Jump to content

  •  

Photo
- - - - -

One in three serious offenders has 15 or more convictions of cautions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
38 replies to this topic

#1 SimonT

SimonT

    UKPoliceOnline Staff

  • Moderators
  • 7,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:21 PM

http://www.telegraph...f-cautions.html

 

 

A hardcore of more than 100,000 serious, repeat offenders turn to crime time and again, the Ministry of Justice figures showed.

Two in five burglars and three in 10 violent offenders dealt with by the courts in the 12 months to September had previously been handed at least 15 convictions or cautions.

A further 43,500 criminals dealt with by magistrates were also prolific repeat offenders, around one in five, up from one in 10, or about 29,000, a decade ago.

Javed Khan, chief executive of Victim Support, said: “These figures reflect an appalling lack of effort to rehabilitate offenders.

“Victims tell us over and over again that they want to stop offenders committing more crimes.

 

yep, thats about right. We have been saying it for years and i another years, we will be saying the same thing.

I changed division about 3 years ago and happened to look at my old custody block the other day. I recognised more than 80% of the names, still in. And of course i recognise 80% of the names in my current custody block. I rarely have to ask for peoples names and addresses, i already know them. 

 



#2 morek54

morek54

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:08 AM

It's all well and good the Minister of Justice bemoaning re-offending rates - but what is he going to do about it?  It's also all well and good saying that there is an "appalling lack of effort to rehabilitate offenders" but he should take the blame for that.  Politicians are very good at such sound bites which deflects the blame onto others - but it is their policies, and those of successive governments, which is firmly at the core of our shambolic Criminal Justice System.  A Criminal Justice System which, I might add, has been blighted for many years by overly liberal thinking and policies driven by an underlying social liberalism at the heart of government and indeed all our political parties. 

 

Literally every gimmick has been tired - anything and everything in fact other than an emphasis on proper punishment in favour of community sentences or other lenient methods of disposal.  Is it any wonder, when there are no real consequences for criminal behaviour, that there are those who are minded to carry on offending with relative impunity, laughing at a system which repeatedly slaps their wrist.  The reality is, by the time they eventually get locked-up crime has become a way of life and prison is much less impactive.  

 

I'm sorry but, if you commit crime, then there has to be some real consequence which clearly sends out a message and sets boundaries at the outset.  Not the soft and wholly alternatives we have at the heart of our system. Less hand wringing and pandering within the system and we might actually get somewhere.  I'd start by locking-up every burglar and street robber for their first offence.  No mitigation.  Only it'll never happen - we'd rather deal with the issues several years later once they have become prolific offenders.  And then have to endure some clueless politician, who has the audacity to take swipes at the system's failure to rehabilitate those who have no desire to be rehabilitated due to a failure to properly address their behaviour at a much earlier stage. 

 

Rehabilitation should be an entirely secondary consideration to justice and punishment in any event.  In the first instance, if someone commits a crime, justice should be seen to be done.  A proper and effective punishment should follow conviction - and if that fails and they re-offend on release, then they should be locked up until such a time as they show a willingness to rehabilitate.  However long that might be.  End of.   

 

So whilst victims might tell the Justice Minister "time and time again that they want to stop criminals committing more crime", I think he misses the point entirely.  I'd hazard a guess that they actually want criminals locking-up.  Rehabilitation is barely a consideration for victims - they want justice.  That he can't see that is indicative of how clueless and out of touch our political leaders are. 



#3 meditate

meditate

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:22 PM

Harsh punishments, harsh conditions and longer lock up rates do not lower the amount of offenders going back to prison - Just look at the US figures for eg. What has been shown to work is effective rehabilitation. Two problems though. The first is financing it and the second is those whose attitudes are lock them up and keep them in appalling conditions. I await the usual comments about this approach being left wing, hippy tree hugging liberalism but the fact remains a hard right regime sadly does not work. I am not against harsher punishments and longer sentences - just an informed approach on what works and what does not.



#4 intheblitz

intheblitz

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Essex

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:46 PM

Harsh punishments, harsh conditions and longer lock up rates do not lower the amount of offenders going back to prison - Just look at the US figures for eg. What has been shown to work is effective rehabilitation. Two problems though. The first is financing it and the second is those whose attitudes are lock them up and keep them in appalling conditions. I await the usual comments about this approach being left wing, hippy tree hugging liberalism but the fact remains a hard right regime sadly does not work. I am not against harsher punishments and longer sentences - just an informed approach on what works and what does not.

