[InOne]

You hear all these stories about people comitting horrible crimes and getting fairly short sentences for it. How would you change it and what sentences would you give out to the severe crimes and the not so severe. We always talk about what we'd do with people who rape and murder but I think you need to look at the lower end of the spectrum as well to truly fix it and make it work. But I think whatever you do it would never be to everyones satisfaction anyway.

Also if your country of origin doesn't have the death penalty then it stays that way. Don't want it turning into one of those type threads.

[Shaun]

I kinda have a personal connection to unjustly short sentences: my cousin was stabbed and killed in a drunken brawl back in 2004 and the perpetrator only served 5 years for it.

I think manslaughter is a difficult crime to judge: there are obviously accidental deaths (eg. hit and runs, although...without the running/reckless driving lol) and I don't really think they should be punished...

But I think if you intentionally, drunk or not, carry a knife, or set fire to someone, or get in a fight, and you take someone's life out of recklessness and sudden idiocy, then you should get full voluntary manslaughter charges. The average for that is 142 months, so just over 11 years. I think that's a fair charge. Obviously in cases of mental illness that should be carried in institutionalisation rather than imprisonment, but still.

It's just obviously difficult because looking at a crime impassively and neutrally is all very easy until it happens to you, but I think emotion shouldn't have any influence over the sentencing. Unfortunately that's almost never going to be the case because a jury is human and going to be indirectly swayed by emotional pleas and testimony. I wouldn't like trying to sleep at night as a lawyer or judge.

[Niamh.]

Yes I agree with what Shauns said there. To add I believe life should actually mean life for murder and I think that violent crimes should always have a custodial sentence. I hear alot over here Someone got 5 with 3 suspended or whatever, what does that even mean why even bother saying he got 5 years? He got 2 years

[Livia]

I want to be a prosecutor for a combination of the reasons given so far. There is no way that I could ever defend someone who I even suspect could have committed a terrible crime, and then sleep at night.

[Kizzy]

The factors that are 'taken into account' need to be adressed, crime is still a very social issue and if there are those in defence or prosecution who have bias then this will be a contributory factor.
A crime should be seen 'as is', any violent crime should be given a statutory sentence regarless of circs, unless classed as a vulnerable adult.

[Vicky.]

First off, life should mean life. 10 year or so is NOT life. Murderers, and child abusers should automaticaly get life, no questions asked. I dont care if they plead insanity or whatever like a lot of them seem to do. Prison, not a mental insititution.

We should have different prisons for lifers and shorter sentences.

I think petty crimes like shoplifting (even if repeat offences) should not be punished with custodial sentences, it should be community service. Getting longer each time it happens.

Rape, if proven beyond all reasonable doubt should be an automatic 5 year sentence and a lifetime on the sex offenders register. Rehabilitiation programs when released, but if the same thing happens again then its off to the lifers prison with you, as you are beyond help. One second chance is enough. Those who are proven to have lied about being raped, should also get a 5 year sentence.

There should not be harsher sentences for racist attacks, homophobic attacks, etc. All attacks should be treated the same. At the end of the day, regardless of who is on the recieving end, its still an innocent person getting hurt for no reason. Skin colour or sexuality shouldnt make a difference. Sentence should depend on how bad the attack was, not anything else. Also I would add that after a shorter sentence, if the person does the same again, the previous sentence is doubled. And keeps doubling each time. If some poor criminal ends up being sentenced to 10 years after just randomly punching someone once(after being sentenced for assaults previously) then so be it.

Do away with this ridiculous 'suspended sentence' ****. It only ends up in people doing virtually no punishment for their crimes. Your punishment begins from when you are found guilty and actually begin your prison sentence/community service.


I know our prisons are overstretched at the moment. But I fully believe that giving harsher sentences would deter people from commiting the crimes in the first place.

[Niamh.]

I agree with all of that Vicky ^ Also, I would have prisoners working to help pay for themselves whilst in prison, fixing the roads etc

[joeysteele]

For me it is about a reform of sentencing guidelines. There would seem to be too much flexibility as to sentencing and also there needs to be more as to mandatory sentencing.

The prisons are overcrowded and a great number of the places in them are occupied for both short and long sentences with people who have committed no aggravated financial crimes.
Obviously, breaking into property and causing harm to people and/or causing damage to the property should be seen as a violent act and therefore have sentencing of a custodial nature.

Other financial crimes should be dealt with n other ways, always with the provision of repayment to the individuals stolen from, whether that be as to financial repayment if possible or from service to the victim in other ways under supervision.

Any violent crime, whether with a weapon or not,not resulting in serious harm to another though should be an automatic small to medium custodial sentence,with new strict guidelines governing the sentencing.
Crimes of murder should certainly be the crimes that are also automatic custodial sentences for minimum terms. Which should be not less that 7 years and meaning 7 years too.

For crimes such as multiple murder, the murders of children and murders resulting from rape, should carry life sentences and be for the rest of that person's life too.

