[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by CLS94)
Why do prisoners not deserve the same minimum wage as everyone else? If we want to rehabilitate them, what does treating them in an inferior way to all others achieve?

Agreed. Though they should also pay for meals and accommodation, as everyone else has to.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Sentencing, no! Yes lets let out the murderers after 21 years, they should get life nothing less.
Prison System, no! Yes lets let out those that change just enough to get to an easier prison.

Overall no!

(Original post by LETSJaM)
No life sentences! This would allow murderers and rapists out after 21 years.

No!

<3 x

Actually, the bill simply sets out a requirement for a 5 yearly review of the sentence after 21 years. If the person was deemed to be dangerous or likely to reoffend, they could be continuously refused release, which would provide a sentence which would last until the death of the prisoner.

[That Bearded Man]

The 21 years is an obvious sign of copying the Scandinavian system, in the news probably the Norwegian one. Although shortening the sentences isn't necessarily the way I'd do it. Rehabilitation, fair enough.

As for work, I agree with them doing some form of employment which can be used as a reference for future employers, I personally wouldn't pay them (also I assume £2 an hour is illegal)

What about reoffenders? Do they start in a conventional prison?

[CLS94]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Agreed. Though they should also pay for meals and accommodation, as everyone else has to.

So what would happen if they didn't work? Would you force them to, or convict them again for not paying their prison rent? You can't exactly just kick them out without defeating the purpose

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by CLS94)
So what would happen if they didn't work? Would you force them to, or convict them again for not paying their prison rent? You can't exactly just kick them out without defeating the purpose

My point was that paying prisoners less than NMW was justifiable, as their circumstances are not comparable. Personally, I would have the scheme as an opt out, but add 2 years or 20% (whichever was greater) to the sentence of those who chose not to do the training.

[RoryS]

Aye.

[Rakas21]

Mr Speaker, i am pleased to say that this is certainly one of the better bills from Labour and is generally quite logical.

Mr Speaker despite my complimentary comments above i do disagree with significant parts of this bill. Mr Speaker i object to section 1 of this bill completely and section 2.1, i can however say that i agree with the rest of this bill other than not extending this to the whole of the United Kingdom, the justice system should be universal.

Mr Speaker, at this point i intend to vote 'No'.

[eff01]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i am pleased to say that this is certainly one of the better bills from Labour and is generally quite logical.

Mr Speaker despite my complimentary comments above i do disagree with significant parts of this bill. Mr Speaker i object to section 1 of this bill completely and section 2.1, i can however say that i agree with the rest of this bill other than not extending this to the whole of the United Kingdom, the justice system should be universal.
1
Mr Speaker, at this point i intend to vote 'No'.

Mr Speaker, would the PM inform the House of why he disagrees with section 1? I welcome the Prime Minister's compliments for my honourable friend, but Mr Speaker, it's a shame we can't use the term logical for the government's budget....

[JPKC]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
The bolded is a very good point, and will definitely be looked at for the second reading

Great.

Your point about prison wardens deciding who's been good is a good one, do you think that the decision should be up to a parole board?

Decisions to transfer Category A convicts are made by the Prison Service's HQ, for lower-level inmates individual governors decide. I don't think Parole Boards are that important in the current system, but I'm not an expert.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
The bolded is a very good point, and will definitely be looked at for the second reading

Your point about prison wardens deciding who's been good is a good one, do you think that the decision should be up to a parole board?

Perhaps one of the members of said board should be a prison warden who has worked with the prisoner in question.

[Mechie]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
The 21 years is an obvious sign of copying the Scandinavian system, in the news probably the Norwegian one. Although shortening the sentences isn't necessarily the way I'd do it. Rehabilitation, fair enough.

As for work, I agree with them doing some form of employment which can be used as a reference for future employers, I personally wouldn't pay them (also I assume £2 an hour is illegal)

What about reoffenders? Do they start in a conventional prison?

Yup, I certainly used the Scandinavian system as a model. It has very low re-offending rates, so I feel it's one that should be used as inspiration.