 

You left wing, hippy, tree hugging liberal.  :joker: 



#5 SimonT

SimonT

    UKPoliceOnline Staff

  • Moderators
  • 7,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:35 PM

I wouldnt let a prolific shoplifter have a cigarette the other day. He though shoplifting was no biggie but was distraught at not having a fag. 

 

I think we need robust sentencing and robust and persistent rehab. But at the moment we have neither.   



#6 morek54

morek54

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:42 PM

Harsh punishments, harsh conditions and longer lock up rates do not lower the amount of offenders going back to prison - Just look at the US figures for eg. What has been shown to work is effective rehabilitation. Two problems though. The first is financing it and the second is those whose attitudes are lock them up and keep them in appalling conditions. I await the usual comments about this approach being left wing, hippy tree hugging liberalism but the fact remains a hard right regime sadly does not work. I am not against harsher punishments and longer sentences - just an informed approach on what works and what does not.

We are not the US.  First and foremost.  They have their own problems, we ours.  I'm not remotely interested in comparisons with the American experience.  Secondly, there is hardly a bench mark in this country for determining that harsher punishments do not work.  We have blindly pursued the soft, woolly liberal agenda for far too long.  That doesn't work, either.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

 

That said, I was not necessarily talking about harsher conditions if you'd actually read what I say - I'm suggesting the system should be far more impactive in terms of properly punishing offenders at a much earlier stage in their offending cycle.  What we have at the moment is the vicious circle of undue leniency, which breeds contempt, before the courts finally say enough is enough and lock them up. 

 

I speak as someone who deals with the same people time and time again and feel I can say, with some degree of authority, that we have created a criminal underclass in this country consisting of some of the more feral elements of society, who genuinely and truly believe they are untouchable because they suffer no real consequences for their behaviour.  They are given chance time and time again.  Rehabilitation is all well and good - but what about nipping it in the bud?  Sending out a clear message that such behaviour will NOT be tolerated.  Might that not negate the need to rehabilitate them several years down the line?

 

Of course, it's all well and good placing undue emphasis on rehabilitation. But there also has to be some desire on the part of the individual to change their ways. It's not just the responsibility of others to change them.  You would have to be incredibly naive to think  that for many, criminality is not a way of life.  Or that by the time there is a need to rehabilitate them, they have become so entrenched in the lifestyle they are a lost cause as such.  And you can thrown all the money in the world at such people in a bid to get them to change their ways and it won't make a blind bit of difference.  That's the reality, I'm afraid. 

 

Whether you agree or not, we are simply far too soft in this country and I'm firmly of the view that's why re offending rates are so appalling.  That is why I take such exception to what the Justice Minister says - he merely avoids the real issues and shifts the blame when, if truth be told, his government and others before it have shaped the very system he is now critical of as if it's all somebody else's fault. He, and those who have gone before him, are wholly to blame. 



#7 meditate

meditate

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2013 - 04:13 PM

Harsher conditions were my words not yours so no need to be so touchy in your reply. I am very aware that we are not the USA but as I have stated before it makes sense to look at international perspectives - as OUR justice system does to see what works and what does not.  your last paragraph has no empirical validity which is what my response was about. People just churn out the same old tired rhetoric without looking a little deeper.


Edited by meditate, 22 February 2013 - 04:13 PM.


#8 SimonT

SimonT

    UKPoliceOnline Staff

  • Moderators
  • 7,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:11 PM

The thing is we live with these people day in and day out, always the same person, the same offence. The sentencing is weak, we know this because we can see it. 

 

It is at best an inconvenience.

If you have no job, no prospect of getting a job, you have your own council house which will be waiting for you when you get out, usually 'owned' by one of the women you have impregnated then whats the problem with prison. You get to see your mates, hang about, pretend to do work programs etc 

 

The government needs to sit down with some serious experts and come up with a realistic general strategy to cut crime and reduce re-offending. But it will cost money, so it wont happen. 



#9 gripper

gripper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 2,772 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Llamedos
  • Interests:Monkey hanging!

