Justice leaders from around the country descend on Winchester for reoffending conference

Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Hayes

Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Hayes

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

SOME of the country's top justice figures will meet in Hampshire today to discuss innovative ways to reduce reoffending ahead of a dramatic overhaul of the probation service.

Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner Simon Hayes is holding a one-day conference in Winchester focusing on new ideas and structures on reducing reoffending following the government's Transforming Rehabilitation strategy - one of the biggest changes of offender management ever taken in the UK.

The Reducing Reoffending: Transforming Rehabilitation conference takes place at Winchester Guildhall and will feature a 17-strong panel to discuss the potential impact of the strategy.

The three panel discussions will focus on the policy perspective driving reform, the delivery perspective, and the community perspective.

Panellists include the High Sheriff of Hampshire Rupert Younger, Steve Brine MP for Winchester and Chandler's Ford, who is a member of the Justice Select Committee, Greg Berman, director of the Center of Court Innovation in New York, and Anthony Salz, executive vice-chairman of Rothschild.

Mr Hayes said: “The Government's Transforming Rehabilitation proposals raise a number of significant questions and concerns from organisations involved in offender management.

“With an apparent lack of evidence on how these proposals will work in practice, I - like so many others - fear the impact of imposing these changes at such a fast pace.

“The conference could play a critical role in bringing together experts from all aspects of offender management to discuss and debate how we reduce and managing reoffending through partnership working through this time of change and continue to deliver positive results in this area.

”Successfully delivering the government's strategy will play a critical role in protecting people and places, so I sincerely hope that discussions and the resulting recommendations from the conference will be considered by those responsible for developing national policy.”

Mr Younger added: “I am delighted to be working with Simon Hayes, our Police and Crime Commissioner, on this important initiative for Hampshire.

“The Winchester conference creates a unique forum where international, national and local perspectives engaged in reducing re-offending can be shared and debated.

“I am particularly pleased that we have secured such eminent speakers from the UK and elsewhere, and look forward to what I know will be an engaging and enlightening conference”.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:51am Fri 7 Mar 14

Forest Resident says...

It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime.
It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime. Forest Resident
  • Score: 2

9:05am Fri 7 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

Build more prisons for longer term sentences, and gallows for murderers and paedophiles.
After all, the rights and safety of the law abiding should be priority, not pandering to criminals and do gooders.
Build more prisons for longer term sentences, and gallows for murderers and paedophiles. After all, the rights and safety of the law abiding should be priority, not pandering to criminals and do gooders. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

9:35am Fri 7 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

It's like discussing how to stop a child liking sweets, absolutely pointless.
It's like discussing how to stop a child liking sweets, absolutely pointless. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

10:26am Fri 7 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Forest Resident wrote:
It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime.
You have to convict them before you can call them criminals. Prior to that, they are entitled to legal aid. Anyway, nothing in your post addresses the question of how to stop them re-offending. You might as well have described the process for hanging a picture.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime.[/p][/quote]You have to convict them before you can call them criminals. Prior to that, they are entitled to legal aid. Anyway, nothing in your post addresses the question of how to stop them re-offending. You might as well have described the process for hanging a picture. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -2

10:28am Fri 7 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 7 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 7 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

11:37am Fri 7 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
You're suggesting we execute every criminal?

"He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!"

yes, great plan

Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.[/p][/quote]You're suggesting we execute every criminal? "He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!" yes, great plan Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 3

11:42am Fri 7 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
You're suggesting we execute every criminal?

"He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!"

yes, great plan

Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.
I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective.
If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.[/p][/quote]You're suggesting we execute every criminal? "He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!" yes, great plan Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.[/p][/quote]I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective. If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for. hulla baloo
  • Score: -2

11:46am Fri 7 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
You're suggesting we execute every criminal?

"He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!"

yes, great plan

Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.
I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective.
If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.
Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.[/p][/quote]You're suggesting we execute every criminal? "He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!" yes, great plan Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.[/p][/quote]I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective. If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.[/p][/quote]Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

11:57am Fri 7 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
You're suggesting we execute every criminal?

"He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!"

yes, great plan

Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.
I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective.
If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.
Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.
Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.[/p][/quote]You're suggesting we execute every criminal? "He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!" yes, great plan Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.[/p][/quote]I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective. If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.[/p][/quote]Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.[/p][/quote]Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject? hulla baloo
  • Score: -2

12:02pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Big Mac says...

If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working.
There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime.
If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach.
If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working. There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime. If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach. Big Mac
  • Score: 2

12:45pm Fri 7 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
You're suggesting we execute every criminal?

