No wonder our prisons are full

Totally agree, with this post, judges should retire, also petty crime and especially social
Media posting! Should not carry a prison sentence. Petty crime that’s on repeat is different. Poor man, lots like him in there.

Nurseundercover

JenniRen I’m not suggesting that young thugs be given national service with normal force recruits. They would have to have specific training camps elsewhere so that routine, discipline, boundaries and respect is prescribed as a sentence.
A lot of them have no guidance whatsoever. Surely this would help a lot if them who appear lost and therefore end up with uninspiring people.

No, it should not be down to the Armed Forces to rehabilitate young offenders. Their purpose is entirely different and they are under-manned and under-resourced as it is.
Their purpose is to defend us and keep us safe, not be part of the Criminal Justice System.

If sentenced, the young offenders should be sent to those Institutions best able to deal with them.

The whole system needs to be examined. There are not enough hostels to help ex prisoners into society. Let us be honest nobody really wants a prison or a prison hostel next to where we live.
I am not saying that people who have committed murder should not be put in gaol but many of them are not a danger to society . The person they killed was generally due to revenge - eg a wife who has had an affair, the person who attacked the prisoners child etc. It was a one off event .
Prison staff on the other hand are not trained to deal with the mentally ill who are put in prison as there is no other place for them to go.
I hope it does not happen now but about 20 years ago there was an elderly lady put in prison for not paying her council tax. She was an owner of a shop which no longer trading and empty. She did not want to pay business rates - especially when an empty hotel was not obliged to pay its rates. I do know she got upset when some nice person paid the bill on her behalf as she wanted to stay in prison as a protest to the unfair system of business rates.

gransruleok I saw that presentation and thought just what you did. However apparently the prisoner in question has been a ‘nightmare’ whilst incarcerated. His sister is a Reverend so surely she would know how to assist her brother?

JenniRen I’m not suggesting that young thugs be given national service with normal force recruits. They would have to have specific training camps elsewhere so that routine, discipline, boundaries and respect is prescribed as a sentence.
A lot of them have no guidance whatsoever. Surely this would help a lot if them who appear lost and therefore end up with uninspiring people.

and where they should receive rehabilitation.
And education.

"With regard to young thugs, they need to be given discipline through national service as a sentence."

Why should the Forces have to deal with young offenders?
Besides which, those young people who join willingly may not want to be living and working alongside criminals.

There are Young Offenders Institutions where children are kept separate from young adults and where they should receive rehabilitation. Unfortunately, this does not always seem to be the case so that is another area which the Government needs to re-address.

To go slightly off piste I heard today that the conservatives closed 23 prisons and reduced staffing levels in functioning prisons.

Sarnia

Sound like Victorian times, except for the phone. They used to incarcerate people for trivial things back then. Why don't the powers that be do something about it?

I thought they had decided to release people who were on indefinite IPP sentences

Our prisons are full partly because society has demanded more punitive and longer sentences and governments have reacted to this. Community sentences, rightly or wrongly, have not been seen as proper "punishment".

IPP's were brought in to offer more serious sentences for repeat offenders who were seen to be a risk to the community but were not eligible for life sentences. However, many more people were given IPP's than was anticipated, hence the problem we have now.

I do not agree with the view that judges are out of touch. They can only sentence people based on sentencing guidelines laid down by Government. I have worked in both Magistrates and Crown Courts and if I were in the dock I would rather be sentenced by a long serving, experienced Judge than a Magistrates bench.

they were put way as IPP imprisonment for public protection, then the system totally forgot about them, a young life wasted , if you pich a phone these days you get 10 hours community service, i know their families fought for them but surely the press shoule have cottoned on to this or someone, its disgraeful whilst men with machetes roam our street

I thought Victorian asylums had been abolished, but here we are with people being kept in prison with undetermined sentences.
My goodness we treat illegal asylum seekers better, than help rehabilitate these prisoners or help them be placed in appropriate mental health facilities.
With regard to young thugs, they need to be given discipline through national service as a sentence. Some of them regard a stint in prison as a badge of honour, and brag about it. It doesn’t teach them anything meaningful.
Personally I believe that a lot of judges are past their sell by date, and totally removed from ordinary people’s life experience.
The whole system requires a fresh overhaul, with the various agencies involved actually dovetailing their common aim and efficacy.

For what my opinion is worth (nothing to the policy-makers, I guess), the core problem is, and always has been, that prisons don't have the room or the funds to treat people as individuals. "We need more and better prisons" is easy to say (I'm saying it too) but it's very hard to achieve a better system for dealing with people who break the law when money is short and we have a lot of other institutions which also need more funding and better management (the NHS springs immediately to mind). I imagine that if, each citizen was asked where taxpayers' money should be spent, not many would put prisons at the top of the list. So we get people in prison who shouldn't be and people let out who should be kept in. Some people argue that prison should not be a comfortable experience; others argue that treating people harshly only results in a negative attitude, leading to re-offending. People have been arguing and discussing all this for as long as prisons have been in existence. I don't know the effective answer and I doubt whether anyone else does.

Indefinite IPP sentences were introduced by Blunket: a serious mistake and abandoned in 2012 but not with retrospective effect Shame on both major Parties.

The issue of offenders with mental health problems is a complicated one. There are far too many people with mental health conditions in prison when they should be in secure mental health hospitals. However, we have seen that the media portray this as a "soft option". Also, prison health departments are often understaffed and therefore can't provide the treatment prisoners require.

