Two years for attack on Southampton's Thomas Lewis Way (From Daily Echo)

Another 'let off' sentence.
When will the judicial system wake up and see the public are not happy with their sentencing policies, and they are not deterring anymore.

Scum and cowards like these deserve the full force of the law to make examples of them but they get a little slap on the wrist and carry on.

hulla baloo wrote:
Another 'let off' sentence. When will the judicial system wake up and see the public are not happy with their sentencing policies, and they are not deterring anymore.

I agree. There has been no deterrent for a long, long time. This is only going to get worse after the 20th October when the Ministry of Justice announces how it is going to make the £2bn savings. I know they are looking at closing several courts, at least six prisons and reducing the number of admin staff in all areas. An offender who took part in a recent television documentary disagreed with various organisations and the Government when it was put to him that prison did not work in protecting the public. He said that although there was no deterrent, the fact that he was locked up for six months, stopped him from committing burglaries. He estimated that during the six months he could have committed around three burglaries a week, a total of 78! So prison does work, even if it is getting these people off the streets. But soon, there will be fewer police, fewer court services and fewer prisons to deal with them.

I don't know why you lot are getting on your high horses. Didn't you read the story? Poor little Jake Defreitas has made progress in his behaviour, and, bless 'im, is even telling his brother not to be a vicious little thug....

(for the hard-of-thinking, this is sarcasm)

I bet Jake looked really good in Laurens scarf.

i expect hes training his brother how not not get caught

fraggled wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Another 'let off' sentence. When will the judicial system wake up and see the public are not happy with their sentencing policies, and they are not deterring anymore.

I agree. There has been no deterrent for a long, long time. This is only going to get worse after the 20th October when the Ministry of Justice announces how it is going to make the £2bn savings. I know they are looking at closing several courts, at least six prisons and reducing the number of admin staff in all areas. An offender who took part in a recent television documentary disagreed with various organisations and the Government when it was put to him that prison did not work in protecting the public. He said that although there was no deterrent, the fact that he was locked up for six months, stopped him from committing burglaries. He estimated that during the six months he could have committed around three burglaries a week, a total of 78! So prison does work, even if it is getting these people off the streets. But soon, there will be fewer police, fewer court services and fewer prisons to deal with them.

If it's cost-savings within the prison system they're after, I've got a few ideas along those lines. How about getting rid of all the tellies, computers and games consoles? The MoJ could make a few quid flogging them on Ebay, I'm sure. How about not throwing so much legal aid at whingeing criminals who try and play the human rights card for all it's worth?

Victorian Principles wrote:

fraggled wrote:

hulla baloo wrote: Another 'let off' sentence. When will the judicial system wake up and see the public are not happy with their sentencing policies, and they are not deterring anymore.

I agree. There has been no deterrent for a long, long time. This is only going to get worse after the 20th October when the Ministry of Justice announces how it is going to make the £2bn savings. I know they are looking at closing several courts, at least six prisons and reducing the number of admin staff in all areas. An offender who took part in a recent television documentary disagreed with various organisations and the Government when it was put to him that prison did not work in protecting the public. He said that although there was no deterrent, the fact that he was locked up for six months, stopped him from committing burglaries. He estimated that during the six months he could have committed around three burglaries a week, a total of 78! So prison does work, even if it is getting these people off the streets. But soon, there will be fewer police, fewer court services and fewer prisons to deal with them.

If it's cost-savings within the prison system they're after, I've got a few ideas along those lines. How about getting rid of all the tellies, computers and games consoles? The MoJ could make a few quid flogging them on Ebay, I'm sure. How about not throwing so much legal aid at whingeing criminals who try and play the human rights card for all it's worth?

The cost saving exercise by the MOJ should centre on prison population. Close to 50% of our current prison population will re-offend and return within two years - incarceration alone does not work. We should concentrate on early intervention, social education and rehabilitation - far less cost to the taxpayer and has a massive effect on re-offending.
Look to certain programs that are run in Scandanavia and parts of the US that are dramatically reducing the need for tax payers investment in 'imprisonment' and slashing re-offending rates.

