Do you think that in a civilised society prison should only be imposed for the most heinous offences?

There is no doubt that the whole system is a mess, and that there are no simple solutions. But, as when points out, costs could be greatly reduced by using reparative justice with "intensive" police and probation supervision.

Violence against the person has to lead to imprisonment, of course. But take, for example, acquisitive theft - to fuel a drug habit, perhaps. Decriminalisation of certain drugs might reduce that type of theft.

There are hardened criminals, to be sure, as anyone involved in the prison service can tell us. But they way things work, we are probably breeding more of them!

And then - money and the will to change - from where will that come?

Does the state seize property bought through profits of crime? If not they should!

I'm pretty sure they can and do.

Yes. it's called the proceeds of crime act. It's quite effective. There are some surprising places where money and bonds etc are kept and stored. And the police can be very persistent in pursuing the depositors.

I'm more than a little worried by the government plan to close prisons before building new private facilities. I think men and women who have been sent to gaol shouldn't have the additional and unintended punishment of living in slum conditions but this isn't the way to deal with it. I'd much rather that people guilty of minor crimes stayed in the community but I'm very much afraid that the position of offenders is very like that of the elderly and infirm and of people with mental health problems; the necessary resources aren't and won't be put into any meaningful programme of support.

Hmm - just discovered that the MP in question was not, in fact, ordered to pay any of the expenses she fraudulently claimed back:

The judge also said that his rulings were limited to criminal proceedings. "They do not affect any steps that may be taken through the civil courts to recover any money that Mrs Moran has received to which she was not entitled."

Are any steps being taken? I doubt it...

Seems to me we all have roughly the same mindset about all this: imprison the dangerous ones, try to change them through prison/probation programs, thieves and others to make reparation, foreigners who commit the worst crimes to be deported. But we realise that all this costs too much money and there are insufficient resources and staff. I would add my own view that the people in power do not have to live near the social problems caused by crims, or school problems caused by kids from chaotic neglectful and violent homes, so it is all academic to them.

What gets me though is this: there is high unemployment, and the unemployed are being (rightly) paid benefits to live. Many of these unemployed, especially the long term ones, are older people with lots of skills. Would it not be better if many were trained and paid to help with rehabilitating the criminals? Or trained in security to protect the ones doing the training/rehab?

Take my family for instance: I have the skills to teach English as a second language, and bookkeeping; my husband has the skills to teach painting and decorating. He is also ex military with training in both unarmed combat and firearms. We are just your average couple. Western countries like the UK and Australia are full of people like us. We are past retirement age now, but we both lost our jobs in our 50s, and never really got proper work since.

The current system is a wicked waste of people, skills and potential.

Ana the repayment of the money might already be in place, hence a judgement but not an order. If civil proceedings for recovery have started, the court will not intervene unless reparation is not complete. Perhaps she is paying up?

Call me a nasty old cynic, but I found her sudden mental collapse unconvincing. I remember a couple of high profile fraudsters who claimed to be suffering from physical or mental illnesses and made a miraculous recovery once they got out of jail.

Greatnan - about sudden mental collapses - I remember one of those televangelists in the USA, who got rich on the money of his followers, getting done for fraud. His lawyer said he should not go to prison because he was suffering from depression.

Of course he damn well was!! He was about to leave his lavish lifestyle for a horrors of a US prison - anyone would be depressed. It was probably a sign of sanity.

It didn't work.

And what about Pinochet?

What about the Guinness guy who is the only known case of a full recovery from Alzheimers?

Yes, he was the one I remembered, but not his name!

What about the Lockerbie bomber? Although he is now dead, it took a good deal longer than his doctors in Scotland predicted.

Anno - there was something very fishy about the Lockerbie case and perhaps deals were done behind closed doors.

Greatnan Was his name something like Ernest Sanders or Saunders?

But he did have terminal cancer, the Lockerbie man. And his conviction was extremely fishy indeed.
One of the problems is that prison is still a dumping ground for an illmatched assortment of folks. Still working mainly on the Victorian model and sometimes in buildings that old too. Some can be rehabilitated and some probably cannot. Some are determinedly criminal and some are a danger to society. Not a lot of point trying to rehabilitate them.
I think it is also the case, as alluded to earlier, that it is a class based system with the rich and powerful defining which crimes merit the punishment of imprisonment and which are not so bad really because they are only committed by upper middle class types. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens to the News of the World defendants. Meanwhile women from council estates still get sent to Holloway, I believe, for not paying their TV licences or shoplifting.

JessM No one gets sent to prison for not paying their TV licence but they do sometimes get sent there for contempt of court for failing to pay once the court has ordered them to do so. Courts and their officers are very strict about contempt. Rightly so I suppose as the rule of law is important for a civilised society. (I just wish they weren't so pompous.)

Yes, Ernest Saunders. Rich,poweful - ergo, untouchable.

I have just been reading my local paper. The crime stories are almost all GBH. Young men attacking other young men who offered no provocation and were often unknown to the assailants. This is petty mindless crime by petty mindless men but I still think that they should go to prison. I cannot see how restorative justice/probation/supervision can be suitable for thugs like this.

I notice that one of the lads who killed Damilola Taylor is returning to prison for the third time for a crime of violence and he had previous before he killed Damilola. I do think persistently violent criminals should get life imprisonment after the third crime. A 'life' sentence does not mean the rest of their life in prison but it does mean that if released they can be recalled if they transgress the terms of their license so they could well be pulled in for minor crimes before they regress to violence again.

Trouble is, you don't know which ones will go on to a life of crime and which are genuinely remorseful and changed. There are GNetters who have first-hand knowledge in this area but I believe most crimes are committed by people under 45 so perhaps they do move on.

18 to 24 is the age of most male offenders, Lilygran. In most urban areas, 50% of males of that age have acquired a conviction, mainly driving offences like no insurance or MOT, but plenty of possession of drugs and common assaults, too.

Something wrong with a society that can lock people away because they don't unjderstand why some people do these things. to have your freedom taken away is somehow very cruel. What is wrong is our sentencing, You get a longer sentence for offences against property, than for offences against people.
Having said that I do believe in capital punishment for first degree murder, but imprisonment for crimes of passion

Capital punishment - never. It is a sign of a civilised society to end such barbarism.

They don't always get the right person anyway, and the death sentence often depends on how much money the defendant has, to get the best lawyer.

Also, it is easier to get a conviction if there is no death sentence - many people are loathe to put a rope round someone's neck, and they therefore refuse to give evidence.

Having said that, the worst murders should have a 'life' sentence meaning whole of life.

In America it costs much more to have someone on death row for ages, and then kill them, than to just give them a long sentence.

Thanks, whenim. Do we know why it's that age group? There used to be programmes of intervention years ago to capture youths and young men. Did it work at all?