There will be the outcry from people as the murderer being mentally ill,who although committing murders should be treated more leniently,near nonsense to me is that and I am usually a sympathetic person.
The mental health issue arising at trials often only is ever started after the crimes are committed and the murderer caught, murderers are often doing jobs, have fair to good relations with their communities and have shown no mental health problems until they are caught after murdering someone.
There often even isn't any record either of previous treatment for or indeed any note of previous mental health problems until they are caught too.

If it is clearly proven under strict investigation that some murderers do have mental health issues then they should still be removed from society and for an indefinate period with very strict and regular checks made on their ongoing situation.

It is though time for life to mean life for murders,it should not be that if a death has iccurred becasue of anothers actions that they can sidestep around the charge and turn into something else to get lighter sentencing.
It wouldn't actually take that much to end the softer sentencing of someones loss as life as to their murderer. Just full reform of sentencing and the installation of more severe sentencing is needed.

Make sure too there are places in prisons for such people by putting the emphasis more on people than of money and get the violent people locked up for far longer and stop filling prisons with those who commit financial crimes.

I'd rather have someone take a few hundred pounds from me than beat me to death or burn me alive.
I know of those 2 scenarios which one of them I would want in prison and it wouldn't be the first one.

[Jack_]

*cough*

8) Rehabilitation over retribution

Our politics are, amongst other things, focused around an understanding of people. That is what we aim to achieve with our policies, and it is the thinking that we follow ourselves. It is of the utmost importance that this is the thinking we use to deal with crime and the consequential forms of justice.

To first begin work on cutting crime levels, we need to address the ‘why’ and understand the reasons behind why every crime was committed. By doing this, we can work on ensuring that it cannot happen again by addressing the problem at its root, rather than at its end. Tabloids and political folk can bang on all they like about the need for an aggressive and zero tolerance approach to crime, but it is reactionary and doesn’t solve the real driving forces and causes of criminal activity.

The key to understanding and resolving the issue of crime lies with rehabilitation. First, you must understand why someone has committed a crime, and then work on helping them to right their wrongs and get back onto the right path, understanding why they should turn their life around and help instead of hurting others, or even themselves. Everyone deserves a chance to change, and it is vital that we provide this opportunity. Harsh prisons and tougher sentences are not a sufficient deterrent, in fact, you could call prison the University of Crime. Hard criminals become harder and resentful and the endless, lifelong labelling of criminals leads them into a dead end, and this results in an ongoing cycle of reoffending. Criminals need to be softened up, they need to understand the value of life and other people, they need to be provided with care and compassion and an education just as much as the rest of us. That is the only way we can give them the best chance at ending their life of crime. The current system is not progress, this is.

Zero tolerance doesn't work and neither do 'tougher' sentences. Prison needs to be open, free (not literally) and caring...basically everything prison isn't now. Prisoners should go to prison to learn, not only a new skill but about why what they've done is wrong and how they can return to the outside on a new path to better themselves. They need softening up, they need to understand the full scale of what they've done (I'm talking serious offences here of course).

Of course there are individuals who have committed crimes due to some form of psychological disorder (and to be quite honest, IMO, I think by default anybody that plans to kill someone has some kind of psychological problem that needs addressing...no sane person does that), and those who are serious enough of a threat need to go straight to a mental institution where they can be treated accordingly for varying lengths of time depending on the crime - as an example it'd be at least 10 years in a mental institution for the guy that set the 18 year old on fire, and around 30 - 40 for someone who committed a long series of murders. I'm reluctant to say life for anything, but if these people left and reoffended, I'd be more open to the idea because then they are beyond repair. But I resent notion that the majority cannot be helped, there needs to be more of a focus on rehabilitation and getting people back onto the right path, this whole 'let's bang them up in a cell with no water or clothes' doesn't solve anything. I get that it's easy to get upset and angry about certain crimes, hell, I'm guilty of it too, but you can't run a justice system based on your emotional response to a crime.

Crimes like shoplifting need addressing at the root cause, I'm sorry but why exactly do you think a single mother (as an example) is stealing food? For her kids perhaps...because we live under a system where she's got no other ****ing way of providing for her family? That needs addressing, and this goes for the wider scale as well. You address the causes of crime, and the large majority of it will go away. You need to understand what provokes people into committing crime and then work towards eradicating those causes.

Sexual assault on a child? Psychological disorder, a spell in an institution needed.

'Rioting'? Well...how about we address institutionalised racism and the astronomical gap between rich and poor first, eh?

Possession/taking drugs? What's driving people to do that in the first place...are their lives really so sh*t that they need some form of escapism? (I'm not saying that's the reason everyone takes them btw and for recreational use I personally don't have a problem, but it's certainly a reason in some cases).

It's all about attacking the causes, putting measures in place which will catch criminals isn't actually solving anything at all. You need to take a step back and look at the whole of society and all of its ills, what's causing them, and look at making sure they're not only eradicated, but those who have committed certain crimes can return to a normal life, free of labels (this is seriously important in cutting reoffending rates...refusing people jobs isn't solving anything) and on the right path.

The first thing to do, which would have a massive impact on prisoner population is end the impossible war on drugs.

That would then allow treatment programs for addicts, instead of jail, and release petty dealers to free up massive space in the whole service.