In this country a detailed cost-benefit analysis based on a real boy who had been in court on several occasions, served two intensive community sentences and spent two six-month periods in custody by the age of 16, it calculated that strategies based on providing family support, the input of an educational psychologist, mentoring, anger management and counselling would cost nearly four times less - £42,000 compared to £154,000. The analysis was based solely on the costs incurred to statutory agencies and did not factor in the wider costs of the youngster's involvement in crime and the impact on his family and others.

So before you all start shouting about lock em up blah blah blah, it doesn't work and it costs you more.
Time to think again.

That study sounds fascinating, Ted. Can you explain it a bit further, I'm missing some detail. The study showed that the cost of the psychologist, mentoring, counselling etc - things I am not, despite what you may thing, some nay-sayer about - would have cost less than the custodial alternatives, had they been put in place, or that they actually did cost less than if he'd been through the court system the traditional way? That is, what ACTUALLY happened? Because first of all, one of those figures is hypothetical, and secondly, you've said nothing about whether he actually did go on to re-offend. That's the problem: you can't compare the traditional custody route with the softer approach, because it's literally impossible to apply both to the one controlled subject, to see which is more effective. The best you can do is say "2 boys from similar backgrounds, with similar offending patterns, followed these routes as a result of these methods of rehabilitation". It doesn't take into account either boy's natural propensity for re-offending.

What's easier to observe is that, as parenting and discipline has become more liberal, youth crime has risen.

The problem is that, in order to prove that these softer approaches actually are more effective than current measures, we have to abandon those current measures, and the risk of doing so is an increased number of offenders on the streets in the meantime, while we hope we can rehabilitate them.

Vic,
The study on the real boy was carried out by the audit commission, taking into account actual costs.
The annual cost of keeping an individual in prison is £37,500. Research conducted by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies found that when you consider the impact on families and wider society, the estimated annual cost of imprisonment for an individual rises by almost a third to nearly £50,000. There is also an estimated cost of about £31,000 a year for each person reconvicted, including costs such as repairing property and hospital treatment for victims.
Whether this boy went on to re-offend or not (I dont know), the cost to the taxpayer would still be less.
Is simple incarceration really the best that we can come up with?

Ted Rogers wrote:
Vic,
The study on the real boy was carried out by the audit commission, taking into account actual costs.
The annual cost of keeping an individual in prison is £37,500. Research conducted by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies found that when you consider the impact on families and wider society, the estimated annual cost of imprisonment for an individual rises by almost a third to nearly £50,000. There is also an estimated cost of about £31,000 a year for each person reconvicted, including costs such as repairing property and hospital treatment for victims.
Whether this boy went on to re-offend or not (I dont know), the cost to the taxpayer would still be less.
Is simple incarceration really the best that we can come up with?

Probably not, Ted, but let's not forget that rehabilitation isn't the sole aim of incarceration. There is a punitive element to it.

The best option is some kind of civil compensation scheme where offenders have to pay back their victims in full. This could be done by directly deducting wages or benefits over the period of a sentence.

Ted Rogers wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

fraggled wrote:

hulla baloo wrote: Another 'let off' sentence. When will the judicial system wake up and see the public are not happy with their sentencing policies, and they are not deterring anymore.

I agree. There has been no deterrent for a long, long time. This is only going to get worse after the 20th October when the Ministry of Justice announces how it is going to make the £2bn savings. I know they are looking at closing several courts, at least six prisons and reducing the number of admin staff in all areas. An offender who took part in a recent television documentary disagreed with various organisations and the Government when it was put to him that prison did not work in protecting the public. He said that although there was no deterrent, the fact that he was locked up for six months, stopped him from committing burglaries. He estimated that during the six months he could have committed around three burglaries a week, a total of 78! So prison does work, even if it is getting these people off the streets. But soon, there will be fewer police, fewer court services and fewer prisons to deal with them.

If it's cost-savings within the prison system they're after, I've got a few ideas along those lines. How about getting rid of all the tellies, computers and games consoles? The MoJ could make a few quid flogging them on Ebay, I'm sure. How about not throwing so much legal aid at whingeing criminals who try and play the human rights card for all it's worth?

The cost saving exercise by the MOJ should centre on prison population. Close to 50% of our current prison population will re-offend and return within two years - incarceration alone does not work. We should concentrate on early intervention, social education and rehabilitation - far less cost to the taxpayer and has a massive effect on re-offending.
Look to certain programs that are run in Scandanavia and parts of the US that are dramatically reducing the need for tax payers investment in 'imprisonment' and slashing re-offending rates.

In this country a detailed cost-benefit analysis based on a real boy who had been in court on several occasions, served two intensive community sentences and spent two six-month periods in custody by the age of 16, it calculated that strategies based on providing family support, the input of an educational psychologist, mentoring, anger management and counselling would cost nearly four times less - £42,000 compared to £154,000. The analysis was based solely on the costs incurred to statutory agencies and did not factor in the wider costs of the youngster's involvement in crime and the impact on his family and others.

So before you all start shouting about lock em up blah blah blah, it doesn't work and it costs you more.
Time to think again.

Congratulation to Ted, you should be running the country, you managed to save us £113,000 by doing a little bit of research.

The only things you forgot to put a price on, was the price of protecting the public from this vicious thug, the price of the psychological damage caused to his victim's.

This thug is 17 years old and nearly 7ft tall, he already has convictions for the same thing and like you young thugs who commit crime with accomplices, they don't grass on the their equally vicious mate's.

Sorry Ted sometimes the key needs throwing away like in this case or at least he informs on his accomplice, save your theories for 1st time offenders you may have chance with them.

Oh, and lets not forget that there are always people who you would not like let back out in to society. Such as rapists, paedophiles and extremely violent individuals with no respect for anyone.
.
With regard to televisions and play stations behind bars let me set you straight on a couple of things. Firstly, prisoners have to pay for the use of a television. Secondly, prisoners have to earn the use of play stations by following the rules and attending education or being employed. Thirdly, I agree that prison is too comfortable for prisoners. But I also believe that by providing things such as TV’s and play stations, prisoners can become more controllable and better prepared for release provided that they are only issued to very well behaved prisoners.

fraggled wrote:
Oh, and lets not forget that there are always people who you would not like let back out in to society. Such as rapists, paedophiles and extremely violent individuals with no respect for anyone.
.
With regard to televisions and play stations behind bars let me set you straight on a couple of things. Firstly, prisoners have to pay for the use of a television. Secondly, prisoners have to earn the use of play stations by following the rules and attending education or being employed. Thirdly, I agree that prison is too comfortable for prisoners. But I also believe that by providing things such as TV’s and play stations, prisoners can become more controllable and better prepared for release provided that they are only issued to very well behaved prisoners.

Your talking twaddle, prisoners do not pay for use of TV's, if your going to spout off, tell the truth.

what's the relevance that he lived somewhere in southampton a year before this happened, he hasn't lived in southampton for 2 years. And all you readers forget the journalist doesnt print the whole story, only picks out select words and then it sounds worse which sells more papers. they didn't mention the stilleto shoes that the victim used, it wasn't a punch, pity they didn't put these "victims" of this crime on a lie detector when they made the statement cause it wouldn't have gone to court

Para Not Normal wrote:

fraggled wrote: Oh, and lets not forget that there are always people who you would not like let back out in to society. Such as rapists, paedophiles and extremely violent individuals with no respect for anyone. . With regard to televisions and play stations behind bars let me set you straight on a couple of things. Firstly, prisoners have to pay for the use of a television. Secondly, prisoners have to earn the use of play stations by following the rules and attending education or being employed. Thirdly, I agree that prison is too comfortable for prisoners. But I also believe that by providing things such as TV’s and play stations, prisoners can become more controllable and better prepared for release provided that they are only issued to very well behaved prisoners.

