Many thanks, Gayle Frances Larkin. When I read and participate in these exchanges, declaring your anguish over such a topic can seem a much less lonely place to be.
As a complete outsider on this issue, I rarely comment but I read the content with interest.
This time, there is one issue that I cannot pass by.
Of all of these options, surely dealing with the appalling miscarriage of justice that is the "imprisonment for public protection" sentence has to be the highest priority.
But also restoring the right to peaceful protest without penalty has to be on that list. This government has tried to demolish many democratic rights enjoyed by the population for centuries, and often the courts have rejected their attempts. Formalising that would clear at least some space in the system?
I think we'd agree that the current government has gone much further in changing the definition of "peaceful protest" than that. I'm seeking a return to the definition as it was in perhaps 2015?
The reasons for offending range from poverty ( caused by a system which perpetuates both wealth and poverty within families), greed, personality disorders; ambition, rage, resentment and addiction. Thus until the system is changed, crime will continue to be thr most reliable growth industry in this country.
Pleading guilty should not result in a conditional sentence because that will simply encourage more crime.
Criminals are by and large not stupid. If they know that there will be no consequences for their actions,they will naturally reofffend since they will have had no chance for any type of rehabilitation. The public will continue to be bombarded by crime.
It will take a genuinely concerned government to tackle the causes and "genuinely concerned governments" has become an oxymoron.
In the end it is probably a simple mathematical calculation: is it cheaper to change the unfair system, to treat the root causes of poverty, and connection from mainstream society, or to continue to lock up people who can't or won't comply?
Thanks to the decades long lack of funding for social services we are now past the point of trying to control crime and no matter how it is dressed up, a policy of early release is simply an admission that we would rather continue down the path of anarchy than address its causes.
I very much agree with both Tim Devas and Joshua. That should surprise neither of them.
But, but: I do view the proposals as a whole as the veritable curate’s egg.
I am absolutely for all of them up to the bullet points and the need for speed over implementing constructive measures is in my view beyond question. I am encouraged by Sue Gray having included prisons in her shortish “shopping list” of risk factors and this should present a rather special opportunity with - as I dare to assume- a Labour government with a respectable (or greater) majority and the prospect of them working with, in particular , the LibDems and other parties with a scintilla of liberal thought in their waters.
I recall a time when I worked with an all agency group on bail information where much good work was done only for austerity to bite and for that non-statutory duty for the Probation Service to be an early casualty. And so what then happened was that the government (it matters not which for these purposes - there is a shared guilt) had to as it saw it outsource a much more limited, less effective and much more expensive private entity for that purpose with no continuing remit over securing accommodation after release.
To my mind that is no mere digression but a true example of the myopic and short term approach exhibited drearily often.
As to District Judges and retired judges being deployed as described I say “yes” to the latter and “yes, but” to the former. Are District Judges to be no longer- very broadly speaking- primus inter pares with Magistrates over jurisdictional and sentencing powers? I know that to a limited extent that is already the position but do we not need to pause to think about that?
As to the bullet points, I say decidedly “yes” to numbers 1, 3 and 4 but as to 2 I always worry about the perverse pressure brought to bear on defendants to plead “Guilty” inappropriately and, surely by now, we have moved on from the fatuous assertion that no one who was (factually or on a “technicality”) would plead “Guilty” ? Do please tell me we have!
I very much worry also when I see Labour’s focus on “tougher” penalties, as though there had been no care in the world about an overflowing prison population that is a national disgrace. Do please all grow up. I honestly believe that the public at large would be receptive overall to a skilful explanation about how prison does NOT work and how the nation’s and their families’ security can be better secured through the management of all non- violent crime in the community.
I have anguished over all of these issues throughout forty seven torrid years as a solicitor/ advocate (Magistrates and Crown Court) and so I show no temerity as I see it in entering into these exchanges.
Yes, I agree whole heartedly with these comments. As a non lawyer it has always worried me about forcing or trying to induce a "guilty" plea. You understand these implications much better than I could.
I was peripherally involved in a committee set up by the Michael Sieff Foundation to attempt to implement the Lord Carlile Report on the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court when Phil Bowen was a vital contributor and driver. He is exceptionally capable and one can only hope that the new government takes heed of this report. The case for giving District Judges in the Magistrates’ courts (formerly known as Stipendiary Magistrates) greater sentencing powers has been rehearsed many times. It is such a blindingly obvious way of reducing the number of cases sent to the Crown Court and the huge backlog that causes. District Judges now regularly sit in the Crown Court to help ease the load, so why not let them do that in the court of summary justice?
As for prisons, Joshua is already well aware of my views on the current disastrous situation. Short sentences are of little or no benefit and the statistics have always shown that prisoners who receive such sentences are very likely to reoffend within a year of release. The shortness of sentence means that there is no chance of prisoners getting any rehabilitative benefit and for those sentenced to custody for the first time, the short sentence can have disastrous consequences such as loss of housing, job, family connections etc.
