To think the British justice system needs a slight tweak?

[Dranktoomuchpepsi]

Just that really. And the reason why is sentencing related, it doesn't make any sense. I'm not trying to be 'Goady' but genuinely can't understand the following facts -

Often you see reports of assault on people, police officers or even just women that are people's partners. The person carrying out these crimes often gets something like 2 years or less... Some even walk away with non custodial sentences if their isn't any proper damage.

Meanwhile, women who have committed benefit fraud whilst not physically touching a fly can get years

How does that work? Doesn't seem fair to me. Happy to link relevant cases if anyone needs but it's quite well reported

A slight tweak!!!!!!!. It needs a kick up the arse. Also not to mention all the dirty nonces that walk free. Then people wonder why there are vigilante groups.

I think overall men are actually more likely than women to receive a custodial sentence for equivalent offences: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571737/associations-between-sex-and-sentencing-to-prison.pdf

I do agree however that more needs to be done because BAME people are far more likely to get custodial sentences than white people for the same offences. There is clearly significant bias at play in sentencing (and probably all kinds of social factors playing into that as well that need addressed).

I did see a book a few months back in The Works book shop, titled something like secrets of British law etc. Had good reviews if I remember correctly

Have you read a book by the secret barrister 'the law and how its broken' v interesting as a way to understand the legal system

@Drank.

Yes it needs reform I agree, but your examples of women committing benefit fraud over assaults on police etc are not the norm. If Happened then isolated.

Assaults on police..2 months is exceptional except for CV related assaults such as spitting in fact

Risotto I think that might've been the book.

Marie it says ABH has a max sentence of 5 years in prison. Benefit fraud is 10 years i' some cases (those aren't even sentences that have happened, just the actual, official guidance)

ABH is actually fairly minor though. GBH has a maximum of life imprisonment

I actually think paedophile, rapists and murders should be removed from society completely.

It needs much more than a slight tweek.

It comes down to money and prison places. Men’s prisons are massively overcrowded so it’s getting harder and harder for them to be sentenced to prison. I worked in the CJS for years. An example is drug dealing, a few years back drug dealing was an automatic prison sentence. Now, unless someone is high up in the supply chain, it’s community service (or unpaid work as they call it now). Traditionally women’s prisons were not so overcrowded so they were more likely to get a prison sentence as there was space for them. It’s as simple (and ridiculous) as that. If you want the answer to anything, it boils down to money. The “cheapest” punishment is unpaid work. So thousands of people got sentenced to it. So much so that they were overwhelmed and many, many people got away with never doing any of it. People would be shocked if they knew the truth of it all. Not only does the punishment not fit the crime, half the time they don’t even serve the punishment.

zscaler
the study is so massively flawed I have to ask - what is it for? It compares non-alike crimes, it groups murder with common assault!

Men are more likely to be sent to prison for violent crimes because men are more likely to commit violent crimes.
Women are most likely to be sent to prison for shoplifting or non payment of TV licence, Council Tax, or a fine. The percentage of women in prison who are violent is so small, there are no Category A female prisons.

There absolutely are category A women prisoners, I take it you've never been to HMP Bronzefield? @Thelnebriati

I do however agree, that study is so flawed it's useless and yes couldn't females offenders are much rarer (I used to work with a high risk violent female cohort in a previous role and it was challenging to say the least)
There also seems to be a lot of confusion on here between sentencing and sentencing guidelines and the different variations within an offence type.

@Awwlookatmybabyspider
A slight tweak!!!!!!!. It needs a kick up the arse.
I am kinda with her!

People who commit fraud and other financial offences do seem to receive a disproportionately larger sentence, when compared with crimes of violence. I think it should be the other way round, or at least done a bit more equitably. Having said that, I do realise that crime and dodgy finances often go hand in hand.

The gangster Al Capone was finally caught for tax evasion I believe.

Hmm, while the penalty for financial crimes may be disproportionate, the types or prisons these offenders are sent to are vastly different to your standard criminals. I can’t remember the name offhand but there’s a women’s prison out in the countryside which is where a lot of the female fraudsters I worked with were sent. They described it as a beautiful country house, almost (not quite!) like a break in the Country side and plenty of activities. Even Holloway before it shut had a swimming pool and a beautiful garden, along with single person “cells” but more like your average student studio.

The men’s prisons were disgusting. Minimum 2 to a cell with the loo right next to the pillow of whoever was unfortunate enough to get the bottom bunk. But again fraudsters were sent to somewhat nicer accommodations.

@Dranktoomuchpepsi

OP. Maximum sentences are irrelevant. No one aside from the most exceptional cases get that. What matters is the sentencing guidelines and that is why women and benefit fraud rarely get any custodial sentence because of the circumstances of why they committed the fraud. Only the hardened offenders who did it for pure financial gain and not delegation tend to get sentenced

Marie I thought most people doing it would be for financial gain, no? I didn't think most of it was because they were being forced to by a partner

Benefit fraud is treated as a more serious offence because the victim is the rest of society - the people who pay taxes to support it, the people who genuinely need support but struggle because fraudsters make life that much more difficult (if every applicant were honest and genuine, the process could be a lot more straightforward).

I agree that it's ludicrous that someone can get a shorter term for assault or shoplifting - often just a fine or less - than offences where there is a less obvious victim like fraud. But the sentences for assault should be greater, not the fraud sentences reduced.

Personally I'd like to see a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Be convicted of any three offences and you are executed. I'd add a proviso that the subsequent offences would have to take place after conviction of the first offence, so people have a chance to change. Otherwise, life imprisonment without the chance of parole. (This wouldn't have to be prohibitively expensive; once you take away any chance of parole you no longer have to worry about reforming the prisoner or re-educating them, indeed you don't have to spend much on their personal safety. Lock all full life offenders up in a secure hall and let them sort themselves out! )

People Whilst true that society does pay for benefits through tax etc, I don't think it's like society is a victim in that sense. It is not as if everyone has had even £50 taken directly from their back pocket. In addition to that, more money goes unclaimed than is paid out under false claims

Most benefit fraud is typically claimants receiving benefit but not declaring a change in their circumstances, ie a partner moving in or it declaring earnings from a few hours a week.. they hardly ever get prosecuted but treated as an overpayment. When they are prosecuted then it is completely blatant fraud whereby the claimant set out to commit a fraud.

I did my masters dissertation on the criminal justice system and first thing I would do is get rid of the jury system and ensure a properly trained judiciary.

Yeah, I don't get the jury system. It makes no sense at all. Surely these random members of the public have their own personal bias in most circumstances, of which they aren't trained to professionally be aware of and as a result, not act upon?

I served twice in a jury. It in no way installed any confidence in me considering my peers sitting with me and their views