My uncle was in nick during the late 79s early 80s no back of spaces as they were 2 or 3 to a cell. They aint in there for an easy time.just make em share cells dont wana share a cell dont get locked up its pretty simple |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As the population England has gone up over the years through mass immigration, the number of prisons hasn't.
Just Googled the population of Scotland specifically by year and for a good while it appears to have hovered around 5 million or so. Meanwhile England gets flooded with diversity.
More people in general means crime will go up, but no more prisons were built, the government actually closed many. Insane.
That's another thing... If all these people are being brought in, and tax revenue is going up, where in the hell is all the money going? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the courts accelerated the number of cases being heard, that could have a positive impact on numbers being held in remand, and numbers of cells becoming free.
Burnham is rumoured to be looking to reverse Lammy’s no right to a jury policy, which I agree with, however will he also insist judges and the court system actually speed up their ancient practices? Our legal system is creaking under antiquated ways of working, which adds enormous pressure to the prison system with people being held on remand for far too long without their hearings starting, or waiting to be sentenced. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Longer sentencing for serious crimes, To try and deter people committing the same crime,
Do deals with other countries and deport foreign nationals in UK prisons, Approximate UK total 11k foreign nationals or 12%
Build some prisons in remote areas of the UK, 5-10 to a cell with basic amenities
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".....or pass sentences that deter wrongdoing?"
There is substantial credible evidence that simply making prison sentences longer or more severe produces little additional deterrent effect. Lots of studies exist for those inclined to look for them.
.
In 2021, the then UK Justice Minister Chris Philp, answering a parliamentary question on precisely the deterrent effect of tougher sentences, summarised the evidence essentially as follows.
"evidence on severity is mixed, with harsher sentencing tending to have limited or no general deterrent effect, whereas greater certainty of apprehension and punishment has consistently demonstrated a deterrent effect.".
.
It's the certainty of getting caught which is exhibiting a greater deterrent.
.
Fundamentally, that means greater surveillance of the general population, across all platforms of life.
.
That however is contentious in its own right.
People like me, who have no intention of committing any crime could rightly say "I am not a criminal". Others who surveil, might reply, "Not yet you are not, but you *could* be in the future."
It's a thorny issue with no easy answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I know these kids. I've worked in the areas we're talking about, around Lambeth, Lewisham, I know their problems, I know their frustrations, lack of community facilities, I know their parents...and in my opinion, Professor Duff's suggestion that we should cut off their goolies is the only solution.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
