Westfield Stratford has been evacuated due to a suspect package... Corals offices are there and it's rumoured that the alarm was triggered when someone laid £200 at even money without referring to a trader
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
Some people only serve a quarter of their sentence.
The other reason is 4) History has shown you shouldn't put criminals with other criminals for a prolonged time.
"South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright has resigned over the Rotherham child abuse scandal.
Mr Wright faced repeated calls to step down in the wake of a report which found at least 1,400 children were abused in the town from 1997 to 2013."
What price the first UKIP PCC in the by-election? Somehow I suspect turnout may be better than in the West Midlands.
I think this one is UKIP's to lose.
Alternative for Germany just made huge gains in the German state elections on a law & order platform. Meanwhile UKIP get around 25% of the public saying they have the best policies on Europe and immigration, but just 5% say they do on crime and antisocial behaviour. UKIP are missing a serious trick here: it's an issue they can hammer the other three parties on, and would unite the rural ex-Tory and WWC ex-Labour parts of the party.
Mr. Socrates, I agree that there is a big link between the rural (and small town) ex-Conservative voter and the urban WWC and UKIP need to exploit this as no other party seems to give a toss about either group. However, getting sensible policies on crime and antisocial behaviour is not something to be rushed.
A start could of course be made by looking again at the "Honest Sentences" the Conservatives were keen on in opposition but seemed to drop immediately they took power. Fleshing out the role of the police and crime commissioners might be another fruitful area.
There's some common sense things that could be brought in: (1) abolition of concurrent sentences, (2) minimum sentences (3) increasing the sentence for child rape aggravated by violence to 50 years.
The problem with minimum sentences is that juries will often acquit if they think the mandatory is too high for a particular case. Judges will get called in front on the Lord Chancellor if their sentences depart from guidelines too often. Maybe we should tighten that up, rather than remove all discretion from them.
I also think the victim of a crime should have a lot more input into the sentencing.
So, I'll spend less time in prison if I kill a homeless, friendless person?
Also if you assault a Christian. They'll be more inclined to turn the other cheek.
But the same can certainly not be said of Cameron ...... so Dave, just why were you so generous at the expense of the English taxpayer, I think we should be told.
Whatever is offered in a trice and delivered by an Act can, of course, be withdrawn in a trice and removed as a paragraph of another Act. At some point Barnett will die. Just not yet.
For "at some point", read "at some point in the unforeseeable future". The whole thing's a sham and a disgrace and politicians know it.
"South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright has resigned over the Rotherham child abuse scandal.
Mr Wright faced repeated calls to step down in the wake of a report which found at least 1,400 children were abused in the town from 1997 to 2013."
What price the first UKIP PCC in the by-election? Somehow I suspect turnout may be better than in the West Midlands.
I think this one is UKIP's to lose.
Alternative for Germany just made huge gains in the German state elections on a law & order platform. Meanwhile UKIP get around 25% of the public saying they have the best policies on Europe and immigration, but just 5% say they do on crime and antisocial behaviour. UKIP are missing a serious trick here: it's an issue they can hammer the other three parties on, and would unite the rural ex-Tory and WWC ex-Labour parts of the party.
Mr. Socrates,me commissioners might be another fruitful area.
There's some common sense things that could be brought in: (1) abolition of concurrent sentences, (2) minimum sentences (3) increasing the sentence for child rape aggravated by violence to 50 years.
The pr.
I also think the victim of a crime should have a lot more input into the sentencing.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Relaxing the rather precious rules about segregating sex offenders in prison would have a beneficial effect.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
In recent cases I've been involved with the Judge has sentenced to x years then immediately said they will serve half that time. So your point 3 is largely irrelevant. Points 1 & 2 I can see. It would be better to say you will be sentenced to x years/months and that's it, even if x is the shorter time. At the moment the public reads of some awful criminal being given a sentence of so many years (which may even seem too little) and then learns that they won't even serve that.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
Some people only serve a quarter of their sentence.
The other reason is 4) History has shown you shouldn't put criminals with other criminals for a prolonged time.
You new avatar looks a bit like those used for banned users.
For a moment, I wondered what on earth you had done...
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
Then please explain why under John Major they implemented changes to the Sentencing regime which doubled the prison population vastly increasing the demand for Prisons
There is a clear correlation between the legislation which increased Prisoner remission from one third to one half to the rapid rise in Prison population and consequent need to build more Prisons.
This has nothing to do with practicalities or economies it has to do with liberal sentencing dogma and pandering to the private prison suppliers who have now got the government by the short and curlies.
Shortening the effective length sentences has only increased the turnover of convicts through the system. Ironically this in turn has reduced the opportunities for rehabilitation because we cannot afford the vast army of Probation officers and social workers needed to rehabilitate criminals in the community. They can't even run home detention competently
PS And one third remission or less was more than adequate as a control for Prison Governors over inmate behaviour for many decades. The problem is the Prison Service has gone soft!
But the same can certainly not be said of Cameron ...... so Dave, just why were you so generous at the expense of the English taxpayer, I think we should be told.
Whatever is offered in a trice and delivered by an Act can, of course, be withdrawn in a trice and removed as a paragraph of another Act. At some point Barnett will die. Just not yet.
It's also in the Tories interest to match the other's offer.
If they offer less then they will be portrayed as "anti-Scottish". Unreasonable, and unfair, but I doubt it will shift many votes (apart from @FattyBolger's) in the UK
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
In recent cases I've been involved with the Judge has sentenced to x years then immediately said they will serve half that time. So your point 3 is largely irrelevant. Points 1 & 2 I can see. It would be better to say you will be sentenced to x years/months and that's it, even if x is the shorter time. At the moment the public reads of some awful criminal being given a sentence of so many years (which may even seem too little) and then learns that they won't even serve that.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
Point 3 does apply to prisoners sentenced to less than four years.
Prison Governors use good intimate behaviour as criteria when deciding if a prison should get HDC/Tagging, which they are eligible for in a lot of circumstances a quarter of the way through their sentence.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
Presumably it is better than sentencing him or her to 3 years because you then have the option of monitoring his or her behaviour for a further 4 years during which time they are also bound to good behaviour under threat of an immediate return to prison.
But the same can certainly not be said of Cameron ...... so Dave, just why were you so generous at the expense of the English taxpayer, I think we should be told.
Whatever is offered in a trice and delivered by an Act can, of course, be withdrawn in a trice and removed as a paragraph of another Act. At some point Barnett will die. Just not yet.
For "some point", read "at some point in the unforeseeable future". The whole thing's a sham and a disgrace and politicians know it.
Yep: our political class are demonstrating how easy it is to be charitable with other people's money.
We've constantly been told by the Scot Nats that Scotland gives more than it gets, is - or can be - a wealthy country etc etc. If so, no reason for the rest of us to give it any more money. Bribing someone to stay is not a recipe for a happy long-term relationship.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
In recent cases I've been involved with the Judge has sentenced to x years then immediately said they will serve half that time. So your point 3 is largely irrelevant. Points 1 & 2 I can see. It would be better to say you will be sentenced to x years/months and that's it, even if x is the shorter time. At the moment the public reads of some awful criminal being given a sentence of so many years (which may even seem too little) and then learns that they won't even serve that.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
Point 3 does apply to prisoners sentenced to less than four years.
Prisoner Governors use good intimate behaviour as criteria when deciding if a prison should get HDC/Tagging, which they are eligible for in a lot of circumstances a quarter of the way through their sentence.
You mean, in the showers? (Sorry, couldn't resist ...)
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
But the same can certainly not be said of Cameron ...... so Dave, just why were you so generous at the expense of the English taxpayer, I think we should be told.
Whatever is offered in a trice and delivered by an Act can, of course, be withdrawn in a trice and removed as a paragraph of another Act. At some point Barnett will die. Just not yet.
It's also in the Tories interest to match the other's offer.
If they offer less then they will be portrayed as "anti-Scottish". Unreasonable, and unfair, but I doubt it will shift many votes (apart from @FattyBolger's) in the UK
Perhaps, just for once, Dave (and the other party leaders) should think about what's fair for English voters and English taxpayers.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
In recent cases I've been involved with the Judge has sentenced to x years then immediately said they will serve half that time. So your point 3 is largely irrelevant. Points 1 & 2 I can see. It would be better to say you will be sentenced to x years/months and that's it, even if x is the shorter time. At the moment the public reads of some awful criminal being given a sentence of so many years (which may even seem too little) and then learns that they won't even serve that.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
It incentivises pleading guilty at an early stage in the judicial process.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
Some people only serve a quarter of their sentence.
The other reason is 4) History has shown you shouldn't put criminals with other criminals for a prolonged time.
The job of the criminal justice system is to:
1. Minimise crime at 2. Acceptable cost while 3. Maximising the number of productive people in society and 4. Avoiding punishing the wrong people
This seems to be exactly the kind problem that can be attacked empirically. Try different jail types, see if they change re-offending rates. Try different sentance lengths in Scotland and see if they affect offending rates relative to the rest of the UK - if they work, roll them out nationwide, if they don't, roll them back. Try "x strikes" in London, and see if the additional cost of incarceration and legal issues results in a sufficient drop in crimes to make it worthwhile. (Clearly zero crime is the ideal situation, but if that comes at the cost of us paying 60% tax to keep 20% of the population locked up, then trade offs need to be made.)
Let's not be dogmatic: let's try stuff and see what works.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
Presumably it is better than sentencing him or her to 3 years because you then have the option of monitoring his or her behaviour for a further 4 years during which time they are also bound to good behaviour under threat of an immediate return to prison.
Yes - there is that. But the deception involved in the original sentencing is, I think, corrosive of trust in the system and that needs to be addressed in some way.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
Some people only serve a quarter of their sentence.
The other reason is 4) History has shown you shouldn't put criminals with other criminals for a prolonged time.
You new avatar looks a bit like those used for banned users.
For a moment, I wondered what on earth you had done...
Slagged off Burnley and prematurely published an embargoed poll.
Interesting piece from LPW - which has a fascinating graph (from another source) showing various devo-more options, and how miserable the current ones are.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
Some people only serve a quarter of their sentence.
The other reason is 4) History has shown you shouldn't put criminals with other criminals for a prolonged time.
