Is the British public too "risk averse" on parole?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by alacrity174, Apr 1, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. An interesting piece on the Beeb website today has Sir David Latham saying that the public at large is too risk averse with regard to life sentence prisoners being released on parole and claims it is in large part due to the Venables incident and criticism by John Reid in 2006. He goes on to state this is an "over reaction" and states that prisoners would continue to be held in jail beyond their minimum term without justification. Now in my world "minimum sentence" is just that, the minimum they should serve, there is no right to release at the "Minimum". Sir David also says that the British public needs to make a determination of what amount of risk they are willing to take.

    I am of the opinion that once you have been convicted of a crime you loose your so called "rights" and should be entitled to basic human rights (not to be mistreated, fed, housed, given medical treatment as deemed medically necessary etc), if you have decided as an individual that the rules and laws society lives with to function are not for you then you forfeit the complete package and cannot claim bits and pieces back. Sir David is specifically commenting on Life sentences, so these are not petty criminals we are speaking of, but some seriously nasty characters so why does he think they should be returned to normal society at all let alone early?

    Even it seems Sir David is defensive of his stance as he is already saying that the press is likely to "distort" his comments but from reading through his statement I don't think they need distorting to be scary.
  2. Yes, is the answer to your question.
  3. I absolutely agree with Sir David. Having conducted an in depth, far reaching and unbiased risk assessment I would like to inform him that I am prepared to accept zero risk of reoffending (although I would increase this to the risk across the population if I had any idea what this was).

  4. Sussex.

    Interesting idea, guess we know where to put the half way house now. Or do you really think releasing the likes of Mr Venables and others who have been convicted of a crime deserving of a life sentence being released at the very minimum term is a good idea?
  5. Sounds like the rights of the Criminal are being put before those of the Victims or their relatives.Or,at least that is what he has in mind.He is quite happy to play Russian Roulette with the public's safety just so these criminals with very serious convictions can be released the moment they have done the minimum sentence.Perhaps some of those considering a serious crime will be deterred by the prospect of a very long time in prison rather than doing a few years porridge and being booted out into society.
  6. The question is simple, and so was my answer, the UK is generally a risk averse society, or has become so.
    Venables was an extreme case, and I am not sure the article quoted would have him included.
    The UK is not the most violent or criminal society yet we imprison more people than any other western country than the U.S.A. We would need to know how many of these people would be better treated outside a custodial sentence.
    The question though simple has broader implications, not all of them sinister.
  7. Personally speaking I would dismantle the entire Parole system. Serve your sentence and if you have been a model prisoner, you gets out. If not, you stays in. Simples innit?
  8. I fully agree. :evil:
    Nice to see you got off platform three by the way. :wink:
  9. Yea ...would like to say I got sucked off, however much more mundane than that.... :D

    Back on topic, my stance on such matters in general terms is a little (well, more than a little) to the right of centre so my opinion is not one which is likely to be universally accepted in Liberal Nanny State UK (or Canada for that matter).... 8) :D
  10. All those not likely to get parole should be emptied of all their vital organs and these contents be distributed to needy transplant recipients.

    Instead of parole boards, a duty watch from RR will be employed to decide who gets released and who gets reduced.

    Yeah...I think that'd work
  11. 3 strike rule, 22 hour lock downs, hard labour and chain gangs, no early release, more slopping out(half of them piss and sh8t on their own carpets anyway), fu*k em and all like them.

    Jimpy had aanother bad day at work, with 4 more pointless arrests that are going nowhere(and every one of them would qualify under the three strike rule) :evil:
  12. Every fucker in this country with even half a brain knows how to reduce crime but no one has the bottle to implement it.
    The age old put off is jail space.
    Long sentences would create a prison population of epidemic proportions.
    Correct, but if fuckin scrotes were given ten years for FIRST offences for stealing, violence etc, the gutless bastards would soon give it up, and then the initial expense would be reclaimed long term by the state not having to support the multitude.
    The knock on would overflow to the general populace by tax reduction, and above all Insurance premiums on household policies and of course car's.
    Rant over, switch to local.
  13. The Yanks have the prison industry, their economy depends on it.

    And its been a bad day today........everyone needs locked up just now, bear with me. Still a wee bit of grog(found the recipe last week) might make it all better. :lol:
  14. The man's got a point regarding our increasing risk aversion. It's killing our traditional way of life and costing a bloody fortune in the courts. In relation to parole, though, I think he's got it wrong.

    I truly believe that prisons are full because they are too soft. People aren't scared of being sent to them. OK, fair enough, harshness doesn't help rehabilitation; but can we afford rehabilitation? Perhaps some good old fashioned punishment would be more affordable. If it avoidably wrecks a few lives, well tough; one thing we're not short of is people.
  15. We may well imprison more non-violent offenders but we should be locking up even more than now. Yes I agree that the system is flawed and, as I said on other threads, we should look at educating and training first and young offenders. However when one lives in a high crime area, particularly burglary or car crime, I think one can be forgiven for questioning the idiocy of letting a scrote; that admitted 132 offences; off with some harsh words and 30 hours community service when he is currently reaming your car around the streets on a celebratory joyride!!
    Life does not mean life and therefore there is an obligation on the judicial system to protect us from those that have demonstrated the capacity for extreme violence. Simply put why should my family be put at risk in order to release a murderer that has got himself an education, shown remorse, etc but has never been put in the position where he might succumb to the same pressures or find him/herself in the same circumstances/situation that led to the initial crime?

  16. Typical Beeb liberal nonsense.

    A criminal who has completed his/her sentence is seen as reformed, but they are not. The prison system is under too much pressure and little rehabilitation actually takes place. I would therefore argue that when criminals are released they are not reformed at all - if anything they will be worse than before they were locked up. The pressure is to release them so someone else may take their place.

    Until the prison system receives adequate funding, this problem will continue.

    M'learned chums will continue to spout the liberal crap which they do on a daily basis, but the utopia of which they speak (a system of reform in prison) simply doesn't exist.
  17. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Build more prisons. Beats the shit out of spending Govt money on cycle ways and out reach centres to keep builders etc employed through the depression. I do however recall that the government has introduced the vote for prisoners, if my memory is correct would this be a ploy to gain more votes?
  18. 80,000 votes perhaps....

  19. Well it does violate their human rights not being allowed to. Talking of which locking them up inthe first place does pretty much the same.

    So how about when they are convicted, we send them to live in the Hague or Brussels, funded by the tax payer of course, and they remain there for the period of their conviction.
    There isn't that a perfectly pink and fluffy solution to the problem. Next case.......

Share This Page