Your question about the wage is an acceptable one, and as pointed out before the prisoners could really be paid minimum wage (although paying them less than the NMW wouldn't be illegal, it'd just require a new category of minimum wage).

I think I'm going to take that bit out about all prisoners starting in a conventional prison. On reflection, it should be at the judge's discretion.

(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i am pleased to say that this is certainly one of the better bills from Labour and is generally quite logical.

Mr Speaker despite my complimentary comments above i do disagree with significant parts of this bill. Mr Speaker i object to section 1 of this bill completely and section 2.1, i can however say that i agree with the rest of this bill other than not extending this to the whole of the United Kingdom, the justice system should be universal.

Mr Speaker, at this point i intend to vote 'No'.

Thank you Rakas my main man, it's good that you think the bill is a good Labour one.

Could I ask why you object to section 1? As said earlier in this post, I think I'll change 2(1). I don't think this can extend to the UK, since the justice systems in Scotland and NI (not quite sure about NI, but I think so) are distinct from the one used in England and Wales. I've included the provision for it to be passed on to the respective devolved powers for their consideration, which really the only thing that can be done in this regard.

How would you feel if I were to split this bill up, with section 1 being a sentencing bill and sections 2 and 3 being a prison bill? That way you wouldn't have conflicted opinions on different parts of it, and could vote yes for the prison provisions (if you agree) and no to the sentencing provision (if you disagree with that, which I took from your post)?

[Rakas21]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Yup, I certainly used the Scandinavian system as a model. It has very low re-offending rates, so I feel it's one that should be used as inspiration.

Your question about the wage is an acceptable one, and as pointed out before the prisoners could really be paid minimum wage (although paying them less than the NMW wouldn't be illegal, it'd just require a new category of minimum wage).

I think I'm going to take that bit out about all prisoners starting in a conventional prison. On reflection, it should be at the judge's discretion.



Thank you Rakas my main man, it's good that you think the bill is a good Labour one.

Could I ask why you object to section 1? As said earlier in this post, I think I'll change 2(1). I don't think this can extend to the UK, since the justice systems in Scotland and NI (not quite sure about NI, but I think so) are distinct from the one used in England and Wales. I've included the provision for it to be passed on to the respective devolved powers for their consideration, which really the only thing that can be done in this regard.

How would you feel if I were to split this bill up, with section 1 being a sentencing bill and sections 2 and 3 being a prison bill? That way you wouldn't have conflicted opinions on different parts of it, and could vote yes for the prison provisions (if you agree) and no to the sentencing provision (if you disagree with that, which I took from your post)?

Mr Speaker, the proposal outlined by the Leader of the Opposition is adequate, especially if he does indeed remove 2.1 as asserted in an above post.

[Birchington]

A good bill in principle. Our prison system is failing both prisoners and wider society. The success of Norway's rehabilitation-centred justice system in reducing long-term recidivism speaks volumes.

[Lady Maleficent]

I refuse to accept that punishment and deterrence should not be on the same footing, if not above, the aim of rehabilitation.

It's all very well sitting in ivory towers feeling sorry for violent offenders and dreaming of them becoming model citizens. Put yourselves in the shoes of families, friends and communities affected by murder and vicious assaults.

[chiggy321]

Still waiting for an answer as to the impact of existing early release schemes and parole upon the measures in this Bill and, in particular, how that affects the maximum 21 year sentence.

[Mechie]

(Original post by chiggy321)
Still waiting for an answer as to the impact of existing early release schemes and parole upon the measures in this Bill and, in particular, how that affects the maximum 21 year sentence.

I'd imagine that the early release would still apply, as that only applies when the prisoner is deemed to be safe to live in society. The 21 year maximum sentence is geared towards those that commit serious crimes, and are told they must serve a minimum of 21 years before being considered for parole.

