Do you think that criminals should have their

[emmie]

sentences halved if they plead guilty. It looks like Ken Clarke is having to back down, but what are your views.

[Old_Geezer]

<shrug> Keeping the criminals off the street costs. Worth the expense I think.

[Sqad]

O_G..;-)

[RATTER15]

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!!

[robhud]

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.

[RATTER15]

Robhud, So its ok for me to accuse you of having sex with an "innocent" sheep, you are to be arrested and remain in custody until you prove your innocents.

Great idea!! :-)

[SlackAlice]

No, to any reduction of sentence for a guilty plea. No, to any of sentence reduction for good behaviour.

You could fund the increased costs incurred by reducing the amount of aid provided to other countries.

[SlackAlice]

oops!

No, to any reduction of sentence for good behaviour.

[robhud]

Yes, that is the way it works, I don't know about the sheep though. There is a very good organisation calling themselves SAFARI (Supporting All Falsely Accused with Reference Information), they are a group of solicitors who run that, might be worthwhile having a look-see.

[emmie]

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.

[emmie]

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

[SkellieMonster]

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.

[joko]

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

[emmie]

perhaps, but many seem to get their sentences cut, then come out and commit another crime, maybe worse than the one they did before. Many say jail doesn't work, well what does, if you get lowlifes like levi bellfield off the street, preferably off the planet, you at least stop them killing again.