"He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!"

yes, great plan

Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.
I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective.
If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.
Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.
Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject?
The story is about reducing re-offending. I guess that's the bit you were off subject on.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.[/p][/quote]You're suggesting we execute every criminal? "He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!" yes, great plan Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.[/p][/quote]I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective. If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.[/p][/quote]Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.[/p][/quote]Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject?[/p][/quote]The story is about reducing re-offending. I guess that's the bit you were off subject on. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

12:46pm Fri 7 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Big Mac wrote:
If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working.
There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime.
If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach.
Wouldn't it be better if people simply didn't want to commit crime, rather than just didn't because they were scared of the consequences?
[quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working. There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime. If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't it be better if people simply didn't want to commit crime, rather than just didn't because they were scared of the consequences? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

12:51pm Fri 7 Mar 14

hulla baloo says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
You're suggesting we execute every criminal?

"He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!"

yes, great plan

Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.
I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective.
If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.
Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.
Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject?
The story is about reducing re-offending. I guess that's the bit you were off subject on.
As execution for the offences I previously mentioned would prevent reoffending, I think it was on topic, ;)
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.[/p][/quote]You're suggesting we execute every criminal? "He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!" yes, great plan Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.[/p][/quote]I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective. If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.[/p][/quote]Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.[/p][/quote]Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject?[/p][/quote]The story is about reducing re-offending. I guess that's the bit you were off subject on.[/p][/quote]As execution for the offences I previously mentioned would prevent reoffending, I think it was on topic, ;) hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Stapleman says...

How many times have we seen criminals reoffending and to be told of their numerous past offences, keep them away from law abiding citizens and stop wasting money and resources on these silly initiatives.The liberally minded
have turned this into quite an industry. Should be three strikes then a very long prison term. More prisons and longer custodial sentences, as far as I know, no-one has been robbed, mugged etc., from someone who is behind bars, it works!
How many times have we seen criminals reoffending and to be told of their numerous past offences, keep them away from law abiding citizens and stop wasting money and resources on these silly initiatives.The liberally minded have turned this into quite an industry. Should be three strikes then a very long prison term. More prisons and longer custodial sentences, as far as I know, no-one has been robbed, mugged etc., from someone who is behind bars, it works! Stapleman
  • Score: -1

1:59pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Forest Resident says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Forest Resident wrote: It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime.
You have to convict them before you can call them criminals. Prior to that, they are entitled to legal aid. Anyway, nothing in your post addresses the question of how to stop them re-offending. You might as well have described the process for hanging a picture.
Forgive me, my understading of being jailed means you are no longer free to commit crime, thereby stopping reoffending. Likewise, hit convicted criminals in the pocket with full legal costs to disencentivise their criminal behaviour. Both are quite clear and simple methods to reduce reoffending, unlike rehabilitation, community resolutions, restorative justice, and every other soft touch ineffective scheme dreamt up by looney lefties. Criminals will not reform if they do not want to, and that can never be forced upon them, for the greater ggood and benefit of the wider law abiding members of socety lets finally get tough to stop offending and reoffending.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime.[/p][/quote]You have to convict them before you can call them criminals. Prior to that, they are entitled to legal aid. Anyway, nothing in your post addresses the question of how to stop them re-offending. You might as well have described the process for hanging a picture.[/p][/quote]Forgive me, my understading of being jailed means you are no longer free to commit crime, thereby stopping reoffending. Likewise, hit convicted criminals in the pocket with full legal costs to disencentivise their criminal behaviour. Both are quite clear and simple methods to reduce reoffending, unlike rehabilitation, community resolutions, restorative justice, and every other soft touch ineffective scheme dreamt up by looney lefties. Criminals will not reform if they do not want to, and that can never be forced upon them, for the greater ggood and benefit of the wider law abiding members of socety lets finally get tough to stop offending and reoffending. Forest Resident
  • Score: 4

