Time to suspend suspended sentences

[mistermack]

Just watched a tv police program. A loony did a burglary, ran from the police by driving like a lunatic, had no insurance, and a string of other stuff.

He got one year prison, suspended sentence.

Where is the morality in that? It's like begging them not to do it again.
They should get a real penalty AND a suspended one, if the court thinks it's appropriate. But never just the suspended one. Because in their minds, and in the minds of their wanker friends, they got off with no penalty at all. And they are right.

It's taking the piss out of the rest of us, if someone can do all that and get no punishment whatsoever. The only ''punishment'' that he got, was being told not to do it again.

[Rum]

I don't know if you are aware of what is involved, but basically if you are found guilty of a further offence within the suspended period - he would serve that in addition to whatever he was sentenced for the later conviction.

The truth of the matter, uncomfortable as it may be for the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade is that keeping people out of the criminal justice system is the best way of improving the chances of them not offending again.

[mistermack]

I don't know if you are aware of what is involved, but basically if you are found guilty of a further offence within the suspended period - he would serve that in addition to whatever he was sentenced for the later conviction.

The truth of the matter, uncomfortable as it may be for the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade is that keeping people out of the criminal justice system is the best way of improving the chances of them not offending again.

Yes, of course, that's what suspended means. But where's the punishment?
If they can avoid getting CAUGHT, for the suspended period, then they got away scot free.

While I agree that people get hardened to crime in prison, and many get onto drugs, the answer to that is to change the system, not let them off all real punishment.

A lot of kids know the ropes inside out, and know exactly how far they can push it.

I would personally have first offenders kept in solitary custody, and not let them mix at all.
Give them pcs and visits from community volunteers, but keep them apart from other criminals.
In fact, the only people who should be allowed to mix with other convicts should be people on very long sentences.

[Rum]

Government policy has gone back and forth on this here in the UK. I worked as in so called Youth Justice for a couple of yeas almost twenty years ago now just as the 'liberal' approach of diversion, keeping young adults away from the courts and the criminal justice system was changing to a more 'Tory' led approach where punishment was the primary purpose of the system. All I can say is that the 'liberal' approach appeared to work. What matters more - the public's desire for some sort of revenge or a kid who avoids creating mayhem for a number of years as he runs off the rails. Most crime is committed by young people after all (they tend to peak at 17) and most 'grow out of it'.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Most crime is committed by young people after all (they tend to peak at 17) and most 'grow out of it'.

In volume terms, certainly. In monetary terms, however, most is committed by middle-aged businessmen. Trouble is, the impact of an OAP pensioner being mugged for her handbag is immediate and visceral, while the impact of VAT fraud and tax evasion is far harder to evaluate.

[mistermack]

As far as I can see, the biggest reason for penalties is deterrence. After that comes the punishment element. They are tied up together really. The knowledge that there is a real punishment creates the deterrence.
The knowledge that a first offence will be treated leniently means that for the seventeen year old, there is little deterrent. In their minds, they think that they won't get caught. And if they do get caught, they won't get much of a penalty.

So why not have a go at minor drug dealing, or a bit of burglary, or steal a car?
Until you get caught the first time, you really have very little to worry about.

Why not deter the first offence? Surely the first one leads to the next, and the next, and so on.

But I'm with you on the present situation. If locking them up leads to them being educated by other criminals, then I think you're right, it is better to keep them out.
A month in solitary I think, would be better than three months suspended.
You can give a month, with the other two months suspended, to get the benefit of both.

[Rum]

The fact is that punishment as a deterrent isn't very effective. Diversion from the justice system is. So one can keep a cool and rational mind about the best and most intelligent strategy or we can bay for blood from the little shits (which many are!) who do this stuff.

XC is right though of course. Major crime happens at at corporate level and we are all its victims.

[mistermack]

The fact is that punishment as a deterrent isn't very effective. Diversion from the justice system is. So one can keep a cool and rational mind about the best and most intelligent strategy or we can bay for blood from the little shits (which many are!) who do this stuff.

XC is right though of course. Major crime happens at at corporate level and we are all its victims.

