Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Do you think that criminals should have their
sentences halved if they plead guilty. It looks like Ken Clarke is having to back down, but what are your views.
Answers
No. I think we should build more prisons. And if the criminals are foreigners they should be deported immediately and not allowed back in. I accept this is not possible under the present administrati on.
07:35 Tue 21st Jun 2011
I agree but do we have that kind of money to spend on criminals, unfortunately not. I would rather our Police were hunting crooks and rapist etc rather than spending billions trying to get a conviction when the perpetrator is sat in a cell already pleading "not Guilty" reduce his sentence and lock him/her up!!
No, not for pleading guilty, all that does is make money a priority rather than justice. It also "forces" innocent people to plead guilty on that promise and the threat carried with it. The threat being and I quote, "..in such cases as these you are presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and I don't mean eighty percent innocent, I mean one hundred percent.." and that was spoken by the senior partner of a barristers chambers. Then they will quote the scenario of a guilty plea with a very low sentence or a not-guilty plea with a massive sentence which does not materialise.
For me, there should be no remission, however the present sentence period "chart" should be reduced with the term "inside" intensified in corrective behaviour courses. All this 'sciving time' in the gym should be stopped, all that does is make the criminal stronger and tougher and often more confident in criminal activity. Those prisoners who do not conform can then have add-ons to their sentence conditions and length.
Probation, I believe does not work anywhere near properly as it stands at the moment and is often a waste of time using the wrong sort of staff who are inadequately educated and trained. This should be a system moved into the prison to be inclusive of the non-remission sentence and to work with the prison regime and Psychology department in developing the rehabilitation of the criminal.
It is a known fact that the majority of prisoners are 'hard-core' and are difficult to reform. They would benefit immensely by a 'tougher' time inside. Second time offenders should then have very severe sentence lengths given for re-offending. There are some prisons who 'specialise' at present and this system works. Perhaps a system that should be applied throughout all prisons. Prisoners are given too many rights and this should be reduced, BUT, violence and mental torture by prison officers should stop.
For me, there should be no remission, however the present sentence period "chart" should be reduced with the term "inside" intensified in corrective behaviour courses. All this 'sciving time' in the gym should be stopped, all that does is make the criminal stronger and tougher and often more confident in criminal activity. Those prisoners who do not conform can then have add-ons to their sentence conditions and length.
Probation, I believe does not work anywhere near properly as it stands at the moment and is often a waste of time using the wrong sort of staff who are inadequately educated and trained. This should be a system moved into the prison to be inclusive of the non-remission sentence and to work with the prison regime and Psychology department in developing the rehabilitation of the criminal.
It is a known fact that the majority of prisoners are 'hard-core' and are difficult to reform. They would benefit immensely by a 'tougher' time inside. Second time offenders should then have very severe sentence lengths given for re-offending. There are some prisons who 'specialise' at present and this system works. Perhaps a system that should be applied throughout all prisons. Prisoners are given too many rights and this should be reduced, BUT, violence and mental torture by prison officers should stop.
why is it always about money, we can squander millions on aid to countries where the despots fritter it away, still leaving their country poor and in need, their people starving, but we have to save money by letting out the these criminals who walk these streets, no doesn't wash. I don't want to go back to the days of sticking people in prison for years for petty crimes, debt, or hanging children, and homosexuals for acts of sodomy, which was commonplace, but if i was burgled, mugged, or raped, i would expect that person to get a suitable sentence and not bleat about how hard done by they are, or admit their guilt and get a lesser term in prison, just to save time, money.
I wouldn't be lenient with rapists, paedophiles, terrorists and career criminals. They are not deserving of one's sympathy, nor do i think that they should be let out of prison, life in their case should mean that
i am always amazed when people like Peter Sutcliffe ask for parole, his crimes warranted hanging but we don't do that now, perhaps thats right, but can't see that halving someones sentence because they pleaded guilty is right, whatever monetary savings
i am always amazed when people like Peter Sutcliffe ask for parole, his crimes warranted hanging but we don't do that now, perhaps thats right, but can't see that halving someones sentence because they pleaded guilty is right, whatever monetary savings
And what of the feller that was accused of killing a woman in her car? He was told 'plead guilty, and you only get 10 years.' He refused, claiming he was innocent.
Then he was told 'show remorse, and you can be out in 20 years.' Again, he pleaded his innocence.
After he'd served 27 years in prison, new evidence came to light, proving him innocent!
Do a Google on Sean Hodgson and Teresa De Simone.
Then he was told 'show remorse, and you can be out in 20 years.' Again, he pleaded his innocence.
After he'd served 27 years in prison, new evidence came to light, proving him innocent!
Do a Google on Sean Hodgson and Teresa De Simone.
i suppose if the crims think theyve nothing to lose by pleading innocent, then thats what theyll do - if the out come will be the same
if they know they have a high chance of being proved guilty they may just confess an save time and money on long drawn out trials...
its wrong that they get time off in principle...but i can see how without it many may walk away scot free
if they know they have a high chance of being proved guilty they may just confess an save time and money on long drawn out trials...
its wrong that they get time off in principle...but i can see how without it many may walk away scot free