The job of the criminal justice system is to:
1. Minimise crime at 2. Acceptable cost while 3. Maximising the number of productive people in society and 4. Avoiding punishing the wrong people
This seems to be exactly the kind problem that can be attacked empirically. Try different jail types, see if they change re-offending rates. Try different sentance lengths in Scotland and see if they affect offending rates relative to the rest of the UK - if they work, roll them out nationwide, if they don't, roll them back. Try "x strikes" in London, and see if the additional cost of incarceration and legal issues results in a sufficient drop in crimes to make it worthwhile. (Clearly zero crime is the ideal situation, but if that comes at the cost of us paying 60% tax to keep 20% of the population locked up, then trade offs need to be made.)
Let's not be dogmatic: let's try stuff and see what works.
This is from the ACLU a decade ago on why three strikes laws are bad, note number 7, and well trying out in London....
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
Alternative for Germany just made huge gains in the German state elections on a law & order platform. Meanwhile UKIP get around 25% of the public saying they have the best policies on Europe and immigration, but just 5% say they do on crime and antisocial behaviour. UKIP are missing a serious trick here: it's an issue they can hammer the other three parties on, and would unite the rural ex-Tory and WWC ex-Labour parts of the party.
Mr. Socrates, I agree that there is a big link between the rural (and small town) ex-Conservative voter and the urban WWC and UKIP need to exploit this as no other party seems to give a toss about either group. However, getting sensible policies on crime and antisocial behaviour is not something to be rushed.
A start could of course be made by looking again at the "Honest Sentences" the Conservatives were keen on in opposition but seemed to drop immediately they took power. Fleshing out the role of the police and crime commissioners might be another fruitful area.
There's some common sense things that could be brought in: (1) abolition of concurrent sentences, (2) minimum sentences (3) increasing the sentence for child rape aggravated by violence to 50 years.
The problem with minimum sentences is that juries will often acquit if they think the mandatory is too high for a particular case. Judges will get called in front on the Lord Chancellor if their sentences depart from guidelines too often. Maybe we should tighten that up, rather than remove all discretion from them.
I also think the victim of a crime should have a lot more input into the sentencing.
So, I'll spend less time in prison if I kill a homeless, friendless person?
Either everyone counts or no-one counts. (H/t Harry Bosch)
It is for judges to maintain consistency between cases. But the general widespread input of victims directly to their face, rather than via statistical reports presented by bureaucrats, should get rid of their stupid lenient streak.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
My forecast for Thursday is what it has always been: No between 60% and 66%, and I very much doubt even Dundee will vote 'yes'.
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
I hope so. If only so I can go to bed and sleep well rather than sitting up all night on tenterhooks
Yep: our political class are demonstrating how easy it is to be charitable with other people's money.
If England does explode with fury after a no vote over the concessions given to Scotland, that suits Cameron much better than it does the other two main party leaders. Especially Ed. For him its a complete nightmare.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
Presumably it is better than sentencing him or her to 3 years because you then have the option of monitoring his or her behaviour for a further 4 years during which time they are also bound to good behaviour under threat of an immediate return to prison.
Yes - there is that. But the deception involved in the original sentencing is, I think, corrosive of trust in the system and that needs to be addressed in some way.
I'm not sure that there is deception, just mis-understanding on behalf of the public. Would it be better to say 'I sentence you to a jail term of 3 years, to be followed by a behaviour term of 4 years'. It is the same thing, but expressed differently.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
"Likely No" is a very reserved term. I would use "100% Guaranteed Nailed On No". If Borders or D&G vote Yes then the referendum is over. As would be ComRes's reputation a a pollster.
Minimum sentences removes power from judges and hands it to politicians. I don't think the judiciary is perfect by any means but they should not be depowered like that.
Mandatory sentencing and minimum sentencing are different things.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
It would be better if convicted criminals actually served the sentence they were given, instead of - usually - half. Why did the Tories ditch honesty in sentencing?
Well, it's worth remembering *why* people often serve only half their their time:
1. Politicians don't like building new jails. It's expensive and the locals usually don't like it. 2. When all government departments need to save money, letting out people a little earlier is an easy option. 3. Prison governors like having a tool to manage inmate behaviour: behave well and you'll get time off. (Giving prisoners extra time in prison requires them to commit a crime and to go through the whole trial thing...)
Some people only serve a quarter of their sentence.
The other reason is 4) History has shown you shouldn't put criminals with other criminals for a prolonged time.
The job of the criminal justice system is to:
1. Minimise crime at 2. Acceptable cost while 3. Maximising the number of productive people in society and 4. Avoiding punishing the wrong people
This seems to be exactly the kind problem that can be attacked empirically. Try different jail types, see if they change re-offending rates. Try different sentance lengths in Scotland and see if they affect offending rates relative to the rest of the UK - if they work, roll them out nationwide, if they don't, roll them back. Try "x strikes" in London, and see if the additional cost of incarceration and legal issues results in a sufficient drop in crimes to make it worthwhile. (Clearly zero crime is the ideal situation, but if that comes at the cost of us paying 60% tax to keep 20% of the population locked up, then trade offs need to be made.)
Let's not be dogmatic: let's try stuff and see what works.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century. the Prison population is double what it was 25 years ago. Based on the criteria you set out the Criminal Justice System is failing like it has never failed before.......
