My thanks to HC who as ever makes the points I would have made far more elequantly than I
What serious crimes are you referring to , mr glasshalffull. What evidence do you have that longer sentences and the huge costs that go with them improve "deterrence"
I would suggest that if you’re locked up in prison it’s pretty difficult to continue committing the crimes that got you incarcerated in the first place.
@HCblue said:
Reading a heck of a lot into his posts there!
I think you were the one reading more than was intended to my post!
Let me ask you a hypothetical question? If a member of your family was seriously injured by being knifed by a member of a gang would you still hold the same view that community service was enough.
I actually would tend to agree with you that some crimes (not involving serious violence) could be dealt with more often by non custodial methods.
@DevC said:
So are you advocating life sentences for all crimes. Blimey we better forget spending money on education or health if we are going to fund that.?
Now you’re just being flippant. I thought we were discussing serious crimes and surely I don’t have to spell out what comes into that category?
Indeed. I hope we never have prison for grammar crimes....
I suspect we do need to explain what you mean by serious crimes that need longer sentences as shorter sentences have not proven a deterrence. I for one don't know what you are referring to.
@DevC said:
Nobody is arguing that nobody should be imprisoned, mr mooney. Just many less
I probably agree that there could be a slightly smaller number in prison, BUT conversely those that are there for extremely violent crimes or rape/paedophilia should generally get longer sentences.
@mooneyman said:
DevC - Most people do not want to live in a lawless country and expect to see criminals locked up. We are lucky that you are not in charge of the judiciary. There is so much re-offending because our Courts are incredibly weak in sentencing criminals and continue to give them chance after chance to reform, but most criminals ignore the opportunity.
Our levels of incarceration are not overly high compared with the world overall. Australia, New Zealand and America are higher than us.
Or it could be that our judicial system does very little to address offending behaviour or look at proper rehabilitation.
I am no fan of new labour (or current labour) but 'tough on the causes of crime' was one of the soundbites that Blair got right. I do voluntary work with young offenders and there are definite positive results if you get in early with appropriate interventions to change behaviours and try and keep people out of the system.
Locking people up is not usually the best, or most cost-effective way to reduce crime (unless there is a risk to public safety).
The reason people commit crimes is usually complex and often there are significant socio-economic factors at play (not always).
So having said that I ought to agree with the thrust of @DevC's argument about McCormick. Unfortunately because I am incredibly hypocritical I would be a little uncomfortable if he ever did come to play for us. (I have no such concerns about Ched Evans* - I'd cut my season ticket into tiny pieces if he came here - innocent or not)\
*Its going to be a long time until we can talk about football properly so lets bring all the oldies back
"That is misleading because community service is obviously used to punish less serious offenders who are by definition less likely to reoffend than career criminals.
"Most people do not want to live in a lawless country and expect to see criminals locked up."
I suggest most people are smart enough (even if unconsciously) to realise that there will always be some level of crime whatever the legal and penal system in place. Rather than wanting to see people locked up, I suggest further that people wish to live in a country where the level of offending, including reoffending, is as low as possible (without prejudice to the interesting but separate question of the extent to which they are willing to allow their own liberties to be restricted to bring that about).
"We are lucky that you are not in charge of the judiciary."
I don't think it is luck. I am not aware Dev has ever suggested he should be in charge.
"There is so much re-offending because our Courts are incredibly weak in sentencing criminals and continue to give them chance after chance to reform, but most criminals ignore the opportunity."
This statement is unsupported by any evidence. I've just spent a while looking at the linked provided by @drcongo. It is interesting and I commend it to everyone with a few minutes to spare.
"Our levels of incarceration are not overly high compared with the world overall. Australia, New Zealand and America are higher than us."
China and Russia are also higher than us. Many European countries are lower than us. As Dev says, it's certainly not the case that we should be looking to the US as a model for how to rehabilitate prisoners. We should be looking to see what works best at reducing crime and doing that. If someone else has good ideas that work, we should consider them, wherever they come from.
"If a member of your family was seriously injured by being knifed by a member of a gang would you still hold the same view that community service was enough."