[jesusandtequila]

I don't think the scrapping of minimum sentences is useful here. If sentences are so short it doesn't allow time for a plan of rehabilitation to be created and followed through. I'd argue that we shouldn't be handing out prison sentences of under a year, and that if we don't deem the crime worthy of a 12 month sentence then we should be looking at a community service/fine punishment. The maximum sentencing to 21 years? I don't see that the 25-year life term is up the wrong path. I'd much rather leave this to the discretion of judges.

As for the rest of the Bill, I don't agree with 2 - I think there is a case for differing threats of prisoner being treated in different ways, with some in higher security prisons initially for sure. I'd like to see more about forming a plan for each prisoner, with assessment, training and an exit plan. Where we identify why the person turned to crime, what skills they are lacking and address these things, give them experience of work (partnerships with industry have been shown to hugely reduce re-offending rates in this country) and then have an exit plan, give them the necessary information about how to access the RI, how to apply for jobs and so forth, and get them applying for jobs from within prison, such that they don't come out and have no way of surviving except crime...it's a vicious circle for many. This Bill goes along the right lines but it's sure as hell far too simplistic and doesn't grasp the point entirely - it's not just a technical fiddle with the sentencing and start a few open prisons, we must personalise and plan for each prisoner - and stretch each one accordingly. It's the one-size approach that is the problem.

[Mechie]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
I don't think the scrapping of minimum sentences is useful here. If sentences are so short it doesn't allow time for a plan of rehabilitation to be created and followed through. I'd argue that we shouldn't be handing out prison sentences of under a year, and that if we don't deem the crime worthy of a 12 month sentence then we should be looking at a community service/fine punishment. The maximum sentencing to 21 years? I don't see that the 25-year life term is up the wrong path. I'd much rather leave this to the discretion of judges.

As for the rest of the Bill, I don't agree with 2 - I think there is a case for differing threats of prisoner being treated in different ways, with some in higher security prisons initially for sure. I'd like to see more about forming a plan for each prisoner, with assessment, training and an exit plan. Where we identify why the person turned to crime, what skills they are lacking and address these things, give them experience of work (partnerships with industry have been shown to hugely reduce re-offending rates in this country) and then have an exit plan, give them the necessary information about how to access the RI, how to apply for jobs and so forth, and get them applying for jobs from within prison, such that they don't come out and have no way of surviving except crime...it's a vicious circle for many. This Bill goes along the right lines but it's sure as hell far too simplistic and doesn't grasp the point entirely - it's not just a technical fiddle with the sentencing and start a few open prisons, we must personalise and plan for each prisoner - and stretch each one accordingly. It's the one-size approach that is the problem.

Your point about not giving prison sentences less than a year is an interesting one, and I quite like it so it'll be considered for the next reading. The 21 years maximum sentence was put in place to ensure that even people who commit serious crimes have the chance to be rehabilitated, and if not their sentences can be extended by up to 5 years at a time.

I'm going to have some changes to part 2, as some people have rightly voiced opposition to 2(1).

When do you think you'll be able to respond to my question about RI on the ask a Liber thread?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Your point about not giving prison sentences less than a year is an interesting one, and I quite like it so it'll be considered for the next reading. The 21 years maximum sentence was put in place to ensure that even people who commit serious crimes have the chance to be rehabilitated, and if not their sentences can be extended by up to 5 years at a time.

If we're trying to keep prisoners from re-offending, is it not only fair to them to treat them with the slightest bit of dignity and not have the prospect of an unlimited sentence without prior knowledge? I think TCiT is spot on here.

I'm going to have some changes to part 2, as some people have rightly voiced opposition to 2(1).

Yeah, I mean also the Bill just needs to set out for more for planning. Read The Orange Book - there's a fantastic chapter in there about prisons.

When do you think you'll be able to respond to my question about RI on the ask a Liber thread?

Probably when I get home, today. I've not had internet for the past couple of days so I'm just replying to stuff on a most interesting first basis.

[Mazzini]

In 3 (1), 'secretary of state' should have capitals at the beginning of 'secretary' and 'state'.

Apart from that, it's a good bill.

Aye.