You forgot another criteria: adequately punish wrong-doers so people feel they live in a fair society.
I'm sorry, that's not a criteria.
If it turned out that taking prisoners surfing in Hawaii led to a 0% reoffending rate, it would be the right thing to do, even though it would offend your principles.
The sole job of the criminal justice system to minimise lawlessness at acceptable cost.
It is worth remembering that one of the consequences of any x strikes system is that nobody would ever plead guilty to the xth offence. This would have two consequences : the legal system would become slower and more expensive (especially as we would end up with jury rather than magistrate trials) and there would be lots of creative efforts by the police and the cps to subvert the system. (plead guilty to some different offence to avoid getting your xth offence in a category... Which the police would encourage because losing a policeman for two days for a jury trial is incredibly expensive)
You could still get the normal third off for pleading guilty. It would just be a third off a much longer sentence. A good x strikes sentencing system would also apply to all crimes above a certain seriousness, so none of this category nonsense.
But the same can certainly not be said of Cameron ...... so Dave, just why were you so generous at the expense of the English taxpayer, I think we should be told.
Whatever is offered in a trice and delivered by an Act can, of course, be withdrawn in a trice and removed as a paragraph of another Act. At some point Barnett will die. Just not yet.
It's also in the Tories interest to match the other's offer.
If they offer less then they will be portrayed as "anti-Scottish". Unreasonable, and unfair, but I doubt it will shift many votes (apart from @FattyBolger's) in the UK
Perhaps, just for once, Dave (and the other party leaders) should think about what's fair for English voters and English taxpayers.
And that should happen in the form of a constitutional convention.
There are going to be big changes and they need to be thought through in detail.
But do I care about some politician making promises? Nah. They're not going to keep them anyway. And even if they did someone would accuse them of breaking them.
Let's not be dogmatic: let's try stuff and see what works.
One of the great social experiments that I'm interested to see the results of is Utah's "Give Homes to the Homeless" strategy. They did the sums and they reckon the cost to the system of homelessness is more than simply giving the homeless a flat and a regular social worker.
I've given Utah a lot of shit over the years but this is breathtaking in it's simplicity and utilitarian elegance. It may work, it may not but you've got to applaud them for trying such a bold move.
You forgot another criteria: adequately punish wrong-doers so people feel they live in a fair society.
I'm sorry, that's not a criteria.
If it turned out that taking prisoners surfing in Hawaii led to a 0% reoffending rate, it would be the right thing to do, even though it would offend your principles.
The sole job of the criminal justice system to minimise lawlessness at acceptable cost.
Your example is trite because I'm not arguing that my criteria should override all others. Just that it be factored in. You have been tremendously rewarded in life so you have absolutely no idea about how soul-destroying it can be for millions of law abiding people who struggle day-in, day-out, resisting the temptation to break the rules because of their principles only for thugs and thieves to be afforded nice little holiday camps and arranged jobs. Fairness is the life-blood of any sustainable society, and you're too out of touch to even see it.
Yep: our political class are demonstrating how easy it is to be charitable with other people's money.
If England does explode with fury after a no vote over the concessions given to Scotland, that suits Cameron much better than it does the other two main party leaders. Especially Ed. For him its a complete nightmare.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
For those PB unionists who now feel a Yes vote is less risky than a No one - Eric Joyce now almost agrees (with one of his articles that have considerably impressed me in recent years).
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Yep: our political class are demonstrating how easy it is to be charitable with other people's money.
If England does explode with fury after a no vote over the concessions given to Scotland, that suits Cameron much better than it does the other two main party leaders. Especially Ed. For him its a complete nightmare.
UKIP could do the hat-trick in upcoming elections in Clacton, Heywood&Middleton and South Yorkshire thanks to that fury.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Indeed from the point when they abolished the death penalty and introduced remission (1967 CJA) there is a clear correlation between the liberalisation of sentencing policy and the rise in crime that has so far put two generations through unprecedented levels of risk and cost for the sake of 'academic social experimentation'.
I suspect the ending of conscription also contributed to it as well.
You forgot another criteria: adequately punish wrong-doers so people feel they live in a fair society.
I'm sorry, that's not a criteria.
If it turned out that taking prisoners surfing in Hawaii led to a 0% reoffending rate, it would be the right thing to do, even though it would offend your principles.
The sole job of the criminal justice system to minimise lawlessness at acceptable cost.
Your example is trite because I'm not arguing that my criteria should override all others. Just that it be factored in. You have been tremendously rewarded in life so you have absolutely no idea about how soul-destroying it can be for millions of law abiding people who struggle day-in, day-out, resisting the temptation to break the rules because of their principles only for thugs and thieves to be afforded nice little holiday camps and arranged jobs. Fairness is the life-blood of any sustainable society, and you're too out of touch to even see it.
This discussion brings me back to one the main issues that we appear to have in the criminal justice system - the conflation of 'justice' and 'rehabilitation'. These should be separated in my view, so that someone is punished for wrong-doing, and then rehabilitated and re-integrated into society. That means that if the Hawaii surfing trip is value for money in terms of rehabilitation then it should be done, but after 5 years (or whatever) inside. It is the same principle as used with children - they sit on the naughty step, and only when they are finished do we have a conversation about how I do still love them and what we can do together to stop them doing it again.
