大象传媒

Dear Sir,

There is ONLY ONE WAY to solve the problem:Just Build More Prisons.
That's all.

Kind regards

Maurizio Ricci
North Bondi
2026 NSW
AUSTRALIA

As this is the same Lord Falconer who oversaw the Dome fiasco with such "applomb" I think we can rest assured that 1] this isn't the right way to deal with the crisis and 2] this will be endangering the public.

Once again the 'comfort' of prisoners seems to take precedence over the safety of the general public. People who commit crimes might be more deterred if they knew that they would be placed in overcrowded accommodation.

It's time this country stopped molly-coddling criminals.

This is a criminal justice disaster entirely of the Labour government's making. Several years ago, Gordon Brown refused to fund a prison building program, despite the clear evidence that the prision population was growing at an alarming rate. What is more, the crunch as been happening for the last couple of years, it hasn't just started today, and still the Labour government has done nothing to sort it out.

I would also like to know at what point exactly did the ruling liberal elites decide that (non-aggravated) burglary was to become a petty crime? As a victim of it, I certainly don't consider that it is: in fact it is one of the worst things that has happened to me in my life. As most burglars are unreformed drug addicts, letting them out of prison early is inevitably going to result in avoidable misery for many other law-abiding people.

How will they decide who to release? Some sentences are too lenient e.g Rape, death by drink driving etc so will these people have the added bonus of being let out early?

In the USA a criminal can be sent to jail for 4 years for stealing a car. They have moe space. For once I agree with the Conservatives and say - build more prisons. The only people who suffer are the victims

This is the wrong approach. Instead, for every person sentenced, two or more prisoners are released whose combined time left to serve equals the length of sentence imposed on the person joining or re-joining those in prison.

The aim is to encourage the early release of non-violent offenders and to introduce them to work in the community aimed at reducing the number of recidivists.

As a further deterrent, each would be required to wear an orange jump-suit and an electronic ankle bracelet.

If the mp's got paid less than they do now and a lot less, maybe, just maybe more tax could be put into more places than they do now like the health sector and the prison sector.

If the appropriate punishment for a crime is imprisonment, then people serving a sentence should not be let out early. Justice cannot be based on the availability of resources.

It's either wrong to lock people up, or it's wrong to let them out. They can't both be right.

What a fiasco. " Tough on Crime ?"
If we had a deterrent criminal justice system, we would have less crime. Why have not more prisons been built--prisoners have been lodged in police stations at times of full capacity for at least 20 years--what excuse is there for not having built more prisons ? I suggest that the tendency to keep taxation to a bare minimum results in services such as crime prevention being furnished at a bare minimum standard.

How many less people would there be in prision had we not abolished the death penalty?

What a fiasco. " Tough on Crime ?"
If we had a deterrent criminal justice system, we would have less crime. Why have not more prisons been built--prisoners have been lodged in police stations at times of full capacity for at least 20 years--what excuse is there for not having built more prisons ? I suggest that the tendency to keep taxation to a bare minimum results in services such as crime prevention being furnished at a bare minimum standard.

I thought Labour or New labour or whatever is left of it would finally see some sense in freeing detained asylum seekers to make space for real criminals.
It's only regrettable that no other politician from the wider political spectrum could suggest this; asylum seekers are our easiest obvious target and the asumption is that, members of the community can deal better with criminals with known high offending rate, than asylum seekers.
It was for example big news yesterday about a third suicide of a youth in Britain, but howmany asylumseekers suicides have been reported in the media.
Who are we to free next? Children killers may be.

I've long since ceased believing ANYTHING which this government says.

It may be cost effective for the taxpayer but the obverse of the argument is who are you releasing?? Low level white collar criminals with monitering anklets if their crime would necessitate it. Any of the Philes is out of the question as they are predators. Then let the courts decide on a one to one basis since they put them there.

It may be cost effective for the taxpayer but the obverse of the argument is who are you releasing?? Low level white collar criminals with monitering anklets if their crime would necessitate it. Any of the Philes is out of the question as they are predators. Then let the courts decide on a one to one basis since they put them there.