2:20pm Fri 7 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Forest Resident wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Forest Resident wrote: It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime.
You have to convict them before you can call them criminals. Prior to that, they are entitled to legal aid. Anyway, nothing in your post addresses the question of how to stop them re-offending. You might as well have described the process for hanging a picture.
Forgive me, my understading of being jailed means you are no longer free to commit crime, thereby stopping reoffending. Likewise, hit convicted criminals in the pocket with full legal costs to disencentivise their criminal behaviour. Both are quite clear and simple methods to reduce reoffending, unlike rehabilitation, community resolutions, restorative justice, and every other soft touch ineffective scheme dreamt up by looney lefties. Criminals will not reform if they do not want to, and that can never be forced upon them, for the greater ggood and benefit of the wider law abiding members of socety lets finally get tough to stop offending and reoffending.
Being imprisoned temporarily stops you re-offending. Just because you happen to think rehabilitation doesn't exist, does not mean it is so. Plenty of criminals are rehabilitated. Quite why any attempt to address the wider problem is deemed "a soft touch by the loonie left" is anybody's guess. We accept that prevention is better than cure in every other area of life, why not crime? Why do we insist on only retroactively dealing with crimes, one at a time, after they've happened?
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: It's quite simple. Lock them (criminals) up for much longer to keep law abiding citizens safe, and cut criminals access to legal aid so that they face the full financial consequences of choosing a life of crime.[/p][/quote]You have to convict them before you can call them criminals. Prior to that, they are entitled to legal aid. Anyway, nothing in your post addresses the question of how to stop them re-offending. You might as well have described the process for hanging a picture.[/p][/quote]Forgive me, my understading of being jailed means you are no longer free to commit crime, thereby stopping reoffending. Likewise, hit convicted criminals in the pocket with full legal costs to disencentivise their criminal behaviour. Both are quite clear and simple methods to reduce reoffending, unlike rehabilitation, community resolutions, restorative justice, and every other soft touch ineffective scheme dreamt up by looney lefties. Criminals will not reform if they do not want to, and that can never be forced upon them, for the greater ggood and benefit of the wider law abiding members of socety lets finally get tough to stop offending and reoffending.[/p][/quote]Being imprisoned temporarily stops you re-offending. Just because you happen to think rehabilitation doesn't exist, does not mean it is so. Plenty of criminals are rehabilitated. Quite why any attempt to address the wider problem is deemed "a soft touch by the loonie left" is anybody's guess. We accept that prevention is better than cure in every other area of life, why not crime? Why do we insist on only retroactively dealing with crimes, one at a time, after they've happened? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

2:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Zexagon says...

hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.
I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.
You're suggesting we execute every criminal?

"He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!"

yes, great plan

Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.
I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective.
If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.
Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.
Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject?
The story is about reducing re-offending. I guess that's the bit you were off subject on.
As execution for the offences I previously mentioned would prevent reoffending, I think it was on topic, ;)
Don't waste your breath.Gilbert knows everything about everything
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ. Executions are a proven deterrent against reoffending.[/p][/quote]You're suggesting we execute every criminal? "He stole a packet of Toffos from the corner shop! Off with his head!" yes, great plan Then someone makes posting on the Echo site illegal. Now you're stuffed, eh.[/p][/quote]I was making a response to your comment ''Quite why everyone thinks "harsher punishments!" is the answer, I don't know. It's proven utterly ineffectual since the dawn of history'' and I was saying that executions are very effective. If you read up to my earlier comment, you will see who I suggest it should be used for.[/p][/quote]Oh I see. So you weren't actually discussing the story at all, then? Got it.[/p][/quote]Eh? The story is about crime, punishment and sentencing, so yes, I was on topic. Which part do you think was off subject?[/p][/quote]The story is about reducing re-offending. I guess that's the bit you were off subject on.[/p][/quote]As execution for the offences I previously mentioned would prevent reoffending, I think it was on topic, ;)[/p][/quote]Don't waste your breath.Gilbert knows everything about everything Zexagon
  • Score: 1

2:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

newsknight says...

Check other current news stories on burglaries and scams - in particular the Eastern European stealing the laptop from the hands of the person selling. The Olympics was subject to Romanian pick-pockets flying in to target punters - they even spoke openly on tv in interviews, saying exactly why they were in London! Will the UK tag 'em, bag 'em and send them home or allow additional strain on our prison system to escalate...?
Check other current news stories on burglaries and scams - in particular the Eastern European stealing the laptop from the hands of the person selling. The Olympics was subject to Romanian pick-pockets flying in to target punters - they even spoke openly on tv in interviews, saying exactly why they were in London! Will the UK tag 'em, bag 'em and send them home or allow additional strain on our prison system to escalate...? newsknight
  • Score: -1

3:00pm Fri 7 Mar 14

RomseyKeith says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Big Mac wrote: If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working. There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime. If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach.
Wouldn't it be better if people simply didn't want to commit crime, rather than just didn't because they were scared of the consequences?
Women love a bad boy though. And most men will do absolutely anything if it means getting the women at the end of it. So, it's all women's fault. Lol.
(I'm joking, please don't take that seriously. It's more a comment on some of the posts you get on here).

Prevention is better than the cure. Why do people really turn to crime? Necessity? Why do they need to? Lack of employment opportunites? The best deterent is surely taking away the need or desire to commit crime. For violent crimes, why are people so angry? An examination into why as a nation we are depressed, angry and feeling violent is probably a better angle. But what would I know (he says feeling depressed and angry, lol).
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working. There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime. If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't it be better if people simply didn't want to commit crime, rather than just didn't because they were scared of the consequences?[/p][/quote]Women love a bad boy though. And most men will do absolutely anything if it means getting the women at the end of it. So, it's all women's fault. Lol. (I'm joking, please don't take that seriously. It's more a comment on some of the posts you get on here). Prevention is better than the cure. Why do people really turn to crime? Necessity? Why do they need to? Lack of employment opportunites? The best deterent is surely taking away the need or desire to commit crime. For violent crimes, why are people so angry? An examination into why as a nation we are depressed, angry and feeling violent is probably a better angle. But what would I know (he says feeling depressed and angry, lol). RomseyKeith
  • Score: 1