Cameron probably knows his party will not countenance this deal. When the powers aren't forthcoming and Scotland is disappointed he has nothing to lose. He has very little skin in this game.
Cameron signing his "vow" makes it much more likely he will get given the boot by Tory MP's. Politically for the Tories, they can do what they want to Scotland if its a "No" as it makes no difference to their seats.
So a new leader can say "Cameron signed it without party agreement, Barnett goes". Much harder for Dave.
Only works for him if uses it as part of moving to English MP's only on English issues. Otherwise he's toast.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Would this be recorded crime rates?
(I.e. coming with a shedload of caveats?)
All statistics come with caveats. The question is whether you factor those caveats into your conclusions, or you use them as an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you", because the likely conclusions are ones that clash with your ideology.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Indeed from the point when they abolished the death penalty and introduced remission (1967 CJA) there is a clear correlation between the liberalisation of sentencing policy and the rise in crime that has so far put two generations through unprecedented levels of risk and cost for the sake of 'academic social experimentation'.
I suspect the ending of conscription also contributed to it as well.
Recorded crime caveats surely?
Also if we're talking correlations, wasn't that also around the time they criminalised drugs?
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century. the Prison population is double what it was 25 years ago. Based on the criteria you set out the Criminal Justice System is failing like it has never failed before.......
Sure, that's part of it; I'm merely pointing out that this is an area where we can use evidence to make judgements, and not hunches and principles.
As an aside: I'd point out that there are reasons beyond the criminal justice system for higher crime rate. Like:
1. Lots more things are illegal now than were illegal then! In the 19th Century I could smoke opium or snort cocaine. Now I can't. (And remember a substantial portion of inmates are there for drug offences). And domestic violence used to never result in prosecutions, it does now.
2. We have a tax and benefit system that discourages work. And people who don't work are more likely to commit crimes.
3. Our education system has created a class of people who are unemployable.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Indeed from the point when they abolished the death penalty and introduced remission (1967 CJA) there is a clear correlation between the liberalisation of sentencing policy and the rise in crime that has so far put two generations through unprecedented levels of risk and cost for the sake of 'academic social experimentation'.
I suspect the ending of conscription also contributed to it as well.
Recorded crime caveats surely?
Also if we're talking correlations, wasn't that also around the time they criminalised drugs?
The pattern occurs across most offences, including murder rates.
For those PB unionists who now feel a Yes vote is less risky than a No one - Eric Joyce now almost agrees (with one of his articles that have considerably impressed me in recent years).
It's never wise to disagree with Eric Joyce. He might just thump you.
For those PB unionists who now feel a Yes vote is less risky than a No one - Eric Joyce now almost agrees (with one of his articles that have considerably impressed me in recent years).
The No campaign has been driven to desperation because the Labour Party (Over 90% of Scottish Tories will vote No) has given too little priority to the politics of Scotland. While some SNP supporters will vote No, many more Labour supporters (up to a third) are saying they will vote Yes. The last-minute devolution package is therefore aimed at one group – Labour voters who intend to vote Yes. Jim Murphy, perhaps the most obvious person to lead the party Scotland, and his many talented colleagues presently based at Westminster might be able to save the union after a No vote if they move en masse, and immediately, to Holyrood. But reason tells me that the odds would still be very much against them.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Would this be recorded crime rates?
(I.e. coming with a shedload of caveats?)
All statistics come with caveats. The question is whether you factor those caveats into your conclusions, or you use them as an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you", because the likely conclusions are ones that clash with your ideology.
Excellent, do you have any kind of analysis on the effect of increased reporting on recorded crime figures?
Or are you just saying you're factoring it in when you're actually ignoring it.
Cameron probably knows his party will not countenance this deal. When the powers aren't forthcoming and Scotland is disappointed he has nothing to lose. He has very little skin in this game.
Ed has plenty.
Here's hoping Cameron follows the lead of his new mentor, Big Gordie, and does a Lisbon and complete ignores what he's previously committed to. Somehow doubt he's got the balls.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century. the Prison population is double what it was 25 years ago. Based on the criteria you set out the Criminal Justice System is failing like it has never failed before.......
Sure, that's part of it; I'm merely pointing out that this is an area where we can use evidence to make judgements, and not hunches and principles.
As an aside: I'd point out that there are reasons beyond the criminal justice system for higher crime rate. Like:
1. Lots more things are illegal now than were illegal then! In the 19th Century I could smoke opium or snort cocaine. Now I can't. (And remember a substantial portion of inmates are there for drug offences). And domestic violence used to never result in prosecutions, it does now.
2. We have a tax and benefit system that discourages work. And people who don't work are more likely to commit crimes.
3. Our education system has created a class of people who are unemployable.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
The highest recorded police crime rates were under New Labour. They peaked around 2004-2005 (after Labour had taken 25,000 police off the streets). Labour put them back again rather quickly!
Of course its hard to know what the crime rates are now because a) Police Constabularies have been found to be doctoring the figures and b) creative accounting has been used to manipulate the Fraud and Internet Crime figures so that if 100 thousand e-bay customers are defrauded that could be recorded as a single crime (whereas before it would have been 100,000 individual crimes) and the whole thing has been hived off into a separate set of statistics under the auspices of a new separate Fraud organisation.