Your talking twaddle, prisoners do not pay for use of TV's, if your going to spout off, tell the truth.

Sorry, did I forget to mention that I actually work in the Prison Service 'looking after' these people?

Para Not Normal wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

fraggled wrote:

hulla baloo wrote: Another 'let off' sentence. When will the judicial system wake up and see the public are not happy with their sentencing policies, and they are not deterring anymore.

I agree. There has been no deterrent for a long, long time. This is only going to get worse after the 20th October when the Ministry of Justice announces how it is going to make the £2bn savings. I know they are looking at closing several courts, at least six prisons and reducing the number of admin staff in all areas. An offender who took part in a recent television documentary disagreed with various organisations and the Government when it was put to him that prison did not work in protecting the public. He said that although there was no deterrent, the fact that he was locked up for six months, stopped him from committing burglaries. He estimated that during the six months he could have committed around three burglaries a week, a total of 78! So prison does work, even if it is getting these people off the streets. But soon, there will be fewer police, fewer court services and fewer prisons to deal with them.

If it's cost-savings within the prison system they're after, I've got a few ideas along those lines. How about getting rid of all the tellies, computers and games consoles? The MoJ could make a few quid flogging them on Ebay, I'm sure. How about not throwing so much legal aid at whingeing criminals who try and play the human rights card for all it's worth?

The cost saving exercise by the MOJ should centre on prison population. Close to 50% of our current prison population will re-offend and return within two years - incarceration alone does not work. We should concentrate on early intervention, social education and rehabilitation - far less cost to the taxpayer and has a massive effect on re-offending. Look to certain programs that are run in Scandanavia and parts of the US that are dramatically reducing the need for tax payers investment in 'imprisonment' and slashing re-offending rates. In this country a detailed cost-benefit analysis based on a real boy who had been in court on several occasions, served two intensive community sentences and spent two six-month periods in custody by the age of 16, it calculated that strategies based on providing family support, the input of an educational psychologist, mentoring, anger management and counselling would cost nearly four times less - £42,000 compared to £154,000. The analysis was based solely on the costs incurred to statutory agencies and did not factor in the wider costs of the youngster's involvement in crime and the impact on his family and others. So before you all start shouting about lock em up blah blah blah, it doesn't work and it costs you more. Time to think again.

Congratulation to Ted, you should be running the country, you managed to save us £113,000 by doing a little bit of research. The only things you forgot to put a price on, was the price of protecting the public from this vicious thug, the price of the psychological damage caused to his victim's. This thug is 17 years old and nearly 7ft tall, he already has convictions for the same thing and like you young thugs who commit crime with accomplices, they don't grass on the their equally vicious mate's. Sorry Ted sometimes the key needs throwing away like in this case or at least he informs on his accomplice, save your theories for 1st time offenders you may have chance with them.

The fact that he has previous would indicate that there was insufficient intervention and rehabilitation.

I'm not defending the actions of these people, I'm saying that we are not progressive with the way we deal with offenders.

Again, bringing it back to £ notes. It's accepted that for every one pound spent on intervention and rehabilitation for first time offenders you save three pounds in re-offending cost.

Fully accept that there should be punitive elements for all criminals, but in isolation, it is proven to be a 'non-fix'.

Condor Man wrote:
The best option is some kind of civil compensation scheme where offenders have to pay back their victims in full. This could be done by directly deducting wages or benefits over the period of a sentence.

This assumes that the offender has money to begin with. The thing about a lot of criminals is, they don't. It's no use sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting that's their problem, because where are they going to get the compensation? They're going to steal it. Problem solved?

Oh, and lets not forget that there are always people who you would not like let back out in to society. Such as rapists, paedophiles and extremely violent individuals with no respect for anyone.