Wait a minute, I don't quite understand this.

They don't have enough prison spaces for offenders so now they're going to release the non-violent ones. What's going to happen when these non-violent offenders re-offend? Are they going to be told, "That was a nasty deed you just did but since it was non-violent, we won't send you to jail. You're free to go."

These prisoners must love us! They commit a crime and don't have to go to jail! Only in Britain!

Why am I not surprised. Didn't this pal of Blair have some responsibility for getting rid of the dome too???

It is surely a very sensible idea to release a small proprtion of prisoners early. There must be some who shouldn't be there in the first place. There could well be some form of quid pro quo with a few well-chosen candidates.

who is to blame for the huge prison population?
Answer:those who have broken the law which the vast majority of people uphold.
If prison is designated for law breakers then let it be.

I do not believe the Government was wise to say, in such a determined way, that they would not consider early release. In short, 'never say never.'

Having said that it is more important to have prison places available for those who have recently been convicted and sentenced.

If, as the Justice Minister has stated, early release amounts to about 18 days maximum, then an extra bonus for prisoners who have been model inmates and are judged to be unlikely to re-offend should be given this extra reward. This must also be tempered against length of sentence. Eighteen days taken off a 3 month sentence may not be a good idea but 18 days from an 18 month or 2 year sentence, or longer, may well be justified.

As with any early release scheme, a person who then re-offends can be required to serve that time in full in addition to any other sentence awarded for the additional offence.

The Government has introduced longer sentences or introduced more offences under law meriting imprisonment primarily at public demand. Therefore given the problems of over population in the prisons early release must be regarded as an option, albeit to be used sparingly, to ease the pressure.

I think the authorities should keep conditions as they are in prisons and at the same time expose them conditions to the rest of the public in more details ; bring the media in ; make documentaries of such grim conditions so that at the end Society, in general, may have an effective crime deterrant .

In 1992 the prison population was around 42,000, just over half of what it is now. I don鈥檛 recall a doubling in criminality since then and nor do I perceive any subsequent reduction in fear of crime. We now lock up more prisoners than any other country in Western Europe.

The rise in the prison population can be traced back to when Michael Howard, as Home Secretary, announced 鈥減rison works鈥�. The Labour Party, sensitive to opposition taunts that it would be soft on crime, seems to have followed Howard鈥檚 lead, introducing more and longer custodial sentences.

For my part, I doubt that prison does work. For many, particularly younger people, being sent to prison probably serves as confirmation of a criminal career. By locking up more people for longer periods, we are merely creating more career criminals.

We need a more enlightened approach, with less sent to prison, shorter sentences for more minor offences, and more effort aimed at rehabilitation. The last thing we need is to embark on another prison building programme.

This crises has occurred because prision is being used as the first resort in completely unsuitable cases. The release of non-violent first offenders i.e people who should not have been imprisoned in the first place along with some other non-violent offenders would solve the problem overnight.

The current trend to imprison such people is counter-productive because it means that prisons don't have the resources to rehabiltate prisoners, and treat the drug addictions that drive some people to crime

Yet another case of (and I know it's a
cliche) Tough on crime,tough on the causes of crime.That old saying rings
some bells doesn't it??.Also this is the
third such amnesty of this Prime Ministers tenure!!!!.Come on now if you
are constantly send Shoplifters to Jail,
then at least make them stay there.Why
bother sending them down all the time
only to let them out when there is no
more room left for the real violent
criminals.Make your mind up folks,how
many more times are you going to go back
on your "BROKEN" promises??????????.

Provision for holding prisoners should have been made months or even years ago.
as usual offenders drug dealers and burglars who have caused misery to the ordinary people who live in or near tough neighbourhoods will be set free first.
Why not set free men who have raped a person they were on familiar terms with. They would only cause a problem for that one person not area wide misery and depression for hundreds of innocent people.
Why not let out people who have done paper offences Lord Archer, Jonathon Aitken et al. It must be safer for the community and easier to keep an eye on them.