4:39pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Big Mac wrote:
If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working.
There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime.
If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach.
Wouldn't it be better if people simply didn't want to commit crime, rather than just didn't because they were scared of the consequences?
When we had real deterrent people seemed to be able to cope without committing the crimes that are so prevalent today. Back to the 1950s would work wonders.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Mac[/bold] wrote: If reoffending occurs, then clearly, offender management isn't working. There needs to be a much stronger deterrent; make the penalty fit the crime. If not, the victims may consider taking the matter into their own hands with a much more direct approach.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't it be better if people simply didn't want to commit crime, rather than just didn't because they were scared of the consequences?[/p][/quote]When we had real deterrent people seemed to be able to cope without committing the crimes that are so prevalent today. Back to the 1950s would work wonders. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

5:44am Sat 8 Mar 14

skeptik says...

During the times when prisons were really tough - Victorian times the crime rate was higher than now. However, we have stopped punishing some crimes and yet come down on financial crimes - the debtors prisons again? Cutting legal aid for 'them' sounds good until the innocent are accused and have to sell the home and belongings to prove innocence. recent events with the police show that not all are guilty because they say so. We just do not like change - this argument can be found in papers going back years and unless we do change we will be using the same arguments in years to come.
During the times when prisons were really tough - Victorian times the crime rate was higher than now. However, we have stopped punishing some crimes and yet come down on financial crimes - the debtors prisons again? Cutting legal aid for 'them' sounds good until the innocent are accused and have to sell the home and belongings to prove innocence. recent events with the police show that not all are guilty because they say so. We just do not like change - this argument can be found in papers going back years and unless we do change we will be using the same arguments in years to come. skeptik
  • Score: 0

10:28am Sat 8 Mar 14

notableedingheart says...

"Reduce Reoffending" or in the vernacular "reduce recidivism rates" . This is probably just a talkfest with good intentions that will achieve very little other than consuming tax payer funds.
It is such a macro issue. Do we start at the family level, at the type of family, at the level of council or benefits levels, at the drug levels, at the mentally ill levels, at the sociopathic or psychopathic levels, at the programs available both in prison and out of prison.
This issue requires a huge whole of Government approach that will not be solved by a talkfest that will be ignored by the "whole of Government".
As some pundits have suggested merely imprisoning more crooks for longer will not reduce recidivism. It will actually increase recidivism if Prisons do not provide appropriate programs to modify behaviour, gain employment and provide stringent post prison supervision.
A massive issue that requires strong and broad strategies - not the suggested talkfest.
"Reduce Reoffending" or in the vernacular "reduce recidivism rates" . This is probably just a talkfest with good intentions that will achieve very little other than consuming tax payer funds. It is such a macro issue. Do we start at the family level, at the type of family, at the level of council or benefits levels, at the drug levels, at the mentally ill levels, at the sociopathic or psychopathic levels, at the programs available both in prison and out of prison. This issue requires a huge whole of Government approach that will not be solved by a talkfest that will be ignored by the "whole of Government". As some pundits have suggested merely imprisoning more crooks for longer will not reduce recidivism. It will actually increase recidivism if Prisons do not provide appropriate programs to modify behaviour, gain employment and provide stringent post prison supervision. A massive issue that requires strong and broad strategies - not the suggested talkfest. notableedingheart
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

skeptik wrote:
During the times when prisons were really tough - Victorian times the crime rate was higher than now. However, we have stopped punishing some crimes and yet come down on financial crimes - the debtors prisons again? Cutting legal aid for 'them' sounds good until the innocent are accused and have to sell the home and belongings to prove innocence. recent events with the police show that not all are guilty because they say so. We just do not like change - this argument can be found in papers going back years and unless we do change we will be using the same arguments in years to come.
Yet in the 1950s crime was much lower than it is now. The welfare state with effective retribution worked then, so it should work again.
[quote][p][bold]skeptik[/bold] wrote: During the times when prisons were really tough - Victorian times the crime rate was higher than now. However, we have stopped punishing some crimes and yet come down on financial crimes - the debtors prisons again? Cutting legal aid for 'them' sounds good until the innocent are accused and have to sell the home and belongings to prove innocence. recent events with the police show that not all are guilty because they say so. We just do not like change - this argument can be found in papers going back years and unless we do change we will be using the same arguments in years to come.[/p][/quote]Yet in the 1950s crime was much lower than it is now. The welfare state with effective retribution worked then, so it should work again. Inform Al
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree