dealing with any mental illness, etc., all of which will help prevent them re-offending.

But the argument is that a six month or shorter prison sentence is ineffective in the respects you list above.

I doubt if shame is much of a punishment for your average recidivist scroat.

On the contrary. I imagine that for some people, having done some time is a badge of honour.

I don't understand why imprisonment costs so much (though I don't doubt that it does):

You can run a three star hotel with a handful of staff. For example, at night there may be only one or two people on duty. A prison has to be manned 24-7 by highly trained professionals. Furthermore, a hotel can charge extra for meals and can make a healthy profit on its bar.

[Steve H]

But the argument is that a six month or shorter prison sentence is ineffective in the respects you list above. On the contrary. I imagine that for some people, having done some time is a badge of honour

So is everything else. As a magistrate said in a letter to the 'Guardian', petty criminals are already only given short (<6 months) prison sentences after everything else - probation, electronic tagging, etc - has been tried and been found to be ineffective. Magistrates should be allowed the discretion to choose, and politicians should stop interfering in things they have no expertise in.

[jeremyp]

So is everything else.

In every case?

As a magistrate said in a letter to the 'Guardian', petty criminals are already only given short (<6 months) prison sentences after everything else - probation, electronic tagging, etc - has been tried and been found to be ineffective. Magistrates should be allowed the discretion to choose, and politicians should stop interfering in things they have no expertise in.

You realise that magistrates are also amateurs?

[Steve H]

You realise that magistrates are also amateurs?

They get some training.

[Roses]

It depends on the crime of course. Sometimes a short sharp shock of imprisonment might convince a person that it is far better to abide by the law.


My daughter's father-in-law was a magistrate, and they do get training. My husband was being encouraged to become one too, and probably would have done so if he hadn't had a brain haemorrhage.