While the figures probably bear out what you are saying, figures don't always give the truth.
The people who are diverted are generally self selecting. They are the less bad cases, and are far less likely to re-offend anyway.
The ones that are bad enough to get locked up are surely the worst kind anyway.
So it's not just the difference in treatment, it's that they are different kinds of cases.

You select the ones who are least likely to re-offend, and then put the results down to the treatment you gave them. Not necessarily true. It was probably the selection process.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Mistermack is, as always, completely right (in the sense of being totally wrong) and we should immediately adopt a judicial system based on which way his knee jerks.

[Rum]

The fact is that punishment as a deterrent isn't very effective. Diversion from the justice system is. So one can keep a cool and rational mind about the best and most intelligent strategy or we can bay for blood from the little shits (which many are!) who do this stuff.

XC is right though of course. Major crime happens at at corporate level and we are all its victims.

While the figures probably bear out what you are saying, figures don't always give the truth.
The people who are diverted are generally self selecting. They are the less bad cases, and are far less likely to re-offend anyway.
The ones that are bad enough to get locked up are surely the worst kind anyway.
So it's not just the difference in treatment, it's that they are different kinds of cases.

You select the ones who are least likely to re-offend, and then put the results down to the treatment you gave them. Not necessarily true. It was probably the selection process.

You really can't select the ones who are least likely to reoffend, though those on suspended sentences would probably fall into that category. Gotcha I think.

[Blind groper]

Rum is correct in the statement that deterrence by the threat of nasty punishment, is largely ineffective. There has been some research done that indicates that the level of punishment does not affect the likelihood of a person committing a crime, because they do not intend to be caught. But if you can induce in their minds a belief that they are gonna get caught, then that will deter them. This happens with more visible policing, more careful use of detective work, more patrols, more security features etc., all well publicised. This is purely a matter of their perception of the probability of being caught, but seems to work.

Since nasty punishment is not an effective deterrent, then making it more nasty does not increase the deterrence effect which is apparent by its absense.

Nor is there any genuinely effective rehabilitation system yet. Some are partially effective, and far better than nothing, but nothing that can be relied upon to stop reoffending.

So locking people up serves only one purpose. That is, to stop them offending while they are locked up. And that being the case, we have to ask why we let them go?

If there is a chance of scaring someone into not reffending after they are caught for the first time, I am all for it. Of course, if they repeat offend, then we should lock them up till they are sufficiently old to have little chance of reoffending. Statistically, this applies at about the mid 30's. Not perfect, of course, but probably better than anything we do right now.

I also tend to think that the people who should be locked up for longest are burglars. This is a crime which does greatest harm to the most people, with many burglars costing society literally millions of dollars per year while they are on their crime spree. It is also true that burglary is a crime that is repeated despite imprisonment, often within 24 hours of release. So, if it costs $100,000 per year to keep a burglar locked up, that is cheap.

There is also no advantage (except a tiny financial advantage) to making prison nasty. There is no reason, in terms of reducing crime, to make prisoners live in cramped spaces, or to do without life's little luxuries. Rather than lock someone up for (say) 5 years in harsh conditions, and then release them to continue to commit crime, why not give them a genuinely comfortable cell, and keep them there till they are at least 35 years of age, even if that means more than 20 years in prison?

[Seth]

The main reason for suspended sentences is fiscal. They do it because it's fucking expensive to put someone in jail, even for a short time, and the jails are always overcrowded anyway. So, suspended sentences are a desperate attempt to scare first-timers into not offending again by putting them through the meat-grinder of the criminal justice system (which costs a lot in and of itself) and then letting them off with a stern warning and a sword of Damocles hanging over their head for a time. Depending on the seriousness of the crime, it often works. They also do what's called "deferred prosecution," particularly for juveniles, which means that if the defendant doesn't re-offend, the original charge (of which he has not yet been convicted) is expunged from his record so that it will not affect things like getting into college or getting a job.

[piscator]

Suspended sentences? No, wait...

[JimC]

It all depends on the severity of the first offence. There should be no suspended sentence for crimes of violence, first offence or not - whatever jail time would be the normal sentence should apply. Also, released criminals should expect that offending again will produce an exponential increase in jail time...

[Sean Hayden]

I suspect for many people the best option is to just do their time and go home.