In recent years, particularly with the Conservative government's austerity policies, the CJS too often took the brunt of cuts to public services as very little attention was paid to it. Now the impact of those cuts is very obvious and suddenly people are waking up to the realities of underfunding this vital public service.

I've just been looking online to find out more about IPP sentences which have interested me for some time:
From what I have read the offender had to be convicted of a violent or sexual crime that carried a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more. However despite the fact that the court believed the offender presented a high, ongoing danger of causing serious harm to the public, the judge had to have decided that the specific crime did not justify a full life sentence. As I understand it the average time served on a life sentence in the UK actually around 16-17 years, yet some of these prisoners have served longer than this.
IPP sentences were abolished in 2012, so any prisoners still serving one will have done at least 14 years or, realistically, almost a life sentence.
I've read about how prisoners have been told that they can't get parole unless they complete certain courses within their prisons, but that some of these course are not available where they are being held.
As regards the story of the vicar's brother serving an IPP for phone theft, I am a little dubious as I don't see how this crime can have been considered to be "a high, ongoing danger of causing serious harm to the public" unless the perpetrator was very violent indeed.

What has his prison record been like whilst incarcerated?
Rehabilitation not possible in his case?
I don't buy that for one minute, considering the sentences meted out to cold blooded killers.

I agree that spending twelve years in prison for stealing a phone is ridiculous, but I cannot agree that anyone convicted of theft should be let off. In this instance a fine would have been sufficient, I would think.

Please see posts above - this man remains in prison because his paranoid schizophrenia makes him a danger to the public, not because he stole a phone.

His case does need reviewing but with a view to him receiving treatment in a more appropriate place, not in order for him to be released when still considered to be a danger.

SueDonim

Yes, the IPP sentences are appalling. They need a proper review for everyone.

I heard an item on R4 the other day about how many prisoners on parole get called back because they’ve broken their conditions. One poor chap was back behind bars because he didn’t receive notification of a parole appointment he has to attend because he was both homeless and didn’t posses a phone so the letter never reach him.

The systems seem so inflexible and no one can - or dare not - break with convention and use their judgment on the severity and cause of breaches.

Heaven preserve us all from a system where justice is dispensed by judges using their own discretion instead of taking heed of what the law actually states!

Anyone released on parole can be recalled if they break the conditions of their parole.

A homeless person can and should have his or her post delivered to an accomodation address. You used to be able to use your bank, or have letters sent post restante to your local post office.

Obviously, this will no longer work, as it is hard to find either a bank or a post office, but surely you can still direct that your post be sent to any address you like, as long as it is marked c/o plus the owner of the property's name, and you have taken the trouble to get the propety owner's permission to have your post delivered there?

I agree that spending twelve years in prison for stealing a phone is ridiculous, but I cannot agree that anyone convicted of theft should be let off. In this intance a fine would have been sufficient, I would think.

Regarding judges age: yes, both they and members of parliament should retire at the same age as the rest of the population - which is actually being raised all the time.

Didn’t see this in tv but 35 years experience in Criminal Justice system. Don’t necessarily support IPP sentences but truly this ‘phone theft’ would most likely have been a Robbery offence. And not the first serious offence he committed

In 12 years he would most likely have had Parole hearings and his risk of serious harm would have been taken into account by the Parole Board. Plus his behaviour in Prison would form part of any risk assessment

Re MH treatment, it is generally inadequate in Prisons but there’s often too a refusal by people to engage with MH Services and Drug or Alcohol agencies

It is hard and the initial intention of the IPP sentences was undermined. But absolutely no one got an IPP for literally Theft of phone, I don’t believe

I watched the interview yesterday and thought it strange that the vicar mentioned that at trial the judge had said something about being a danger to the public and should not be released, seems now maybe the judge had good reason.
I'm not in favour of these sentences although admit to knowing little about them but I do wonder how those who have been unfairly treated under this rule could ever not end up with some sort of mental illness as a result. It seems little if any help given in prisons but such help outside also seems to be a real problem with people waiting years for treatment.

I later heard another view of the young man who stole the phone. The contributor on the radio said he had been part of an armed robbery gang. He said that armed robbery carries a possible life sentence. The man is now out and pursuing compensation.

Once you put someone in prison they're likely to be a financial cost to the taxpayer for the rest of their lives. Employers won't take them as long as they have an applicant who has not been in prison. So there is that to consider when convicting.

Thanks Luckygirl, I found it difficult to believe this man was given the indeterminate sentence because he stole a mobile.
The sentences were aimed at dangerous repeat offenders who posed a continued risk to others

What a mess our CJS is in, it took years of underfunding. Neglect, refusal to act in response to research for things to get so bad. There are no quick fixes but, that doesn’t mean Burnham’s government shouldn’t have short, medium, long term plans

It seems that this man has schizophrenia with marked paranoid features - so this is why he is not out in society as he has been assessed as a danger to the public, not because he stole a phone.

He would no doubt have been out a long time ago if he had not become a danger to the public.

Whether his incarceration in a prison is appropriate is very much open to question, but he is clearly deemed unsafe to be at large and there would be an outcry if he were let out to be a danger to everyone.

Hopefully Burnham's review of this type of sentence might see him accommodated and treated somewhere more appropriate for him.