If England does explode with fury after a no vote over the concessions given to Scotland, that suits Cameron much better than it does the other two main party leaders. Especially Ed. For him its a complete nightmare.
I wouldn't be too sure- Cameron will have the Kippers at his heels. Fortunately they never never ever say anything disobliging about "foreigners"....
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Would this be recorded crime rates?
(I.e. coming with a shedload of caveats?)
All statistics come with caveats. The question is whether you factor those caveats into your conclusions, or you use them as an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you", because the likely conclusions are ones that clash with your ideology.
Excellent, do you have any kind of analysis on the effect of increased reporting on recorded crime figures?
Or are you just saying you're factoring it in when you're actually ignoring it.
I'm factoring in the caveats based on my own judgment, as I'm sure you do on a hundred other issues. If you have some evidence or argument that certain caveats here are likely to be especially big, I'm happy to modify my opinions.
Cameron probably knows his party will not countenance this deal. When the powers aren't forthcoming and Scotland is disappointed he has nothing to lose. He has very little skin in this game.
Ed has plenty.
OK, I follow your thinking but I just don't think Cameron nor indeed the Tory party can renege on their continuing Barnett commitment. OK it should have been ratified (or not as the case may be), but we all know that it was a cobbled together offer in a last gasp attempt to buy a No vote by the Scots ..... shameful!
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Indeed from the point when they abolished the death penalty and introduced remission (1967 CJA) there is a clear correlation between the liberalisation of sentencing policy and the rise in crime that has so far put two generations through unprecedented levels of risk and cost for the sake of 'academic social experimentation'.
I suspect the ending of conscription also contributed to it as well.
For those PB unionists who now feel a Yes vote is less risky than a No one - Eric Joyce now almost agrees (with one of his articles that have considerably impressed me in recent years).
The No campaign has been driven to desperation because the Labour Party (Over 90% of Scottish Tories will vote No) has given too little priority to the politics of Scotland. While some SNP supporters will vote No, many more Labour supporters (up to a third) are saying they will vote Yes. The last-minute devolution package is therefore aimed at one group – Labour voters who intend to vote Yes. Jim Murphy, perhaps the most obvious person to lead the party Scotland, and his many talented colleagues presently based at Westminster might be able to save the union after a No vote if they move en masse, and immediately, to Holyrood. But reason tells me that the odds would still be very much against them.
Labour Scotland.....
And n that logic, Mr Cameron is finding himself in the position of appealing not to all Scots, but effectively, solely, to pro-indy leftie minded Labour voters ... I don't think I have quite got my head around all this, have I?
@stvclaire: Ridiculously unsafe scrum at Ed Miliband's press call in Edinburgh. Hard to see how this is helping anyone #indyref
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is shouting down your opponents. It’s the ugly politics of the minority mob. It’s genuinely intimidating
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is the mob. The atmosphere is turning ugly here. This is the politics of Salmond’s “Team Scotland” and division
Yep: our political class are demonstrating how easy it is to be charitable with other people's money.
If England does explode with fury after a no vote over the concessions given to Scotland, that suits Cameron much better than it does the other two main party leaders. Especially Ed. For him its a complete nightmare.
UKIP could do the hat-trick in upcoming elections in Clacton, Heywood&Middleton and South Yorkshire thanks to that fury.
That would make UKIP odds on to have more than five MPs in the next Parliament.
Betfair offers 3.5 [5/2] on such an eventuality. I think that's too big, even if Clacton is the only by-election they win between now and May.
@stvclaire: Ridiculously unsafe scrum at Ed Miliband's press call in Edinburgh. Hard to see how this is helping anyone #indyref
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is shouting down your opponents. It’s the ugly politics of the minority mob. It’s genuinely intimidating
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is the mob. The atmosphere is turning ugly here. This is the politics of Salmond’s “Team Scotland” and division
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century. the Prison population is double what it was 25 years ago. Based on the criteria you set out the Criminal Justice System is failing like it has never failed before.......
Sure, that's part of it; I'm merely pointing out that this is an area where we can use evidence to make judgements, and not hunches and principles.
As an aside: I'd point out that there are reasons beyond the criminal justice system for higher crime rate. Like:
1. Lots more things are illegal now than were illegal then! In the 19th Century I could smoke opium or snort cocaine. Now I can't. (And remember a substantial portion of inmates are there for drug offences). And domestic violence used to never result in prosecutions, it does now.
2. We have a tax and benefit system that discourages work. And people who don't work are more likely to commit crimes.
3. Our education system has created a class of people who are unemployable.
Sure there maybe other factors as well but you should not use those factors to ignore the enormous elephant in the room. There is a clear correlation between the liberalisation of sentencing policy with rises in crime and the prison population.
Therefore its reasonable to think if you reverse those sentencing changes the likelihood is that it will over time (after a short term rise in those convicted and imprisoned) deter crime and reduce the numbers in prisons.