Tough on crime - tough on the causes of crime I dont think so !!
After 10 years how can this Government pretend that this has crept up on them
Why do the Police bother to spend time on catching criminals if they are only to be given a slap on the hand and released back into the Community to do it again

i think that it is wronge to release prisoners that are a high risk to the public but to release prisoners who are no risk as people learn more bad things in prison in a few months than they do out of prison make them do work for nothing for the same length of time that they would have been in prison

So, the new 鈥楳inistry Of Justice鈥� is to release thousands of criminals early. The government鈥檚 own figures show that two thirds of prisoners are re-convicted within two years of release. Falconer himself gave public guarentees only a few weeks ago that releasing prisoners is not an option. Now he is going to do just that. He must resign. At a stroke he has lost all credibility with the public and no-one in their right mind will believe him in the future.
What happened to the mantra of 鈥渢ough on crime - tough on the causes of crime鈥�? An absolute joke - both the person who said it and his Government. We are going to release convicted criminals yet will soon be locking-up people who have mental illness along with OAPs who can鈥檛 afford their council tax & the poor who can鈥檛 afford TV licences. We are told it will affect prisoners such as drug dealers, burglars and fraudsters, so one has to ask will the fraudsters be such as the kind of reprehensible creatures who would take the country to war on the basis of fraudluent evidence? The kind of conman that would blatantly lie to Parliament & and the electorate (remember 鈥淣o top-up fees鈥�?). Perhaps it refers to the kind of thieves that would sell off peerages to the highest bidder?
One wonders if this New Labour government along with their Islington pseudo-socialist chattering middle-classes, are on a mission to destroy society as we know it.

I think its a combination of a number of things, like cost cutting saving money, idealism, labour does not really like locking people up, they would rather "educate" them whilst "real people suffer the consequences" and a complete lack of any form of capital punishement in this country, right from being unecessarily frantically interfering with parents smacking their children, in schools,(have you ever tried to keep a school with a 1,000 boys in it under restraint simply by reason) there is to many hormones running about. Finally parents who do not care or are to tired, to worried about other busybodies or just do not know any better themselves. Ultimately you produce a person who cannot be told anything knows no boundaries and objects violently or vociferously when confronted, reasonably or not. But hey don't listen to a lowly taxpayer just carry on viewing the UK through rose tinted, it will nver change now, its to far gone unless something catastrophic or some very strong minded person/leader who is impervious to all the navel gazers and does really operate a mega turnaround of all the well intentioned unrealistic claptrap we had to suffer and implements real zero tolerance,(not the lip service sound byte one). If you do not deal with the ripples they turn into tsounamis.

This whole episode should have been avoided. The problems we are now facing are due to a lack investment and funding in the prision service within the past 20 years. It seems as though the policticians have only just realised there is a crisis looming, hence this panic measure.

Perhaps a cheaper and quicker alternative, could be to bring back Capital Punishment for the very serious crimes i.e Serial Killings?

Matt

2000 of 81000 = 2.5%

Would want to question what the criteria is for release....
What were they doing time for ?
Into which areas will they be released ? who decides which ones will be "free" ?

Blame will have to remain with the authorities who put them there in the first place and maybe returned to the same authorities who put them there to accommodate them on release.
The brightest people in the country are either in fleet street or doing time for being caught.

Would want to question why they were sent to JAIL in the first place !
Why only today a suspected terrorist
was able to accept a "settlement" out of court in a libel case.
Wonder how many of the 81000 inmates
are there for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
2.5 %?

My understanding is that it's only prisoners who are due to be released in a few weeks anyway who'll get out of jail a bit earlier than they were expecting to. Is that really such a big deal?
Didn't the Italians do something similar a while ago to relieve pressure on their jails? There's no or rhyme reason to the way prisoners are sentenced in any case - it depends on the whim of whichever Home Secretary wants to get a few Brownie points (or it did until Lord Falconer took over) so sentencing policy can't possibly have any deterrent effect and if it doesn't act as a deterrent then it doesn't really matter that a few thousand get a one off 'bonus' of a few days early releae.

