Rape issue aside - what do we think of Clarkes proposal to cut sentances for early guilty plea's?

[Mamaz0n]

Because i was watching QT last night and was getting increasingly angry at how much utter tosh he was talking.

I am very much against the idea but i know a lot who agree it is a good idea.

what do you think?

I'm very much against the idea

power to decide on the length of sentence for a hate crime?

the law would surely then be an ass. a bloody big stupid one where rapists can further their nasty power trip not only in the court room but now in prison too?

makes me heave tbh

I think it very much depends on whether you think that prison is either:

a) a punishment which should act as a deterrant and/or encourage rehabilitation in the offender;

or

b) a public demonstration of a punishment which has little or no effect on the prisoner's likelihood to reoffend.

Given that prison sentences in this country tend to function as b) and since it is incredibly costly to imprison someone (something like £30,000 a year, I think - perhaps more), then, frankly, I'm not surprised the government is considering this.

But it is a false economy. I too believe this is cost cutting only.

It is impossible to rehabilitate someone with less than 6 months sentence. It just isn't viable cost or time wise.

By having sentences cut to 3 months or whatever is A) not a deterant and B) doesn't allow for rehabilitation.

Prison is incredibly expensive and shorter sentences lead to greater re offending rates. To give longer sentences would be more of a deterent, which would help offending rates. It would allow for better rehabilitation which would help reduce re offending rates.

I got annoyed at Clarke trying to say it was to help victims. that is rubbish! Every victim wants justice. a minimal sentence is nothing like justice.

And as for his claim that it would free up police time and money, errrrr how? Police are involved in teh investigation and charge. until that point the criminal is not required to make a guilty plea. From teh moment the police make a formal charge then that is their time spent.
There is no money from their budget spent whether the criminal pleads guilty or not.

He was totally misleading in his claims

Also we already DO give a "discount" of sentences to those who make a "timely" guilty plea.

I am pretty sure someone said that there was research to sugggest that there has been no increase in guilty plea's due to this offered discount.

Grrr realised the typo in the title.

I think it is frightening people away.

There is money spent from the budget if the criminal pleads innocent. You've got court costs, lawyers, juries, witnesses such as police, experts etc. having to set aside time to make an appearance in court... and you can be sitting around all day waiting to say something that only takes a few minutes. It is very time-consuming and also expensive to have officers off the street and sitting in waiting rooms.

Look at the Milly Dowler case for example. The accused is already serving a long sentence so reduction of sentence is immaterial. But the trial has been going on all week, involving a great many people including police, and the family are going through the mill reliving every horrible detail. If Bellfield had pleaded 'guilty' none of that would be happening

I support the idea in principle.

Depends how long the sentence is to start with, and how long its being cut to. Prison sentences (and prison conditions for that matter) in this country are a joke.

The discount on the tariff already exists and the previous administration set it at one-third. This consultation is about whether to increase it to a half.

There doesn't seem to be any hard evidence on whether this does increase the number of early guilty pleas, so it's far from clear whether there is any reduction in prosecution and court times, or impact of victims or witnesses.

I'd like to see the sentence handed down being the time to be served. This could be increased for those who initially pleaded "not guilty" (at judge's discretion, depending on whether verdict was unanimous and generally on the conduct of the defence). Also early release on parole could also be abolished - instead sentences should be extended for misconduct.

This would give victims and the public some confidence that someone sentenced to four years would actually serve about four years, not roughly half that.

medtrina - they are my proposals also

Unfortunately the furore around Clarke means the whole subject of rape law reform will now be kicked into the long grass for the rest of this parliament, as no politician will want to touch it for fear of saying the wrong thing.

Suzanne Moore's piece in the Guardian makes some really good points about this case, especially on the hypocrisy of Clarke's born-again "feminist" critics:

I've been raped, but I still agree with Ken Clarke