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:45 PM

Lock em up, and keep them there!.

#10 dolly1966

dolly1966

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London
  • Interests:I enjoy walking my dogs, meeting up with friends, travelling and dining out.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:38 PM

Lock em up, and keep them there!.

 

 

I see your point, but who is going to pay for that.



#11 gripper

gripper

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 2,772 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Llamedos
  • Interests:Monkey hanging!

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:49 PM

They are let out too early. 5 years. Should mean 5 years if you're good. Take out the 10 most prolific burglars on my borough, and the burglary rate would drop by 90%.

#12 Ed67812

Ed67812

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:51 PM

 

I see your point, but who is going to pay for that.

 

 

Taxpayers, only the same taxpayers who have to pay for the council houses, the job seekers etc etc whilst they are free...............at least in prison they are away from the 99.9% decent people out there.

 

 


Edited by Ed67812, 22 February 2013 - 06:53 PM.


#13 dolly1966

dolly1966

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London
  • Interests:I enjoy walking my dogs, meeting up with friends, travelling and dining out.

Posted 23 February 2013 - 02:03 AM

 

 

 

Taxpayers, only the same taxpayers who have to pay for the council houses, the job seekers etc etc whilst they are free...............at least in prison they are away from the 99.9% decent people out there.

 

 

 

 

Yes i agree with you but prisons are already overcrowded,and extremely short staffed.  Which is unsafe.

 

How can you rehabilitate people that have no interest in changing, or crime is all they know?  Perhaps they come from a family of criminals and going inside is just an occupational hazard, and they do not care.

 

I think the court system is much too lenient on first time offenders. 

 

But saying that there are people that do break the law and change, extremely rare but it does happen.

 

This is a difficult one.

 

Our society now unfortunatly is so messed up, young people (not all of them but a substatial amount) if they want something they will not go out and work for it, or save they just take it or commit a crime to get the money.  They do not think well if i have not got the money i cannot have it, they will get it by hook or by crook,

 

They do not care.

 

(i am not implying that all young people are bad i am just using them as an example).



#14 Ed67812

Ed67812

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 23 February 2013 - 12:46 PM

My experience is that with young people, as with any other group, there is actual only a small element that are the criminal core........however, the criminal element see no consequences and so this encourages others. There are many decent youngsters out there, just like there are many decent people having to live off the welfare state. It is the latter whose communities are blighted by the criminal element.

 

 

If prisons are overcrowded then build more prisons. I have no interest in rehabilitation as a matter of course. It shouldn't matter to society whether somebody wants to change. It should matter to the criminal. However with no consequences, it doesn't matter to the criminal. If we had a x amount of strikes and then 25 years policy, then the criminal has a direct interest in changing his ways.

 

Remove the hardened tiny criminal element and everyone will benefit.



#15 dolly1966

dolly1966

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London
  • Interests:I enjoy walking my dogs, meeting up with friends, travelling and dining out.

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:23 PM

My experience is that with young people, as with any other group, there is actual only a small element that are the criminal core........however, the criminal element see no consequences and so this encourages others. There are many decent youngsters out there, just like there are many decent people having to live off the welfare state. It is the latter whose communities are blighted by the criminal element.

 

 

If prisons are overcrowded then build more prisons. I have no interest in rehabilitation as a matter of course. It shouldn't matter to society whether somebody wants to change. It should matter to the criminal. However with no consequences, it doesn't matter to the criminal. If we had a x amount of strikes and then 25 years policy, then the criminal has a direct interest in changing his ways.

 

Remove the hardened tiny criminal element and everyone will benefit.

 

 

Hi Ed6782

 

When i said young people i was using that as an example.

 

You mention building more prisons, that is going to cost money and the government will not do that.  (they need all the spare csh for their expenses and salary rise.....lol)

 

Wld longer sentences mean less crime i do not think so (it wld get the offenders off the streets thats all and perhaps crime wld go down because the people doing the crimes wld be banged up).

 

Wld it not be better to prevent crime before it happens. 

 

Ed we are looking at this from different perspectives, which i think is a good thing.

 

We cannot all think the same opinions because that would be very boring.