There is one thing missing. That is what have these people done! Once that is known then I'll comment on if they should be released or not.

There is on thing missing and that is what have these people due to be released done?

Why not just outsource the overflow to China or India just like everything else. I'm sure they'd take good care of them for a lot less than it costs to keep them in prison in Britain....

or.....

Maurizio Ricci #1

Britain could just reconquer Australia and turn it back into a penal colony. Ashes to ashes, penal colonies to penal colonies. How about if Britain supplies their water needs.

Sadly, for 10 years now this government has listened to those who know least about what's driving this problem (see what Lord Ramsbotham has been saying repeatedly in CIF and in the Lords as the so called Offender Management Bill drags itself through the Houses). The problem is, there isn't much Offender Management in it, just the means whereby 'interventions' (which don't work despite the 'what works' nonsense) is farmed out to the private and third sectors and a few years grace for Probation to show how it can get on with basic risk assessment and court reports. Sadly, given their human resources problems over the years, their dumbed down qualifications and counter-productive equalities driven recruitment targets) I reckon they'll fail there too. So expect the problem to get worse. The question is, why has this government ignored those who are more experienced in these matters? Did it want this to happen perchance? It's been coming for years.

I'll leave others to look up my comments in other Newsnight blog about what's really been driving up the offending rate since 1945. Same thing with education.

Warning, some of you won't like it ;-)

I hear many times, and even tonight, that "crime" is falling in this country.

However, the government are only considering "reported crime"!

There is now less confidence in the police and the authorities to approach them to report crime itself, or many in fear of consequences if they do come forward to report.

In reality, crime is rising and on the increase, which in turn making our prisons crowded.

Once again we hear about "Gordon Brown's money" coming to save the crisis in the prisons. I cannot believe that Gordon Brown can foot this bill himself. Perhaps what you really mean is "taxpayers' money" - yours and mine and that of everyone in the country!

Please try to avoid repeating this myth that clouds the truth. Of course no one thinks its Brown's money, but its all too easy to forget its ours.

A government that introduces over 3000 new criminal offences in 5 years can't pretend to be surprised when the prisons become overcrowded. What used to be a minor misdemeanor is now a criminal offence. Try being late with a council tax payment or TV licence payment, Park in the wrong place, argue with a bureaucrat etc. It can all get you locked up.

People guilty of non aggressive crime, non-payment of taxes, fraud, internet stealing and so on, should not be sent to prison............. they should be dealt with, in a 'short-sharp-shock ' kind of way, 2 weeks in custody for example after being found guilty.... then a scheme of community servce, that denies them their freedoms, just as prison might..... but doesn't take up vauluable space for those who are a danger to society in a physical way.... violence, aggression, etc. For many prisoners, spending a prolonged period in a jail, introduces them to a range of criminals they would otherwise never meet......... and for some opens up a road into other kinds of crime, as well as bad habits, bad language and so on.

Government spokesmen are telling us that "non-dangerous" offenders shouldn't be in prison, but be given community sentences. Sounds fine, but it's rubbish really.

Many "non-dangerous" offenders are locked up because they've previously been sentenced to community options and failed to comply, sticking two fingers up to the system, or simply keep re-offending. There comes a time when society needs a break from these people. And "these people" are in the ascendancy whatever the mnipulated statistics show.

The problem is simple, Britain is too soft! We have in this country potential criminals living in dreadful conditions nearly almost due to there own fault, hooked on drugs and not caring about anything or anyone! However what is the detterent against crime? A prison cell that is equal to a 2 star hotel! Heating, TV (Sky) in most cases! I pay 拢135.50 for my TV licence and a good deal more for Sky! Prison should be a detterent hence I was amazed to hear that they are clamping down guess what? Because of WI-FI technology prisoners are restricted to Playstations 1&2 and the new playstation 3 is not allowed. You call this a detterent? If the places were tougher and the do-gooders cared more about the victims of crime then I am sure criminals would be put off by the thought of prison. However nothing changes we continue to be bowled over by MP's and the likes who are not in touch with the British public.