@stvclaire: Ridiculously unsafe scrum at Ed Miliband's press call in Edinburgh. Hard to see how this is helping anyone #indyref
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is shouting down your opponents. It’s the ugly politics of the minority mob. It’s genuinely intimidating
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is the mob. The atmosphere is turning ugly here. This is the politics of Salmond’s “Team Scotland” and division
Salmond is getting desperate.
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
For those PB unionists who now feel a Yes vote is less risky than a No one - Eric Joyce now almost agrees (with one of his articles that have considerably impressed me in recent years).
The No campaign has been driven to desperation because the Labour Party (Over 90% of Scottish Tories will vote No) has given too little priority to the politics of Scotland. While some SNP supporters will vote No, many more Labour supporters (up to a third) are saying they will vote Yes. The last-minute devolution package is therefore aimed at one group – Labour voters who intend to vote Yes. Jim Murphy, perhaps the most obvious person to lead the party Scotland, and his many talented colleagues presently based at Westminster might be able to save the union after a No vote if they move en masse, and immediately, to Holyrood. But reason tells me that the odds would still be very much against them.
Labour Scotland.....
And n that logic, Mr Cameron is finding himself in the position of appealing not to all Scots, but effectively, solely, to pro-indy leftie minded Labour voters ... I don't think I have quite got my head around all this, have I?
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century.
Wut?
He's right. Crime rates rocketed in the 1970s and 1980s many, many times higher than they were previously. They have come down a fair bit since then, but they are still nowhere near as low as they were 1900-1950.
Would this be recorded crime rates?
(I.e. coming with a shedload of caveats?)
All statistics come with caveats. The question is whether you factor those caveats into your conclusions, or you use them as an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you", because the likely conclusions are ones that clash with your ideology.
Excellent, do you have any kind of analysis on the effect of increased reporting on recorded crime figures?
Or are you just saying you're factoring it in when you're actually ignoring it.
I'm factoring in the caveats based on my own judgment, as I'm sure you do on a hundred other issues. If you have some evidence or argument that certain caveats here are likely to be especially big, I'm happy to modify my opinions.
So what is this judgment of yours? If the current level is disproportional then what would be a proportional level of recorded offences compared to 1900-1950?
I use my judgment of course. But if I'm making a statement about historical statistics I tend to consider myself as holding a burden of proof to back it up beyond a gut feeling (and at the very least acknowledge the caveats rather than present it as certain fact).
I mean comparing recorded crime rates with 30 years ago is considered problematic for various reasons, let along a hundred years ago.
''Aggressive pushing and shoving from the Yes campaigners. Bully boy tactics out in force again''
And of course these are the people David Cameron wants to give more power and money to, at the expense of his own voters. A country with a significant minority of revolutionary socialists.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century. the Prison population is double what it was 25 years ago. Based on the criteria you set out the Criminal Justice System is failing like it has never failed before.......
Sure, that's part of it; I'm merely pointing out that this is an area where we can use evidence to make judgements, and not hunches and principles.
As an aside: I'd point out that there are reasons beyond the criminal justice system for higher crime rate. Like:
1. Lots more things are illegal now than were illegal then! In the 19th Century I could smoke opium or snort cocaine. Now I can't. (And remember a substantial portion of inmates are there for drug offences). And domestic violence used to never result in prosecutions, it does now.
2. We have a tax and benefit system that discourages work. And people who don't work are more likely to commit crimes.
3. Our education system has created a class of people who are unemployable.
Sure there maybe other factors as well but you should not use those factors to ignore the enormous elephant in the room. There is a clear correlation between the liberalisation of sentencing policy with rises in crime and the prison population.
Therefore its reasonable to think if you reverse those sentencing changes the likelihood is that it will over time (after a short term rise in those convicted and imprisoned) deter crime and reduce the numbers in prisons.
Great: let's try it by having different sentancing policies in two different (but similar) regions so we can see if that's the primary driver of offending rates.
Let's try lots of different things in different regions and see what works best.
That's all I'm saying.
Be data driven and use controlled experiments so we're not simply catching historic correlations.
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century. the Prison population is double what it was 25 years ago. Based on the criteria you set out the Criminal Justice System is failing like it has never failed before.......
Sure, that's part of it; I'm merely pointing out that this is an area where we can use evidence to make judgements, and not hunches and principles.
As an aside: I'd point out that there are reasons beyond the criminal justice system for higher crime rate. Like:
1. Lots more things are illegal now than were illegal then! In the 19th Century I could smoke opium or snort cocaine. Now I can't. (And remember a substantial portion of inmates are there for drug offences). And domestic violence used to never result in prosecutions, it does now.
2. We have a tax and benefit system that discourages work. And people who don't work are more likely to commit crimes.
3. Our education system has created a class of people who are unemployable.
Sure there maybe other factors as well but you should not use those factors to ignore the enormous elephant in the room. There is a clear correlation between the liberalisation of sentencing policy with rises in crime and the prison population.
Therefore its reasonable to think if you reverse those sentencing changes the likelihood is that it will over time (after a short term rise in those convicted and imprisoned) deter crime and reduce the numbers in prisons.
That's one of multiple possible correlations. It's far from reasonable to declare it's the result of a particular sentencing policy change.
Socrates, your North/South Wales point is a good example of why devolution within England should be based on people's sense of identity and attachment and not administrative tidiness.
Am I right in thinking Wales has never existed except as an English region?