Sorry, but why should these people never be let out? Personally, I'd rather there was always something for them to lose, some reason for them to not simply kill their victims on the grounds that it makes no difference to them. Merciful justice is a practical measure, not some fluffy touchy-feely rubbish

Victorian Principles wrote:

Oh, and lets not forget that there are always people who you would not like let back out in to society. Such as rapists, paedophiles and extremely violent individuals with no respect for anyone.

Sorry, but why should these people never be let out? Personally, I'd rather there was always something for them to lose, some reason for them to not simply kill their victims on the grounds that it makes no difference to them. Merciful justice is a practical measure, not some fluffy touchy-feely rubbish

Oh, so the man convicted of 9 counts of raping his own daughter when she was aged between 8 and 15, and 6 counts of buggery against his own son, can leave prison and live next door to you then?

the cursed wrote:
what's the relevance that he lived somewhere in southampton a year before this happened, he hasn't lived in southampton for 2 years. And all you readers forget the journalist doesnt print the whole story, only picks out select words and then it sounds worse which sells more papers. they didn't mention the stilleto shoes that the victim used, it wasn't a punch, pity they didn't put these "victims" of this crime on a lie detector when they made the statement cause it wouldn't have gone to court

I don't why this person is trying to defend this VIOLENT thug. He got less than he deserved. Stilleto shoes- good! Because these people had the courage to defend themselves this nasty piece of work is now off of our streets. This guy is well known for theiving, and bashing people ect. so good ridence to bad rubbish.

i think all your comments are laughable ! , you do not clearly no how you are upsetting Jake's friends and family! yes he did wrong , he knows he has been punished ! i think the comment " i bet he looked really good in Lauren's scarf" is pathetic !, does it say he took the scarf? no, there was another person who was there who did it too !! half this article has been exaggerated! John , half of this is wrong! i know this for a fact! i think its sickening that the media can reveal this information of an under 18 ! it is an invasion of privacy!. other comments regarding his brother , its disgusting. i couldnt imagine what his poor brother is going through.i really would of though this article is so wrong it ought to be taken down. John please get your facts right.

jade2010 wrote:
i think all your comments are laughable ! , you do not clearly no how you are upsetting Jake's friends and family! yes he did wrong , he knows he has been punished ! i think the comment " i bet he looked really good in Lauren's scarf" is pathetic !, does it say he took the scarf? no, there was another person who was there who did it too !! half this article has been exaggerated! John , half of this is wrong! i know this for a fact! i think its sickening that the media can reveal this information of an under 18 ! it is an invasion of privacy!. other comments regarding his brother , its disgusting. i couldnt imagine what his poor brother is going through.i really would of though this article is so wrong it ought to be taken down. John please get your facts right.

i agree with this im personally shocked that this information has been given out.
Not only Lauren and the boyfriend are victims but the family and friends of Jake to. quite clearly things have been exaggerated, i think the other conservative comments are ridicilous these people obviously not been in this sitation before and it is clear Jake has had some issues or problems! Some people do not have the privileged upbringing that others have. People dont do these things for no reason?.. but Jake is doing his punishment now and it has been stated he "has made alot of progress" some comments (Higginz) are uncalled for and shows signs of immaturaity. People need to be more open minded, i know what happened wasn't right but its deffiantely true that this has been blown out of proportion.