If the event you described happened, I imagine, knowing myself, that I would be in a heightened state of emotion that would lead in several directions. One of the strongest ones, at least in the short term, would be the desire to avenge the wrong done to my (let's say) son. This is a normal human emotion, I believe. It is also the reason we have a criminal justice system. I happen to think that that system should have as its primary focus the future interests of society and the granting of revenge is not a consideration that is likely to improve our country.
"I would suggest that if you’re locked up in prison it’s pretty difficult to continue committing the crimes that got you incarcerated in the first place."
By this reasoning, Dev's response is a fair one, even if it takes your words to their literal extreme. My own response would be that if you wish to apply the life sentence approach to what you describe as "serious" crimes you are absolutely going to have to spell out exactly what comes within that list and the reasons why it would be unconscionable to society for a sentence of anything other than life imprisonment with, presumably, no prospect of parole, to be passed.
Thanks for your contribution, Booker.
I agree with most.
Most of us are conditioned to recoil from ex offenders. It is perhaps natural to do so. By so doing we perpetuate the very crime we recoil from. We need to be better than that.
There's a reason we recoil from those who wrong us and society, @DevC, and it's not necessarily a reflex that we need to teach ourselves to ignore. It serves us very well so long as we understand that it is only a reflex and not an imperative.
@mooneyman said:
Fortunately we live in a democracy Dev and namby-pamby liberals such as yourself are in the vast minority.
I've been scratching my head trying to work out what this means, but I'm lost.
So the people who support McCormick being allowed to live a normal life once he's served his time are the vast minority...
If that's the case, why is he a free man, and why is our justice system the way it is?
It's almost like we're not the minority. The minority are the ones who rabidly froth at the mouth about how he should be imprisoned for life, or at best be allowed a career breaking up rocks with a pickaxe by the side of the M1 after release.
I know you pose it purely in the hypothetical, @OxfordBlue, but I find your consideration of the possible futures for people guilty of the crimes McCormick committed an interesting one and one that makes me want to study psychology.
I fancy myself a fairly bleeding heart, give a man a second chance, type of guy. But there is definitely a part of me - not necessarily a big part but definitely there if I allow myself to acknowledge it - that registers some resentment when someone who took another's life, with some degree of culpability for doing so, seems to regain a life of some status as in the case here. In other words, there is indeed a part of me that would wish to see him breaking rocks by the side of the M1 ad infinitum.
I am not sure I have ever really acknowledged that to myself before. I certainly do not mean to say that I think that is how things actually should be. But I am interested to realise part of me feels that way (while assuming I am not alone in it) and wondering how best to interpret and act on that feeling. Having just read @bookertease's earlier post, I think he may be expressing the same instinct. The funny thing is that the Ched Evans case, where a bloke is not guilty of any criminal offence but a (presumably) decent egg like Booker expresses so strong and censorious a line because of the prejudice about the bloke to which he has been exposed, is perhaps an illustration of why this instinct I am describing may not be to be trusted.
@OxfordBlue said:
It's almost like we're not the minority. The minority are the ones who rabidly froth at the mouth about how he should be imprisoned for life, or at best be allowed a career breaking up rocks with a pickaxe by the side of the M1 after release.
I was referring to violent criminals particularly the steady recrnt increase in knife crime.
I have never said McCormick should have had a longer sentence. He is not, as far as I am aware, a violent man but more a stupid reckless individual. What annoyed me was that he only got a 4 year driving ban. I think anyone who kills another whilst drink driving should be banned for life. No doubt I will now get Dev jumping up and down at my draconian view.
I admit I would not be keen to see him in our colours though.
I am with @bookertease on this one. I’d feel uncomfortable about McCormick and I’d like to think he has done considerable work to support victims and encourage others to make far better decisions than the grossly stupid one he did. As a footballer with a reasonable salary and time on his hands, he has every opportunity to do so. If I believed he had and would continue to do so then I could tolerate him as a player as in my mind he would be engaged in a process of rehabilitation off the field.
You are not alone. It's part of that recoiling instinct you were describing, I think. Us humans though are supposed to be capable of rational thought and overriding our instincts.
I know decent Plymouth supporters who hated the pathetic "banter" directed at McCormick, certainly didn't want to boo him but equally didn't feel comfortable chanting his name either. That's probably about where I would have been too.
Gradually as he quietly did great things in the local community and conducted himself impeccably, those reservations faded amongst those same Plymouth supporters. I'm probably there too.
Drink driving is a dismal, selfish crime but the end results of it are incredibly varied. In McCormick’s case it ended up in lives being lost. In (for example) Ant McPartlin’s case, it didn’t.
So we’re left with one offender hounded long after his sentence was served and another receiving sympathy and general positive vibes from the public and celebrities alike. Neither was in control so it’s sheer luck on the part of one that he’s essentially off the hook.
Likewise our former gaffer Tony Adams, who admitted he had no idea what he was doing when he crashed his car. I don’t remember much fevered debate when he was appointed but at the time he was a poster boy for the positive effects of rehabilitation.
I can’t see that we have any option but to accept that once a sentence has been served, the individual has to be able to carry on with their life.
I should add that clearly this doesn’t apply in all cases, which is why some offences are punishable by conditions that continue once the sentence has been served. Drink driving isn’t one of them.
Ffs !!! This is supposed to be a transfer thread !!
Go and argue on another thread somewhere !! Or preferably start one just for arguments... then people like myself who get sick of it can just not bother having to read it all
@HolmerBlue said:
Ffs !!! This is supposed to be a transfer thread !!
Go and argue on another thread somewhere !! Or preferably start one just for arguments... then people like myself who get sick of it can just not bother having to read it all
Agreed, can someone please delete the zzzzz being talked about in here.
Luke McCormick from Plymouth? He's utter shite at crosses. Did nobody see ability to defend crosses when we battered them in the playoffs. Much better out there.
Comments
And dev does it again...why do we let him repeatedly hijack threads?
Not at all. The gist of his post was that courts are too weak in handlng out sentences to serial offenders and give them too many chances.
My thanks to HC who as ever makes the points I would have made far more elequantly than I
What serious crimes are you referring to , mr glasshalffull. What evidence do you have that longer sentences and the huge costs that go with them improve "deterrence"
I would suggest that if you’re locked up in prison it’s pretty difficult to continue committing the crimes that got you incarcerated in the first place.
So are you advocating life sentences for all crimes. Blimey we better forget spending money on education or health if we are going to fund that.?
I think you were the one reading more than was intended to my post!
Let me ask you a hypothetical question? If a member of your family was seriously injured by being knifed by a member of a gang would you still hold the same view that community service was enough.
I actually would tend to agree with you that some crimes (not involving serious violence) could be dealt with more often by non custodial methods.
Nobody is arguing that nobody should be imprisoned, mr mooney. Just many less
Now you’re just being flippant. I thought we were discussing serious crimes and surely I don’t have to spell out what comes into that category?
Fewer.
Indeed. I hope we never have prison for grammar crimes....
I suspect we do need to explain what you mean by serious crimes that need longer sentences as shorter sentences have not proven a deterrence. I for one don't know what you are referring to.
This is a transfer thread.
What's all this gubbins got to do with that?
....
Apparently a boozed up Brown was telling fans that people keep telling him he's off to Cheltenham, but he doesn't know himself what's happening yet.
I probably agree that there could be a slightly smaller number in prison, BUT conversely those that are there for extremely violent crimes or rape/paedophilia should generally get longer sentences.
Most people who commit extremely violent crime already go to prison for a long time.
Let's focus on the far more common less serious crimes and how we should reduce reoffending rates for them hence creating less future victims
Or it could be that our judicial system does very little to address offending behaviour or look at proper rehabilitation.
I am no fan of new labour (or current labour) but 'tough on the causes of crime' was one of the soundbites that Blair got right. I do voluntary work with young offenders and there are definite positive results if you get in early with appropriate interventions to change behaviours and try and keep people out of the system.
Locking people up is not usually the best, or most cost-effective way to reduce crime (unless there is a risk to public safety).
The reason people commit crimes is usually complex and often there are significant socio-economic factors at play (not always).
So having said that I ought to agree with the thrust of @DevC's argument about McCormick. Unfortunately because I am incredibly hypocritical I would be a little uncomfortable if he ever did come to play for us. (I have no such concerns about Ched Evans* - I'd cut my season ticket into tiny pieces if he came here - innocent or not)\
*Its going to be a long time until we can talk about football properly so lets bring all the oldies back
If I may, I'll address a few comments in one go:
"That is misleading because community service is obviously used to punish less serious offenders who are by definition less likely to reoffend than career criminals.
Defendants can only be given a community service order if convicted of an imprisonable offence: (see p.4, General Principles here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Definitive-Guideline-Imposition-of-CCS-final-web.pdf)
Re: @mooneyman's first post on the subject.
"Most people do not want to live in a lawless country and expect to see criminals locked up."
I suggest most people are smart enough (even if unconsciously) to realise that there will always be some level of crime whatever the legal and penal system in place. Rather than wanting to see people locked up, I suggest further that people wish to live in a country where the level of offending, including reoffending, is as low as possible (without prejudice to the interesting but separate question of the extent to which they are willing to allow their own liberties to be restricted to bring that about).
"We are lucky that you are not in charge of the judiciary."
I don't think it is luck. I am not aware Dev has ever suggested he should be in charge.
"There is so much re-offending because our Courts are incredibly weak in sentencing criminals and continue to give them chance after chance to reform, but most criminals ignore the opportunity."
This statement is unsupported by any evidence. I've just spent a while looking at the linked provided by @drcongo. It is interesting and I commend it to everyone with a few minutes to spare.
"Our levels of incarceration are not overly high compared with the world overall. Australia, New Zealand and America are higher than us."
China and Russia are also higher than us. Many European countries are lower than us. As Dev says, it's certainly not the case that we should be looking to the US as a model for how to rehabilitate prisoners. We should be looking to see what works best at reducing crime and doing that. If someone else has good ideas that work, we should consider them, wherever they come from.
"If a member of your family was seriously injured by being knifed by a member of a gang would you still hold the same view that community service was enough."
There is a mandatory six month minimum sentence currently in place for mere possession of a knife, let alone using it, (https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bladed-Article-Definitive-guideline_WEB-1.pdf) so I will take your question in the pure hypothetical.
If the event you described happened, I imagine, knowing myself, that I would be in a heightened state of emotion that would lead in several directions. One of the strongest ones, at least in the short term, would be the desire to avenge the wrong done to my (let's say) son. This is a normal human emotion, I believe. It is also the reason we have a criminal justice system. I happen to think that that system should have as its primary focus the future interests of society and the granting of revenge is not a consideration that is likely to improve our country.
"I would suggest that if you’re locked up in prison it’s pretty difficult to continue committing the crimes that got you incarcerated in the first place."
By this reasoning, Dev's response is a fair one, even if it takes your words to their literal extreme. My own response would be that if you wish to apply the life sentence approach to what you describe as "serious" crimes you are absolutely going to have to spell out exactly what comes within that list and the reasons why it would be unconscionable to society for a sentence of anything other than life imprisonment with, presumably, no prospect of parole, to be passed.
Thanks for your contribution, Booker.
I agree with most.
Most of us are conditioned to recoil from ex offenders. It is perhaps natural to do so. By so doing we perpetuate the very crime we recoil from. We need to be better than that.
There's a reason we recoil from those who wrong us and society, @DevC, and it's not necessarily a reflex that we need to teach ourselves to ignore. It serves us very well so long as we understand that it is only a reflex and not an imperative.
Agreed HC. Again said more eloquently than I managed. Grrrr.
I've been scratching my head trying to work out what this means, but I'm lost.
So the people who support McCormick being allowed to live a normal life once he's served his time are the vast minority...
If that's the case, why is he a free man, and why is our justice system the way it is?
It's almost like we're not the minority. The minority are the ones who rabidly froth at the mouth about how he should be imprisoned for life, or at best be allowed a career breaking up rocks with a pickaxe by the side of the M1 after release.
