Prison sentences for rapists to be cut

[WickedViperWitch]

According to the Observer, story \link{http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1729136,00.html\here.} This is outrageuous, rape conviction rates are already laughably low. In fact, \link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,681599,00.html\why bother reporting it with such a low conviction rate?} Anyone want to join me in protesting about this and if so, where do you think we start? Writing to MPs? Can anyone find out if any group (rape crisis? I haven't read the whole article, maybe it's mentioned) already objecting to this and what they propose should be done? Because I feel furious at this.

yes they also suggest loweer sentences for Domstic violence convictions perhaps teh Minister for Women (is there still one) should be contacted

What is the logic behind this? I don't understand what the status of the SGC actually is ... if it's a guideline, are the judiciary obliged to follow it? Sounds very odd ...

Yes, I just read that, so men CONVICTED of domestic violence may escape prison if they convince the court they're 'capable of changing.' Right. So that's all right then.

How bl*dy ridiculous! Prison is "more demanding" now. So bl*dy what?? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

What a pathetic excuse. You poor, poor rapist. Don't worry. We know that prison is tough, so we really won't send you there for very long.

Perhaps they should consider publicising just how sh*tty life in prison is and then perhaps some men might think twice before raping a woman.

I suspect that the logic behind this is economic. Since the fifties, there has been an explosion of crime which just wasn't anticipated, and there just aren't enough prison spaces. You can deal with this in one of three ways:

1. Work towards crime prevention so that you don't need the prison spaces to begin with.
2. Build more prisons so that there are more spaces.
3. Prioritise certain criminal offences over others. Ensure that the ones which don't receive prison sentences or receive very short prison sentences, are the ones which are less of a priority than others.

Obviously, the government doesn't consider rape a huge priority.

was appalled by this story.

OK, the email addresses of the minsters for women at the women and equality unit are \link{http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/about/role.htm\here} I'm going to email them shortly. I've checked websites of rape crisis, womens aid and the sentencing guidline council and I can't find anything on this so I'm not sure what stage this is at.

Tessa Jowell's email is [email protected]

Well it isn't the prison sentences that should be cut, perhaps that would be the answer in the long run.

Snip snip, I'll volunteer with the scissors.

Just shows how rape isn't considered a crime really. And what will happen if they know they'll only get a couple of months?

Prison life is not that demanding from what I have seen!!! Bearing in mind I am a reasonably high security one too (have Cat A and lifers, as well as Cat C).

My impression of prison is;

Free board and lodgings, free food and drink, free tv, free electric..think you get the idea.

Old age pensioners in this country have to pay for a TV liscence, probably there only entertainment.
Well at least if they dont pay their council tax they will be better off in prison!

Dont see prison as a punishment for rape, can think of a much better one

And better food budget than we give to the school children. Makes me sick.

Agree jellybelly.

Wish they would stop force feeding Ian bradey too. But thats another story...hate this subject just makes me sooo

OOPS! Sorry jellyjelly, Im sure you don't have a jelly belly!

the only thing that should be cut in their damn balls, cut clean off and the rapists thrown on an island far far away

Here's the reply I got to my email to Tessa Jowell:

Your emailed enquiry to Tessa Jowell has been passed to the Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat for reply; this unit provides administrative support for the Sentencing Guidelines Council, an independent non-departmental advisory body that is responsible for creating sentencing guidelines for use in the courts of England and Wales.

The article which appeared in the Sunday Observer and was subsequently picked up by other newspapers and the media appears to have been based largely on speculation about the content of draft sentencing guidelines for the offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which are due to be published by the Sentencing Guidelines Council sometime in the next few months.

The 15% reduction in sentence lengths that has been referred to in the media was included in the Council guideline New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003, published in December 2004. Amongst other things, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 changed the way in which custodial sentences of 12 months or more operate and the Council took the view that such sentences would be more onerous than those imposed under the previous legislation. Until such time as the Council has published definitive sentencing guidelines based on the new sentencing framework for a particular criminal offence, the courts will continue to be guided by case law and Court of Appeal judgments that were based on the previous framework. To allow for this, the Council guideline states that, when a court is thinking of imposing a custodial sentence of 12 months or more and is referring to guidance based on the previous sentencing framework, it should consider reducing the overall length of the sentence by "in the region of 15%", to reflect the more onerous nature of the new sentences.

It is important to note that the Council guideline made it clear that this was to be a purely temporary measure. Council guidelines published since the new sentencing framework came into force in April 2005 are based on that new framework and there is no need for a reduction to be considered.

The draft guidelines on sentencing for sexual offences, which will take full account of the new sentencing framework, will be published on the Council's website (www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk) in due course. Anyone may comment on the draft guidelines, within the timescale allowed for consultation, by sending comments to [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Gareth Sweny

Sentencing Guidelines Secretariat

The basis of how we lock up scum like this is basically flawed. The government releases people who re-offend. If you were a factory and you knowingly released toxic waste that hurt people, you could be sued big time.

The government releases offenders because it's cheaper to do this. You can call it lower tariffs or probation, but the bottom line is they are back on the streets.
Spending upon rehabilitation is pitiful, and a huge % of those in jail can't read or write properly.

A better scheme would be to balance the cost savings to the government with direct measurable costs from compensating people they let out.

At present there is this notion of "acceptable risk", which is just stupid.
We have good statistics on reoffending.
So here's a question for everyone.
Say it cost 250,000 quid to keep a rapist locked up until he was to old be be a threat.
What would you say was an "acceptable" % chance of him raping someone else to save that money ?

How bout we make the rapist earn his keep while he's in jail? Put them to work doing things the government otherwise has to pay for, like making license plates (or hey ID cards even).

I absolutely agree they should work. A huge factor in reoffending is lack of any other way of earning money when let out. Of course in the specific case of sex criminals, that's less of an issue.

Although ID cards of course are to be given to a whichever large US outfit that happens to have given money to the party which wins the next election.

Actually, here's a good one. Given the cost of ID cards which is better: Giving Osama his own fully armed fighter bomber to bomb London every couple of years, or the economic impact of ID cards ?

On this topic just read disturbing article in the mirror about charges not being bought agains a 13 year old who raped a 4 year old. :( link{http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16846534%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=13%2dyr%2dold%2drapist%2din%2d%2dlet%2doff%2d%2d-name_page.html\here}

sorry \link{http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16846534%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=13%2dyr%2dold%2drapist%2din%2d%2dlet%2doff%2d%2d-name_page.html\here}