Dreeves wrote:

jade2010 wrote: i think all your comments are laughable ! , you do not clearly no how you are upsetting Jake's friends and family! yes he did wrong , he knows he has been punished ! i think the comment " i bet he looked really good in Lauren's scarf" is pathetic !, does it say he took the scarf? no, there was another person who was there who did it too !! half this article has been exaggerated! John , half of this is wrong! i know this for a fact! i think its sickening that the media can reveal this information of an under 18 ! it is an invasion of privacy!. other comments regarding his brother , its disgusting. i couldnt imagine what his poor brother is going through.i really would of though this article is so wrong it ought to be taken down. John please get your facts right.

i agree with this im personally shocked that this information has been given out. Not only Lauren and the boyfriend are victims but the family and friends of Jake to. quite clearly things have been exaggerated, i think the other conservative comments are ridicilous these people obviously not been in this sitation before and it is clear Jake has had some issues or problems! Some people do not have the privileged upbringing that others have. People dont do these things for no reason?.. but Jake is doing his punishment now and it has been stated he "has made alot of progress" some comments (Higginz) are uncalled for and shows signs of immaturaity. People need to be more open minded, i know what happened wasn't right but its deffiantely true that this has been blown out of proportion.

What a load of ****! These people are speaking absolute rubbish. Jake is not some innocent, hard done by little boy who made a mistake, don't forget he has two previous convictions for the same stuff and these are only the tip of the iceberg, the things he got caught for. Boys like this DO know right from wrong and I imagine that his friends and family must feel ashamed and embarrassed what a shame that Jake put them in this position. This guy actively takes himself from St. Austell to Southampton to go on a robbing and bashing rampage (he obviously had enough money to go travelling across to the other side of the country for his crime spree, hardly deprived) . Jake put himself in the public domain the minute that he set out to terrorise and intimidate the general pulic, so why should the public not know about it therefore it's hardly an invasion of Jake's privacy. Well done for what Higginz said clearly Jake and his creep of a mate have no scruples about intimidating others, Jake and pal must have felt like real big men when they CHOSE to get nasty. What's up? Not men enough to hear comments of other people- oh boo hoo

justice 4 wrote:

Dreeves wrote:

jade2010 wrote: i think all your comments are laughable ! , you do not clearly no how you are upsetting Jake's friends and family! yes he did wrong , he knows he has been punished ! i think the comment " i bet he looked really good in Lauren's scarf" is pathetic !, does it say he took the scarf? no, there was another person who was there who did it too !! half this article has been exaggerated! John , half of this is wrong! i know this for a fact! i think its sickening that the media can reveal this information of an under 18 ! it is an invasion of privacy!. other comments regarding his brother , its disgusting. i couldnt imagine what his poor brother is going through.i really would of though this article is so wrong it ought to be taken down. John please get your facts right.

i agree with this im personally shocked that this information has been given out. Not only Lauren and the boyfriend are victims but the family and friends of Jake to. quite clearly things have been exaggerated, i think the other conservative comments are ridicilous these people obviously not been in this sitation before and it is clear Jake has had some issues or problems! Some people do not have the privileged upbringing that others have. People dont do these things for no reason?.. but Jake is doing his punishment now and it has been stated he "has made alot of progress" some comments (Higginz) are uncalled for and shows signs of immaturaity. People need to be more open minded, i know what happened wasn't right but its deffiantely true that this has been blown out of proportion.

What a load of ****! These people are speaking absolute rubbish. Jake is not some innocent, hard done by little boy who made a mistake, don't forget he has two previous convictions for the same stuff and these are only the tip of the iceberg, the things he got caught for. Boys like this DO know right from wrong and I imagine that his friends and family must feel ashamed and embarrassed what a shame that Jake put them in this position. This guy actively takes himself from St. Austell to Southampton to go on a robbing and bashing rampage (he obviously had enough money to go travelling across to the other side of the country for his crime spree, hardly deprived) . Jake put himself in the public domain the minute that he set out to terrorise and intimidate the general pulic, so why should the public not know about it therefore it's hardly an invasion of Jake's privacy. Well done for what Higginz said clearly Jake and his creep of a mate have no scruples about intimidating others, Jake and pal must have felt like real big men when they CHOSE to get nasty. What's up? Not men enough to hear comments of other people- oh boo hoo

people shouldnt comment on what they dont know. papers dont print the full facts and make other facts sound bad by using choice words. ...wake up it sells papers!!!!