Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This has been sitting on my mind for a long time, and I just wanted to see what other people thought.

    Is it just me or is the justice system in the UK quite frankly abominable, with sentences consistently dropping and people being jailed for pitiful amounts of time for horrific crimes.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7839280.stm

    This just being an example, I find the sentence utterly insignificant And even a quick search on a news site will find many many cases of murder, Rape, GBH and others, that have recieved tiny sentences.

    Anyone else feel like we are being let down terribly? anyone else feel like our safety and our rights are being put far behind that of people like those above? Anyone else feel like our criminal justice system is a mockery an needs to get off the PC ladder of rehabilitation and actually punish people for doing wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Prison's a joke; warm food, a place to sleep, entertainment and best of all you don't have to pay for it! I can see why people turn to crime, because if they muck up they have a nice soft cushion to land on for a couple of years.

    If they made the prisons here like they did in America (cramped, dirty and little to do) it'd have a more positive effect as it'd put people off heading to prison and then you wouldn't have the PM whining about how the "prison's are too full and that's why we let criminals out early blah blah blah." That or they bring back public hangings, atleast then we'd see something was being done.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gap)
    Prison's a joke; warm food, a place to sleep, entertainment and best of all you don't have to pay for it! I can see why people turn to crime, because if they muck up they have a nice soft cushion to land on for a couple of years.

    If they made the prisons here like they did in America (cramped, dirty and little to do) it'd have a more positive effect as it'd put people off heading to prison and then you wouldn't have the PM whining about how the "prison's are too full and that's why we let criminals out early blah blah blah." That or they bring back public hangings, atleast then we'd see something was being done.
    :rolleyes: Oh come off it, I don't think losing ones independence and contact to loved ones and the outside world is a 'soft cushion'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gap)
    Prison's a joke; warm food, a place to sleep, entertainment and best of all you don't have to pay for it! I can see why people turn to crime, because if they muck up they have a nice soft cushion to land on for a couple of years.

    If they made the prisons here like they did in America (cramped, dirty and little to do) it'd have a more positive effect as it'd put people off heading to prison and then you wouldn't have the PM whining about how the "prison's are too full and that's why we let criminals out early blah blah blah." That or they bring back public hangings, atleast then we'd see something was being done.
    If the government did it job properly we wouldnt need to see something being done.

    I am against the death penalty in pretty much all cases, only in a very special circumstance (something like dunblane, terrorist attack) should it ever be used, so in reality there would probably only be one in say 10 years and it should never be done publicly, thats a bit barbaric imo.

    Still rather conflicted about the death penalty tbh.


    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    :rolleyes: Oh come off it, I don't think losing ones independence and contact to loved ones and the outside world is a 'soft cushion'
    Losing independence and contact with loved ones happens quite often to normal people, Soliders on deployment loose both of those things and they are serving their country. It isnt a punishment on its own, it doesnt even get close to being a punishment for a rapist.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    it is not the government which directly controls the sentencing of convicted criminals; it is the criminal justice system. It is to them that we need to look if the sentencing system is to be radically overhauled and fairer prison terms are to be given.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    it is not the government which directly controls the sentencing of convicted criminals; it is the criminal justice system. It is to them that we need to look if the sentencing system is to be radically overhauled and fairer prison terms are to be given.

    The Judiciary is part of our government. There are three branches to government The Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. so to say that It is the responsibility of government is a correct statement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gap)
    Prison's a joke; warm food, a place to sleep, entertainment and best of all you don't have to pay for it! I can see why people turn to crime, because if they muck up they have a nice soft cushion to land on for a couple of years.

    If they made the prisons here like they did in America (cramped, dirty and little to do) it'd have a more positive effect as it'd put people off heading to prison and then you wouldn't have the PM whining about how the "prison's are too full and that's why we let criminals out early blah blah blah." That or they bring back public hangings, atleast then we'd see something was being done.
    America as one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Prison does not help. Bad prisons help less. They just get ruled by gangs.

    Actually I think the justice system is pretty good (as far as it goes). I would like to see more community sentencing and outside-prison terms, but actually your life is ruined after a criminal conviction, very hard to get a job and you've lost a lot of potential experience. Outside of work for a few years, very few people get back in.

    In that vein I would like to see prisoners work more, maybe in special prison factories, be more productive...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    The Judiciary is part of our government. There are three branches to government The Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. so to say that It is the responsibility of government is a correct statement.
    But it does not directly influence the Court i.e, it is the judge which passes the penal sentence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    :rolleyes: Oh come off it, I don't think losing ones independence and contact to loved ones and the outside world is a 'soft cushion'
    You'd be surprised, gang members consider Prison simply an 'inconvenience' not a punishment. There was someone talking about in on BBC1 just last week, the guy said no one worried about Prison because it was 'easy going'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    But it does not directly influence the Court i.e, it is the judge which passes the penal sentence.
    Government is not just the House of Commons and Lords, it includes the judiciary who are an unelected part of government. th higest court in the United Kingodom is the House of Lords, we have a governmental system where the three branches are not distinct and overlap in several areas.

