Criminal Justice System

0
2 weeks ago (4:57 AM)
To join this discussion please register or log in

Comments:

sallyth

So often the length of sentencing seem totally inadequate for the crime that was committed. Are the judges or their guides lines to blame, if not who is ?

Re-offending should carry such a high penalty so the re offenders think very hard about the risk and consequences.

Philosophy

The purpose of a conviction should be to ensure the individual is given the right opportunities to determine if there is possibility of rehabilitation. If there is no possibility, then appropriate steps should be taken to ensure that person is not deemed a threat. The system forgets to look at the root cause of the offending, more research and focus on WHY criminals re-offend, rather than teaching them that the next they do something bad, it could be serious! It's like treating a child.

Early intervention, prevention and education are the key here.

Astris

I think that the primary purpose of conviction is to protect others from the risk of further offending.

Rehabilitation is NOT the primnary purpose.

Of course, not all offenders are essentially bad people, but there are some individuals who are "bad", just as there are some who are "good".

If adults behave like children, then they deserve to be treated like children. It is difficult to absolve anybody from personal responsibility for their actions - almost every adult knows what behaviour is "right and wrong" in our society (i.e. acceptable and unacceptable behaviour). Unless individuals remain accountable for their behaviour and are given some form of dis-incentive (deterrent?), they will never learn to modify that behaviour.

We can't continually excuse bad behaviour. We will end up with anarchy!

Tams

I personally would like to see a far tougher sentencing regime for drug and carrying of knives.
I would propose sentencing along these lines.
1st time offence. 1 year automatic custodial sentence with no parole.
2nd offence. 10 years custodial sentence with no parole.
This would make the younger people think twice before they get involved with drugs and carrying a knive.

As far as the drug pushers go, I would propose that they get an automatic 20 year custodial sentence, or jailed till they are at least 65 years of age, which is the greater, with no parole.

And for those who use a knive or gun, or even caught carrying a gun, I would propose an automatic 30 year custodial sentence, or at least 65 years of age in custody, whichever is the greater, with no parole.

Bring in sentencing like this, this will cut down on other crimes, as people will not want to go to jail, even for a first time offence over drugs. And hopefully, it would also cut out the use of knives in the gang culture. I don't believe for one minute it would stop knives being carried completely, but I think it will reduce somewhat.

MaryClare22

Really? You would sentence a young person who may be is having problems at home to a year in jail for possessing or smoking some cannabis? And then, when they are released, with no home and job, lock them up again for a decade if they smoke another joint?
Aside from everything else, what about the burden to the public purse : it costs in excess of £40K per year to keep one person in jail. I'd rather that money was spent on raising a young person's opportunities and aspirations, as then they will be a contributing member and tax payer.

Genie

Absolutely agree with this. Smoking a bit of weed doesn't mean a young person is a criminal. Providing education, aspirations and opportunities is much more cost effective and has a knock-on effect on entire communities. Rather than prisons, money should be redirected into local community programs to keep young people out of gangs and off the streets. So many of them fall into crime because they feel abandoned and undervalued. Save the prisons for the real criminals.

Tams

The point of what I would like introduced, is that if there sentencing along those lines, it would certainly make a lot of the younger kids think very hard before embarking on drugs, and also, it would cut down on the amount of knife crime amongst the young kids.
What you also have to look at, is the amount of crime that is associated with drug taking. It is not just about a young kid maybe going out and ruining their life by taking drugs, but it is also about the life's of others that get affected as well, i.e.: the kids family, friends to a certain extent, people that have been robbed to pay for a drug habit. In other words, let's put a strong fence in front of the kids that may think about trying out drugs, no matter what drug it is. I appreciate that sometimes deterrents don't always work, but let's put something there to deter the young kids from going onto that steep slippery slope and ruining their life.
To me though, as far as drugs go, the most important thing is for the dealers and the drug barons to be taken off the streets. Impose very stiff sentences on them. Too many people's lives are being ruined by them.

