To resent tax money being spent on extravagant prison sentences?

[Ryuk]

Prison is expensive. Am I being unreasonable to be angry that people involved in the riots in non-violent ways (theft, for example) are being given prison sentences instead of community service cleaning up the debris and working with those made homeless?

[Tortington]

ah but what you are not factoring is the knock on effect this will have to those feckless unemployed people (single mothers and chavs and hoodies, and benefit claimants and erm... young people oh and young black people inparticular) that if they should riot again in future, we will ignore the law and take encouragement to dole out sentencing as we see fit.

we can always let some burglers out if it gets a bit cramped, someone who assaulted, ooh mayeb a rapist or two - i mean thats not even a real crime really is it - not like crime against property.

i mean non of these benefit claiming scum actually vote do they - they certainly aren't wealthy enough to contribute to any particular party, we shouldnt pander to them - but business owners well they do contribute to politics, their kids go to school with politicians kids, they contrivbute to party fundraisers etc. we need business owners to have confidence in the tories

[squeakytoy]

No, YANBU at all, and I agree that a far more fitting punishment for those convicted would be community service.

I do wonder why it has been so easy to dish out severe sentences to some of these people, in comparison to the "punishment" given to those who have committed much more serious crimes, ie rape, stabbing, sexual offences...

What sort of fucked up system do we have, where some idiot posts on his facebook about starting a riot, gets 4 years, and a man who allowed a toddler to be systematically beaten to death gets less.

[said]

How did the 4 year sentences happen? What have they been convicted under that allows that tariff?

[HarrietSchulenberg]

Agree. These sentences are obviously excessive knee jerk reactions aimed at setting examples and making the justice system appear steely.

The victims of looting are, as tax payers, paying for the looters to be incarcerated, so effectively they're being shafted twice.

Majority of 'em will be released very early, quietly and without fuss, possibly on appeal.

[reelingintheyears]

Everyone deserves a second chance...

Call me Dave even said so himself...

Community service seems to me to be far more worthwhile.

Unless the crime was of a violent nature.

[debivamp]

Totally agree with reeling - it costs the taxpayer £35k per year to keep someone in prison.

[organicgardener]

If it costs 35k a year they're paying someone too much to do the job and I know it isn't PO's.

Even the kitchens run on inmate labour.

[LineRunner]

Most of these sentences will be reduced on appeal.

[Andrewofgg]

Cleaning up the debris means depriving somebody else of paid work.

"Working with those made homeless" - sounds all fluffy and lovely, but they might not be the most welcome of people around their victims. And there might be problems with CRB . . .

These sentences ahve to reflect that it was mass offending. If you steal from a shop that has been broken into and burnt down you are not jsut a shoplifter - you are party to the arson.

[Ryuk]

"Cleaning up the debris means depriving somebody else of paid work." - Pay the 'someone else' as if they were doing all of it, get community service people to help anyway.

""Working with those made homeless" - sounds all fluffy and lovely, but they might not be the most welcome of people around their victims. " - I'm sure the leisure centres etc they're staying in need plenty of cleaners, people making food, carrying stuff etc, and I suspect it's already being done by volunteers in the first place.

/shrug alternately find something else for them to do. I don't feel that I should 'have' to watch so much of my tax money going to looking after people in prison who could be looking after themselves.