I'm all for this rule, public safety should come first - rather than being a question of funding.

With the costs of what it takes to keep prisoners in prison and the public safe, well I'm wandering if crime and sentence length dependant if such prisoners that has means or wealth to a means tested degree, well maybe they as part of their sentence should make financial contribution to the cost of them being there?. I mean if a retired person having worked their entire life is expected to contribute to the costs of them being in a care home later in life if need be, then why shouldn't prisoners with similar means also be expected to make financial contribution if they have proven means?.

freak wrote: ↑

Tue May 09, 2017 8:05 pm

Spending money to keep society safe is money well spent

I couldn't agree more Freak

Spending money to keep society safe is money well spent

I fully understand that it is costly to keep someone in prison , but can anyone put a value on law abiding citizens life's and wellbeing.

I definitely agree that UK law needs to be strengthen ,implement much more tougher sentences on repeat offenders. Especially for those committing serious and heinous crimes. For these there should be a law to lock up and throw away the key , because what is the chance of rehabilitating. That's like trying to rehabilitate a serial murder like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy . Petty criminals , the third time they strike they should get charged as a repeat offender /career criminal and get 10-15 years on top . The other week they tried to nick my motorbike but gave up and only took the rain cover , came back for the centre wheels from the car 2 days ago, so I am not a happy bunny as I have to work hard for my stuff.

I remember watching a documentary on Netflix quite recently where they was following the lives of certain inmates who had been hit with the three strike law ( mainly dealing drugs ) and was serving upwards of 40+years . I would like to think if there was a three strike rule over here that matched the severity of the USA it would deter people from continually re-offending but it doesn't seem to of deterred the yanks so that's what concerns me , the burden of having them in a prison for 40/50 years plus , the amount of money and time spent on them would be unreal but at the same time if we continue to hand out such short sentences how are we going to tackle this

the sad thing is that AGAIN we don't have the money, to properly finance the handling of people/ criminals suffering from mental illness, it would cost £Billions so what do we do instead? mentally ill sentenced people are just lumped in, with anybody else sent to prisons, a lot CHEAPER (as far as the Government are concerned) and we'll wait to see if it "really goes pear shaped" maybe then ..... (they could receive proper treatment)

otherwise its back to our REVOLVING DOOR JUSTICE POLICY! they serve their time, they get released and IF they get caught again they're back again, sometimes for an even shorter sentence than the last time

the reason THREE STRIKES came in across the USA was the sheer exasperation of USA politicians with seeing a REVOLVING DOOR JUSTICE POLICY there. it started by ruling that a person violating both a severe violent felony and two other previous convictions would serve a mandatory life sentence in prison (and they were willing to pay $$$ for that, we're not!)

the equivalent in the UK would be a violent indictable offence and two other crimes. indictable means you're convicted by a jury and sentenced by a judge. THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN THE UK. it would send a message that we do not tolerate crime but as we are now, we're just playing at it. it's little more than a joke and the amount of investment in UK justice / prisons is just a stinking disgrace, with people tinkering around the edges. "rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as it sinks" would be an applicable phrase

The intresting statement from the defence in the first post was "concerns over his mental health ". Currently working as an officer on a Prison 18 cell health care unit. I have never seen more than 2 physical health prisoners at any one time. The rest if not all the cells are full of mental health until they are med up or shipped out to a secure mental health unit. Should most the prisoners even be in prison?

Other than IPP is there another name for indefinate term sentences? I had to go to a meeting in a previous job with a guy in my care who was on what he called an MOJ power of recall. The way he explained it and from what i read in his file (very little tbh) if he was to have a dip in mental health or comitted a crime he could be returned to prison indefinitely. Just wondering if there was any truth to this?

yeah and we will all get fairy godmothers as standard, IPP should never have been abolished, it was the best justice the UK has ever seen

What we have in the UK right now is a REVOLVING DOOR JUSTICE POLICY! The Police have to do an enormous amount of work to catch career criminals (let alone convict them) who were previously quite rightly targetted under IPP

what happens now?

these same career criminals are now back out on UK streets, the Police have to catch them all over again, only now these hardened criminals are exponentially wiser, they have learned lessons, they realise how they got caught before, how much harder will it be to catch them next time?

who pays the price? the poor unsuspecting UK public who are robbed, burgled, even killed, we have CHEAP JUSTICE, it satisfies the bleeding heart liberals and "do gooders" - meanwhile the career criminals literally get away with murder!! don't tell anyone though (it won't make any difference)

Ahh thanks for that update Falkor.

Ive just googled it, looks like it was abolished due the european courts! It could make a comeback in a few years! Lol

IPP was abolished in 2012 because our Parliament doesn't have the backbone for it (The imprisonment for public protection sentence was abolished in 2012, but offenders already serving that sentence remained in prison.)

IPP was a massive watering down of anything akin to three strikes, but it was the nearest we had to it - manc-apollo - all that's left of it is offenders already serving that sentence who were weighed off prior to 2012 leaving us with what?

We use 3 strikes law for drug dealers and the supply of class A drugs and crimes like that. We use ipp for serious crimes.

We do actually have a 3 strikes law but it for serious crimes only.

Its a question of money.
The populace wants a good legal system and those who break the law are punished.
However....
Once someone is incarcerated the public forgets how much it costs to keep someone inside or under different punishments.

The prison service is the forgotten service.

So having a general 3 strikes law, on the surface looks like a good idea, it is monetary very hard to deliver