I certainly agree with you about working with young kids, making sure that there are job opportunities out there, to be able to tap into that young kid and bring out the potential in them. I am all for that. And employers, local authorities and parents should play a big part in it. A kid needs to go to work, needs to feel valued and encouraged by their employer, no matter what the job is. Employers should be looking at a kids potential, and to encourage that kid to go on a day release scheme at college, paid for by the employer. Local authorities can play their part as well, by making sure that there is enough properly organised clubs that kids can attend in the evenings and and if at school, during the school holidays as well. Parents can also play their part as well. Take time out with their kids on a regular basis. I maybe old fashioned here, but I also believe having a proper family dinner one day a week is a big help. Where the family can all be together and discuss anything.

johncruddas

Zero tolerance ,it worked in new york it can work here no doubt ,,cant do the time dont do the crime

rbutch5063

Sentence not consistent with crime

johncruddas

Judiciary not fit for purpose,too soft on serious crime ,sentences for rape are no deterrent ,any sentence involving community service is demeaning to victims ,it seems to me theres more concern for the criminals than their victims

CW

I don't think their should be a specific criminal justice system for London or any "extras" for London. The system must be consistent across the country and not have regional differences.
Is it fit for purpose? No, need more emphasis on modern crime e.g. Knife carrying, cybercrime. But has to be done nationally at least at an England and Wales level.

Veesh

Our Criminal Justice System - considering this is, at least ostensibly, a 'First World' (sic) country - is LAUGHABLE. Hear this out: the Police chased a suspected drug dealer and car jacker in a stolen car. The car rammed three vehicles during pursuit, then reversed straight onto a policeman on a motorbike (at this point this is akin to attempted murder), and received a 6 month driving ban. It was ABYSMAL. I have thankfully not been a victim of crime but fully empathise with those that have, and have had next to zero recourse to justice. Stronger deterrents are necessary. The fact that our prisons are bursting at their seams is a appallingly poor excuse for lenient (read non-existent) sentencing.

johncruddas

Ive just read that an immigrant in germany has beenbfreed after raping a child ,i hope this type of sentencing doesnt happen here,seems to me sentencing in general is now beyond a joke losing touch with reality,how can avrapist walk free and a child ,i do think generally judiciary and cps do not support the police ,the mayor is seen to be a critic of the police and he must dtop numbers being cut its now at a dangerous level police sometimes taking 4 hours to reach violent crimes,would rather see foreign aid money diverted to our security and our needy people

intelligent lady

Young people need good parents .

johncruddas

Agreed in a perfect world but that its not ,young people need boundaries ,and must understand the consequences if those boundaries are crossed

Astris

I thought that the primary purpose of a criminal justice system was to protect the majority of a society from the unwanted acts (defined by laws) of a minority?

It is not a system to find people who need social re-training, or other help.

Therefore, IMHO:

(i) the needs of the victim should be placed first;
(ii) there should be a deterrent value to any sentencing;
(iii) re-habilitation of offenders is a secondary consideration.

johncruddas

Absolutely spot on

Talk London

Thanks all for your views posted above. These will all be analysed along with all responses to our policing and crime survey, which closed yesterday. We’ll leave this thread open for further discussion, however. 

We’ve added a new post to our blog with a thank you message from the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime. This also sets out what happens next in creation of the Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan.

Thanks again!

Talk London Team

Lady Iveta

Nor really good quality work with victims, need improved so much ...

Terry Vaughan

I'm not very confident. It seems to be a bit of a lottery. The courts are inconsistent in their sentencing, too trusting in what the accused say, perhaps too bound by somewhat archaic rules, too adversarial, inefficient and time wasting, and unpredictable in their findings on apparently very similar cases. I suspect that juries may be too easily influenced by individual members. The CPS seems to be too ready to drop or downgrade some prosecutions. There is a culture of excessive leniency among many enforcing authorities, at least for minor offences, particularly those committed by businesses. Some offences, such as motoring offences, rarely attract any enforcement attention at all. The enforcing authorities are under-resourced and seem unwilling or unable to investigate many offences. Investigations are not always thorough, competent and unbiased. Low penalties for repeat offenders fail to deter further offending. Law is sometimes interpreted leniently so that offences with serious or potentially serious consequences get small penalties.

Scottytrue

There has to be consequences for people who commit crimes if not the world would really be unsafe,sometimes people go to jail and still dont learn some never do but you must accept responsibility for your own actions there is no excuse for crime,not drugs,not alcohol,we all make choices in life so we must pay the consequences for them choices,learn from your mistakes,and do better each time,go forward never back