I would like to ask the labour government with regards to the ethnic diversity of our prison population, just how many inmates are of non UK origin or the are children or grandchildren of immigrants.
As a percentage of the overall prison population, how does this relate to the percentage of immigrants or the descendents of immigrants in the community.
What I am asking is, are we subsidising an immigrant prison population? who should really be returned to whence they came.
Also, is there an identifyable propensity for law breaking activity in the non white sector of our population? and does this greatly exceed that of the indigenous Brit.
I could word this in more basic terms, but in this PC gone mad world I would probably be classed as one of the criminals.

This is in deed not the solution to have early releas's of prisoner into the community,if any thing why not pitch tents in a stockcade and keep them there until they have complted thier debt to your Nation.Yahudah Ben Yisra'EL

The Government used the time between saying no releases and actually admiting they had to do so, for getting up the courage to say so,or was there a sudden urge by potential prisoners to do a crime and go to prison for their summer holidays?

i just spend the last hour composing for your blog and it says i have to do it again, your out of order, what do you have to say?

To the 大象传媒

I would be grateful if the 大象传媒 makes
available the full report by General
Dutton of the capture of the
Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines
by the Iranians.

I think it is not the right way of dealing with the prisoners as they are
so called. suppose they have committed a serious crime should they be released on the ground of overcrowding? Itis not so. the right way of helping them is to build more persons to ease overcrowding and them serve the imprisonment terms they desered without mistreating them.

Since it has been noted that a fair majority of prisoners are repeat offenders and it appears that to some the living conditions inside are better than on the outside, a complete re-think of the prison system is needed. After all, prison is supposed to be there as a punishment

Hasn't Lord Falconer heard of fields, tents and electric fences?

since the law commits offenders to prison sentences ought to be served.Otherwise time and effort of the courts and police is ridiculed and wasted.So ultimately the piblic will be again danger of perpertration of further crime. More accomodatiom was found to detain illegal immigrants so we should try to detain criminals with the same haste,Tom

Why are our prisons so full?

Does the rose symbolise spin and the great clunking fist speak for itself?

Some more interantionalists/globalists here:

We don't hear much from such folk anymore (although 'Spiked' is a variant I guess). With Old Labour well and truly in the mire, things being the way they have have been since Thatcher's days, I guess they served their purpose in their old guise?

Are they now kings? Begin at Q271 and keep reading:

Of course by 2004 it didn't look too far fetched:

Ask why New Labour seems to be wrecking the welfare state and public services? Call me paranoid, but I keep reading about it in the press (NHS, DfES, DWP, IND, etc) and Hansard.

Finally, why did Ruth Kelly ask these (prima facie naive) questions?

鈥� Why it is that children鈥檚 readiness to learn when they start primary school remains dependent on
who their parents are and where they live?

鈥� Why is it that for so long in this country, at every stage of the school system, many working class
children make less progress than their middle class counterparts?

鈥� And why is it that too few people leave the education system with the skills they need to get on in
life?

Ruth Kelly Secretary of State for Education and Skills
"Education and social mobility: progress for all"
Speech given at the Institute for Public Policy Research
27 April 2006

Jensenites have known the answers to those questions for decades, but for some reason, New Labour doesn't seem to listen. Why is that? Could it be that they know that 'education, education, education' is a sure way of making matters worse? Surely not? (But see my other Newsnight blog musings over recent weeks just to be sure).

How does 'tough on crime and the blah, blah, blah' equate with releasing people from a punishment set by a highly developed penal system? "OK you did wrong mate and we would normally 'bang you up' for 2 years but as we don't have the space, off you go:)"

Isn't Lord Denim under investigation at the moment?

The UK's just becoming worse and worse. First we allow all these Polish criminal gangs into this country, and now we're allowing convicted prisoners onto the streets. I think the safest place to live probably is in a prison cell. Absolute disgrace..Soon most of the original UK population will move abroad and only foreigners will remain in the country.

I do not buy the idea of releasing 2,000 prisoners at the detriment of the civilian populace it is unfair on the side of the government, at least the government should have make provisions long ahead for unseen able circumstances like this and the question of keeping too many prisioner is not economical for the country as a whole.