 

:bye:



#16 DoubleG

DoubleG

    UKPOLICEONLINE Full Member

  • Resident Members
  • 269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:location location
  • Interests:Baddies

Posted 23 February 2013 - 07:45 PM

Longer sentences, and sentences appropriate to the crime and the offender do mean that these prolific criminals are off the streets for longer and unable to commit crime though. Tax money well spent in my opinion.

#17 meditate

meditate

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2013 - 08:30 PM

To say that one has no interest in rehabilitation is a bit foolish IMO as that means nothing is being done to tackle root causes. Equally longer sentences of between 2-4 years have been shown to have a more deterrent effect on crime than sentences of lower than 12 months? Why? Because it allows time for meaningful interventions (rehabilitation) to be done rather than just locking them up without any rehab at all. At the other extreme strong deterrents such as three strikes and the death penalty have been shown not to have a deterrent effect. What this highlights to me is that we throw rehabilitation away at societies peril - or increased cost if you will.



#18 morek54

morek54

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 1,063 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 23 February 2013 - 10:52 PM

To say that one has no interest in rehabilitation is a bit foolish IMO as that means nothing is being done to tackle root causes. Equally longer sentences of between 2-4 years have been shown to have a more deterrent effect on crime than sentences of lower than 12 months? Why? Because it allows time for meaningful interventions (rehabilitation) to be done rather than just locking them up without any rehab at all. At the other extreme strong deterrents such as three strikes and the death penalty have been shown not to have a deterrent effect. What this highlights to me is that we throw rehabilitation away at societies peril - or increased cost if you will.

Meaningful intervention?  I love such trendy speak.  It's a meaningful intervention only in so much as they're locked up and not out committing crime.  As I've said before, rehabilitation primarily relies upon one thing: a willingness on the part of the individual to be rehabilitated.  For many, crime is a way of life and frankly they have no desire to be rehabilitated. The trouble is some have this hug-a-hoodie mentality, whereby criminals are seen as poor souls in need of help and guidance to be good people again.  The reality is, there's some bad people out there who were never good in the first place and never will be good.  There's those who are criminals by choice and always will be.  And others who will be in and out of prison all their lives regardless of how much money we throw at this euphoric notion of rehabilitation.  If only life was so simple.  If only the Criminal Justice System was this halcyon environment envisaged by some, where everybody sits around on bean bags and changes their ways after a bit of the old meaningful intervention from some do-gooder who learnt about life at university.  Wouldn't life be lovely.  Only it's not, is it?  They laugh at it.  It's a joke to them.  Anything to get out sooner. 


Edited by morek54, 23 February 2013 - 10:53 PM.


#19 meditate

meditate

    UKPOLICEONLINE Guru

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 2,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2013 - 11:11 PM

You are very good at using terms such as 'do gooder' and 'hug a hoodie' in a sarcastic manner as a put down for any view that on the face of it does not seem to fit what could be construed as your ultra conservative right wing ramblings. In effect you are putting forward a black and white perspective that is saying people are either completely law abiding or, must be habitual criminals. For the sake of clarification are you saying that all 'poor souls' who fall on the wrong side of the law are all habitual criminals? Because that is how it is reading IMO. Such a statement would be nonsense. Whilst there will always be those who will not benefit from interventions other than being locked up are you saying this is the case for all? I would like to see your evidence where rehab is a complete waste of time and just locking them up works (I dont need to hear the whilst they are locked up they are not doing crime argument as we both know they will come out at some point). 



#20 stewie_griffin

stewie_griffin

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • 923 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 February 2013 - 08:22 PM

I agree with Mediate in that locking people up doesn't work. It's obvious because as soon as they're out, they're back committing crime. Simply putting people in prison does not address the root causes of their behaviour.

 

On the other hand should we really be concerned about what works and what doesn't work for criminals? Surely we should be more concerned about their victims (and future victims). Prison certainly works for victims for the simple reason that there can be no more victims for as long as the person is locked up.

 

We'd like to believe that we are so wise and our understanding of human nature so deep, that now, suddenly in the early 21st century, at last we can come up with a solution that will stop people from being criminals: 'meaningful interventions' 'rehabilitation' 'compassion in sentencing' 'disadvantaged' 'set up to fail' etc. etc.

 

There are some people who need locking up for a long time so that the public and their property is protected.






0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users