Many thanks, Gayle Frances Larkin. When I read and participate in these exchanges, declaring your anguish over such a topic can seem a much less lonely place to be.
As a complete outsider on this issue, I rarely comment but I read the content with interest.
This time, there is one issue that I cannot pass by.
Of all of these options, surely dealing with the appalling miscarriage of justice that is the "imprisonment for public protection" sentence has to be the highest priority.
But also restoring the right to peaceful protest without penalty has to be on that list. This government has tried to demolish many democratic rights enjoyed by the population for centuries, and often the courts have rejected their attempts. Formalising that would clear at least some space in the system?
Are there any limits to peaceful protest? Your definition wouldn't include causing damage to people's property, presumably?
I think we'd agree that the current government has gone much further in changing the definition of "peaceful protest" than that. I'm seeking a return to the definition as it was in perhaps 2015?
Thanks.
The reasons for offending range from poverty ( caused by a system which perpetuates both wealth and poverty within families), greed, personality disorders; ambition, rage, resentment and addiction. Thus until the system is changed, crime will continue to be thr most reliable growth industry in this country.
Pleading guilty should not result in a conditional sentence because that will simply encourage more crime.
Criminals are by and large not stupid. If they know that there will be no consequences for their actions,they will naturally reofffend since they will have had no chance for any type of rehabilitation. The public will continue to be bombarded by crime.
It will take a genuinely concerned government to tackle the causes and "genuinely concerned governments" has become an oxymoron.
In the end it is probably a simple mathematical calculation: is it cheaper to change the unfair system, to treat the root causes of poverty, and connection from mainstream society, or to continue to lock up people who can't or won't comply?
Thanks to the decades long lack of funding for social services we are now past the point of trying to control crime and no matter how it is dressed up, a policy of early release is simply an admission that we would rather continue down the path of anarchy than address its causes.
I very much agree with both Tim Devas and Joshua. That should surprise neither of them.
But, but: I do view the proposals as a whole as the veritable curate’s egg.
I am absolutely for all of them up to the bullet points and the need for speed over implementing constructive measures is in my view beyond question. I am encouraged by Sue Gray having included prisons in her shortish “shopping list” of risk factors and this should present a rather special opportunity with - as I dare to assume- a Labour government with a respectable (or greater) majority and the prospect of them working with, in particular , the LibDems and other parties with a scintilla of liberal thought in their waters.
I recall a time when I worked with an all agency group on bail information where much good work was done only for austerity to bite and for that non-statutory duty for the Probation Service to be an early casualty. And so what then happened was that the government (it matters not which for these purposes - there is a shared guilt) had to as it saw it outsource a much more limited, less effective and much more expensive private entity for that purpose with no continuing remit over securing accommodation after release.
To my mind that is no mere digression but a true example of the myopic and short term approach exhibited drearily often.
As to District Judges and retired judges being deployed as described I say “yes” to the latter and “yes, but” to the former. Are District Judges to be no longer- very broadly speaking- primus inter pares with Magistrates over jurisdictional and sentencing powers? I know that to a limited extent that is already the position but do we not need to pause to think about that?
As to the bullet points, I say decidedly “yes” to numbers 1, 3 and 4 but as to 2 I always worry about the perverse pressure brought to bear on defendants to plead “Guilty” inappropriately and, surely by now, we have moved on from the fatuous assertion that no one who was (factually or on a “technicality”) would plead “Guilty” ? Do please tell me we have!
I very much worry also when I see Labour’s focus on “tougher” penalties, as though there had been no care in the world about an overflowing prison population that is a national disgrace. Do please all grow up. I honestly believe that the public at large would be receptive overall to a skilful explanation about how prison does NOT work and how the nation’s and their families’ security can be better secured through the management of all non- violent crime in the community.
I have anguished over all of these issues throughout forty seven torrid years as a solicitor/ advocate (Magistrates and Crown Court) and so I show no temerity as I see it in entering into these exchanges.
Yes, I agree whole heartedly with these comments. As a non lawyer it has always worried me about forcing or trying to induce a "guilty" plea. You understand these implications much better than I could.
I was peripherally involved in a committee set up by the Michael Sieff Foundation to attempt to implement the Lord Carlile Report on the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court when Phil Bowen was a vital contributor and driver. He is exceptionally capable and one can only hope that the new government takes heed of this report. The case for giving District Judges in the Magistrates’ courts (formerly known as Stipendiary Magistrates) greater sentencing powers has been rehearsed many times. It is such a blindingly obvious way of reducing the number of cases sent to the Crown Court and the huge backlog that causes. District Judges now regularly sit in the Crown Court to help ease the load, so why not let them do that in the court of summary justice?
As for prisons, Joshua is already well aware of my views on the current disastrous situation. Short sentences are of little or no benefit and the statistics have always shown that prisoners who receive such sentences are very likely to reoffend within a year of release. The shortness of sentence means that there is no chance of prisoners getting any rehabilitative benefit and for those sentenced to custody for the first time, the short sentence can have disastrous consequences such as loss of housing, job, family connections etc.
Thank you!