Therefore all indicted prisioners need to be tried without delayed instead of keeping them into the prision by draining the economic of the country at the detriment of the taxpayer and the facilities which the ordinary citizens should enjoy will be minimize because of the exhaustive way of spending money.

Please look into my own version of the story.

Adrienne's absolutely right. About everything. All the time.

Two points:

1. The early release will cut 18 days from any prisoner's sentence; not many months as many seem to think.

2. The simple solution seems to be build me prisons, which the government has planned, but the population keep objecting to the planning permission and blocking these buildings. So, perhaps the public ought to take some responsibility and allow the prisons they want top be built!

The readers of The Mail and the redtops seem to dominate your correspondents' views! The theme running through most of the posts on this topic seems to be that a) 18 days early is a big deal, b) more prisons and prison places are the answer to crime in this country c) send anyone 'home' who doesn't have white anglo-saxon grandparents. There are only about 3 posts suggesting that both prisoners with mental health problems and the community overall, might be better served with specific institutions dedicated to criminal mental health and that prisoners with drug problems might be better off in dedicated drug rehab environments. To me it's a statement of the obvious that resources would be better put into these specialised facilities rather than the catch-all prison which does nothing for anyone because of the shortness of the sentences for the offences which these people commit and a too general mix of inmates.

It is a complete fallacy that recent immigrants ('polish criminal gangs' as one poster put it) are responsible for the rise in prisoners. The 3000 new criminal offences since 1997 might have had something to do with it; the number of offenders on remand for extended periods of time because the court system is soooo slow, the sentencing guidelines council which drives sentences certainly has had an effect.

It has been proven many, many times that a person with a job, accommodation and a long term partner is much less likely to reoffend than someone unemployed, with no fixed abode and with no family and friends to support them. This government does not support its education, education, education mantra, let alone focus its education funds. With so many unskilled jobs going abroad and well educated immigrants willing to take the unskilled service jobs that are left, it surely is a no-brainer that education and skills is the key to giving our young offenders some chance of getting on the ladder of hope and out of the cycle of crime.

If the money that has been wasted in Iraq was deployed here to rehabilitate drug users and provide mental health services then this debate about prison places would not be happening now. There is no sign that this black hole created by George W and Tony is going to stop sucking in our tax payers money any time soon so services that could be provided to help our offenders will continue to be strapped for cash.

#66 "it surely is a no-brainer that education and skills is the key to
giving our young offenders some chance of getting on the ladder of hope and out of the cycle of crime."

You are completely wrong here (as you are in most of your comment). But you are certainly not alone in holding these mistaken views.
First, about 80% of all (80,000 pa) custodial disposals are under 12
months (averaging 13 weeks). This is why Custody Plus was to come into
force under the 2003 CJA (but to date has not). Over-crowding has been a problem for at least 15 years and has many causes, but the crime rate has been rising since 1945 and whilst desperate measures have been taken over the last 10 or so to try to do something about it, this has all been very naive and misguided. I've explained elsewhere why I say this so and why crime is rising. Of about 12 million crimes a year, only
about 600,000 offenders are processed by the courts (only about 1.2 million offences are detected and that varies dramatically as a function of whether they are crimes against the person vs property offences. The detection rate of the latter is often under 10%. Most perpetrators are young males and those which are detected and prosecuted will get short sentences. It's worth noting however that the long term prison
population, i.e. those serving 4 years plus only account for 10% of each year's custodial sentences but the size of the population is growing - it's an accumulation effect. What occupies the Prison Service most is the short termers.

The evidence for the efficacy of education (or any other intervention
effect) in 'rehabilitation' is not what you assert. Those with higher
education or jobs re-offend at a lower rate (perhaps, see above), but
that's down to the fact that intelligence and offending behaviour is negatively correlated. There's no good evidence that *any* interventions are instrumentally efficacious in reducing offending behaviour. The "What Works" slogan is just that, an egregiously misleading slogan which was sold to administrators in the early 1990s on the basis of very bad research and very poor understanding of what the researchers were actually saying. And example of just how wrong they got it can be seen by how it came back to haunt both the Prison and Probation services (cf. the Cognitive Skills fiasco - this does not work yet was sold as a
panacea by those who did not understand the evidence).