    The judiaciary is a part of the governement, a part with its own almost autonomy and discretion but a part of governement nonetheless.

    The word Government can be used, and is used commonly to refer to the PM and his cabinet or the House of commons, but in the context I am using it I am not refering to them, government is used as a blanket word that includes all public bodies.

    The sentencing guidelines council and Judges are part of the government, when used as a blanket term.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Probably doesn't help given the nature of the background of judges either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Probably doesn't help given the nature of the background of judges either.
    I am white, independently educated and a law student who wants to be a judge or coroner eventually. It has nothing to do with background.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    I am white, independently educated and a law student who wants to be a judge or coroner eventually. It has nothing to do with background.
    Read The Politics of the Judiciary by JAG Griffith. I'm quite sure the class bias in the judiciary does have an impact on cases other than the book I mentioned has shown, though perhaps not issues of sentencing these days. Perhaps the middle class judiciary are more lenient than if they would have been had they had been educated from non-Oxbridge and were from a working-class background. I'll find out if you like.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    Government is not just the House of Commons and Lords, it includes the judiciary who are an unelected part of government. th higest court in the United Kingodom is the House of Lords, we have a governmental system where the three branches are not distinct and overlap in several areas.

    The judiaciary is a part of the governement, a part with its own almost autonomy and discretion but a part of governement nonetheless.

    The word Government can be used, and is used commonly to refer to the PM and his cabinet or the House of commons, but in the context I am using it I am not refering to them, government is used as a blanket word that includes all public bodies.

    The sentencing guidelines council and Judges are part of the government, when used as a blanket term.
    I'm not a law student, but this simply isn't true. Perhaps you mean it is an organ of the state, rather than an organ of government. By your definition of government, not only would the judicial system be the government, so too would Parliament, which by extension, would include every opposition MP!

    The government refers to the executive, the PM and cabinet, and arguably other senior ministers and civil servants. It does not mean other organs of state, be they legislature, judiciary, the police, or anyone else.

    The doctrine of judicial independence that flowed from the Act of Settlement 1701 ensures precisely the opposite to what you're claiming viz. the government cannot bring to bear pressure against the judiciary, and in particular they cannot sack judges (unless under extremely exceptional circumstances, de facto: never).

    Perhaps that's just semantics though I would suggest that the question of who is 'to blame' for this slide in sentencing can probably be answered in relation to both the government and the judiciary. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of sentencing in criminal law, but it is the government who has introduced both legislation and sentencing guidelines. It is the judiciary that has applied these in the way that clearly upset some people here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by statics)
    I'm not a law student, but this simply isn't true. Perhaps you mean it is an organ of the state, rather than an organ of government. By your definition of government, not only would the judicial system be the government, so too would Parliament, which by extension, would include every opposition MP!

    The government refers to the executive, the PM and cabinet, and arguably other senior ministers and civil servants. It does not mean other organs of state, be they legislature, judiciary, the police, or anyone else.

    The doctrine of judicial independence that flowed from the Act of Settlement 1701 ensures precisely the opposite to what you're claiming viz. the government cannot bring to bear pressure against the judiciary, and in particular they cannot sack judges (unless under extremely exceptional circumstances, de facto: never).

    Perhaps that's just semantics though I would suggest that the question of who is 'to blame' for this slide in sentencing can probably be answered in relation to both the government and the judiciary. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of sentencing in criminal law, but it is the government who has introduced both legislation and sentencing guidelines. It is the judiciary that has applied these in the way that clearly upset some people here.
    I am a law and politics student.

    And government is used to refer to the executive yes, but as I have already said in political theory government can refer to all structures of the government of people, which includes the judiciary.

    When I say government I am using it in its loosest form, I am not saying the executive controls the judiciary I am saying that the judiciary is an autonomous part of government that interprets the laws made by the other parts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gap)
    Prison's a joke; warm food, a place to sleep, entertainment and best of all you don't have to pay for it! I can see why people turn to crime, because if they muck up they have a nice soft cushion to land on for a couple of years.
    People turn to crime because prison's are totally fabulous places?

    (Original post by Gap)
    If they made the prisons here like they did in America (cramped, dirty and little to do) it'd have a more positive effect as it'd put people off heading to prison
    Crime is a far greater problem in the United States than it is here in the United Kingdom so your argument is severely weakened.

    (Original post by Gap)
    That or they bring back public hangings, atleast then we'd see something was being done.
    http://www.alloexpat.com/iran_expat_...ide-t1716.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    I am a law and politics student.

    And government is used to refer to the executive yes, but as I have already said in political theory government can refer to all structures of the government of people, which includes the judiciary.

    When I say government I am using it in its loosest form, I am not saying the executive controls the judiciary I am saying that the judiciary is an autonomous part of government that interprets the laws made by the other parts.

    Well, I shan't argue that your definiton might be used by some people, but it certainly isn't obvious or common. Your quibbling with Olivia_Lightbulb on a matter of semantics (when your definition was rather obscure) therefore confused me somewhat.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.