Thanks Dev. I agree with you. I need to be better in so many ways!
And yes, very very well put @HCblue
I know you pose it purely in the hypothetical, @OxfordBlue, but I find your consideration of the possible futures for people guilty of the crimes McCormick committed an interesting one and one that makes me want to study psychology.
I fancy myself a fairly bleeding heart, give a man a second chance, type of guy. But there is definitely a part of me - not necessarily a big part but definitely there if I allow myself to acknowledge it - that registers some resentment when someone who took another's life, with some degree of culpability for doing so, seems to regain a life of some status as in the case here. In other words, there is indeed a part of me that would wish to see him breaking rocks by the side of the M1 ad infinitum.
I am not sure I have ever really acknowledged that to myself before. I certainly do not mean to say that I think that is how things actually should be. But I am interested to realise part of me feels that way (while assuming I am not alone in it) and wondering how best to interpret and act on that feeling. Having just read @bookertease's earlier post, I think he may be expressing the same instinct. The funny thing is that the Ched Evans case, where a bloke is not guilty of any criminal offence but a (presumably) decent egg like Booker expresses so strong and censorious a line because of the prejudice about the bloke to which he has been exposed, is perhaps an illustration of why this instinct I am describing may not be to be trusted.
I was referring to violent criminals particularly the steady recrnt increase in knife crime.
I have never said McCormick should have had a longer sentence. He is not, as far as I am aware, a violent man but more a stupid reckless individual. What annoyed me was that he only got a 4 year driving ban. I think anyone who kills another whilst drink driving should be banned for life. No doubt I will now get Dev jumping up and down at my draconian view.
I admit I would not be keen to see him in our colours though.
I am with @bookertease on this one. I’d feel uncomfortable about McCormick and I’d like to think he has done considerable work to support victims and encourage others to make far better decisions than the grossly stupid one he did. As a footballer with a reasonable salary and time on his hands, he has every opportunity to do so. If I believed he had and would continue to do so then I could tolerate him as a player as in my mind he would be engaged in a process of rehabilitation off the field.
You are not alone. It's part of that recoiling instinct you were describing, I think. Us humans though are supposed to be capable of rational thought and overriding our instincts.
I know decent Plymouth supporters who hated the pathetic "banter" directed at McCormick, certainly didn't want to boo him but equally didn't feel comfortable chanting his name either. That's probably about where I would have been too.
Gradually as he quietly did great things in the local community and conducted himself impeccably, those reservations faded amongst those same Plymouth supporters. I'm probably there too.
Excellent stuff from Dev in this thread, as ever when this subject comes up
Thanks Eric but I fear eclipsed by the thoughtful contributions of HC and Booker amongst others.
Of course it's always easier to appreciate contributions when they are expressing an opinion you broadly agree with
Drink driving is a dismal, selfish crime but the end results of it are incredibly varied. In McCormick’s case it ended up in lives being lost. In (for example) Ant McPartlin’s case, it didn’t.
So we’re left with one offender hounded long after his sentence was served and another receiving sympathy and general positive vibes from the public and celebrities alike. Neither was in control so it’s sheer luck on the part of one that he’s essentially off the hook.
Likewise our former gaffer Tony Adams, who admitted he had no idea what he was doing when he crashed his car. I don’t remember much fevered debate when he was appointed but at the time he was a poster boy for the positive effects of rehabilitation.
I can’t see that we have any option but to accept that once a sentence has been served, the individual has to be able to carry on with their life.
I should add that clearly this doesn’t apply in all cases, which is why some offences are punishable by conditions that continue once the sentence has been served. Drink driving isn’t one of them.
@HCblue Could I outsource my posts to you please? Same gist but much better expressed.
Ffs !!! This is supposed to be a transfer thread !!
Go and argue on another thread somewhere !! Or preferably start one just for arguments... then people like myself who get sick of it can just not bother having to read it all
Agreed, can someone please delete the zzzzz being talked about in here.
Luke McCormick from Plymouth? He's utter shite at crosses. Did nobody see ability to defend crosses when we battered them in the playoffs. Much better out there.