The Offender Management Bill now explicitly seeks to remove
'interventions' from probation's remit and open it up to the private and third sectors, as truth be told, 'nothing works' (Matinson said this back in the 1970s and he was right in the sense of interventions). Those who know the history regard what was sold in recent years as Lysenkoist myths which even the Home Office's own RDS research now refutes.

The pressure for more community sentences and 'treatment' rather than custody and humane containment is not what it seems. For government, at best it is motivated by cost and by others, at best it is motivated by commercial interests. Government want to reduce costs and the Penal Consortium may have an even more questionable agenda.

What's needed are more prison places and more/longer custodial sentences to a) keep more young and young adult offenders out of communities for longer and b) as a deterrent to others - at present the Criminal Justice System bends over backwards to give cautions etc to keep young offenders out of court, this puts more and more strain on schools and communities. There should in fact be far less community disposal given the evidence against its efficacy. Quite the opposite of what its enthusiasts assert in fact, just like contra-indicated interventions and rehabilitation in fact.

Ability drives education, not the other way around. It's the same with SES. The root problem is genetic, not environmental.

The bottom line is pragmatic. Most custodial sentences are short. They
are expensive, and they do disrupt lives (they are meant to). The only
argument the anti-prison lobby has is that if offenders aren't removed
from their local environment, *offenders* are less damaged and it is cheaper. The problem is, it this is no deterrent and offenders are
likely to continue offending given that they are still in the community. In this sense, 'Prison Works'.

The reality is that offending behaviour needs to be better *managed*, but that's entirely different issue from 'arguing for treatment' or 'rehabilitation'. Most offending behaviour is male, and young.

Having looked at this from a number of angles, I conclude that aspirational legislation living 'education, education, education' and 'equalities' is radically misguided or possibly even cynically malevolent. It actually drives up the offending rate and destabilizes society in ways that most people do not currently understand.

My prognosis is that this is going to continue to get worse as this government has been told but does not listen.

Re: Adrienne's 'You are completely wrong here (as you are in most of your comment)'

My view is that this remark is inappropriately offensive in the context of a forum where people are actively encouraged to offer differing opinions.

I'd be interested to know whether you consider there to be any correlation between IQ and crashingly bad manners.

It should be perfectly possible for other contributors to look at your 'evidence', understand it, assess it, and disagree with it. You surely cannot believe that everyone who has the temerity not to reach the conclusions that you do is 'wrong'.

Additionally, in principle, haven't those fortunate enough to have a high IQ a greater duty to set a behavioural example to those less fortunate than themselves?

#68 "You surely cannot believe that everyone who has the temerity not to reach the conclusions that you do is 'wrong'."

Why not?

#68 "You surely cannot believe that everyone who has the temerity not to reach the conclusions that you do is 'wrong'."

1. Why not? Perhaps I know more about this than meets the eye?

2. I suspect you have not understood what Behaviour Management comprises. If you'd read my comments elewhere, you would have seen that the analysis that I've provided is not at odd with the 'duty of care' you allude to. But to be effective that requires a much better grasp of behaviour, its diversity and what controls it than that which is driving this government's policies, or the expressed intersts of the Penal Consortium and entrepreneurs within NGOs and other members of 'The Third Sector'.

3. How much did you read before responding with indignantion? Not much? A lot? What does that reveal?

This problem is going to get worse I predict. It hits schools worst. Is listening to you going to prevent that? Might listening to me with a little more respect?

Be careful who you criticise... and *why*.

I think prisoners that are not a direct threat to the UK public should be released immediately (both foreign and home prisoners). These may include: burgulers, fraudsters, drink-drivers and other non-violent offenders.

i think that all people in prison should sever their time but i would sergest people with miner crimas should not be let out but on probation

So when will life for any murder mean LIFE?