On a happy note, my US shares are now worth £111,000 which is a gain of about £7,000 in just over a week. Some of it is price appreciation but most is the £ sliding. Nice feeling.
Very nice, Mr. Bond. However, should you not also be concerned about how much those pounds can buy you? You may be seven grand up in a week, but so what does that actually mean in purchasing power, i.e. wealth.
I notice unleaded fuel at my local Tesco has gone up 3p a litre in the last week.
Looks to me that that Yes apprear to have been heavily infiltrated by the sort of Militant/Trots that Kinnock spent so many yearas trying to evict from the Labour party.
Vote yes and live in Novo-Cuba without the sunshine?
Crime today is disproportionately higher than it was in the last century. the Prison population is double what it was 25 years ago. Based on the criteria you set out the Criminal Justice System is failing like it has never failed before.......
Sure, that's part of it; I'm merely pointing out that this is an area where we can use evidence to make judgements, and not hunches and principles.
As an aside: I'd point out that there are reasons beyond the criminal justice system for higher crime rate. Like:
1. Lots more things are illegal now than were illegal then! In the 19th Century I could smoke opium or snort cocaine. Now I can't. (And remember a substantial portion of inmates are there for drug offences). And domestic violence used to never result in prosecutions, it does now.
2. We have a tax and benefit system that discourages work. And people who don't work are more likely to commit crimes.
3. Our education system has created a class of people who are unemployable.
It's amusing to see all these Labour people who basically turned a blind eye to the behaviour of the Occupy movement suddenly up in arms over a bit of pushing and shoving.
Looks to me that that Yes apprear to have been heavily infiltrated by the sort of Militant/Trots that Kinnock spent so many yearas trying to evict from the Labour party.
These are the people Dave, Ed and Nick have decided to give more power to, and invest more money in.
Comments
The other reason is 4) History has shown you shouldn't put criminals with other criminals for a prolonged time.
To put it another way: what possible benefit is there to say to a defendant - "you are sentenced to 7 years but will serve only 3"?
You new avatar looks a bit like those used for banned users.
For a moment, I wondered what on earth you had done...
There is a clear correlation between the legislation which increased Prisoner remission from one third to one half to the rapid rise in Prison population and consequent need to build more Prisons.
This has nothing to do with practicalities or economies it has to do with liberal sentencing dogma and pandering to the private prison suppliers who have now got the government by the short and curlies.
Shortening the effective length sentences has only increased the turnover of convicts through the system. Ironically this in turn has reduced the opportunities for rehabilitation because we cannot afford the vast army of Probation officers and social workers needed to rehabilitate criminals in the community. They can't even run home detention competently
PS And one third remission or less was more than adequate as a control for Prison Governors over inmate behaviour for many decades. The problem is the Prison Service has gone soft!
If they offer less then they will be portrayed as "anti-Scottish". Unreasonable, and unfair, but I doubt it will shift many votes (apart from @FattyBolger's) in the UK
Prison Governors use good intimate behaviour as criteria when deciding if a prison should get HDC/Tagging, which they are eligible for in a lot of circumstances a quarter of the way through their sentence.
We've constantly been told by the Scot Nats that Scotland gives more than it gets, is - or can be - a wealthy country etc etc. If so, no reason for the rest of us to give it any more money. Bribing someone to stay is not a recipe for a happy long-term relationship.
Likely No: Borders, Dumfries&Galloway, South Ayrshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire, Orkney, Shetland.
Leaning No: Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Fife, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire.
TCTC: Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll&Bute, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Glasgow, Highland, Midlothian, Moray, North Lanarkshire, Perth&Kinross, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, West Lothian.
Leaning Yes: Dundee.
1. Minimise crime
at
2. Acceptable cost
while
3. Maximising the number of productive people in society
and
4. Avoiding punishing the wrong people
This seems to be exactly the kind problem that can be attacked empirically. Try different jail types, see if they change re-offending rates. Try different sentance lengths in Scotland and see if they affect offending rates relative to the rest of the UK - if they work, roll them out nationwide, if they don't, roll them back. Try "x strikes" in London, and see if the additional cost of incarceration and legal issues results in a sufficient drop in crimes to make it worthwhile. (Clearly zero crime is the ideal situation, but if that comes at the cost of us paying 60% tax to keep 20% of the population locked up, then trade offs need to be made.)
Let's not be dogmatic: let's try stuff and see what works.
Smaller block grants, more self raised revenue.
The coalition updated the VPS procedure
You forgot another criteria: adequately punish wrong-doers so people feel they live in a fair society.
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/gramscis-dictim.html
as part of a discussion of the Herald's editorial for No (sort of).
I trust Malky will forgive me if I quote Mr Worrier's rather nice comment - "Minimum bribe level: one turnip. Vote No."!
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-
We all want this to be close, because it makes more exciting. It's not going to be close. By 2:15am on Friday morning, it's going to be obvious that No has won a crushing victory.
If England does explode with fury after a no vote over the concessions given to Scotland, that suits Cameron much better than it does the other two main party leaders. Especially Ed. For him its a complete nightmare.
If it turned out that taking prisoners surfing in Hawaii led to a 0% reoffending rate, it would be the right thing to do, even though it would offend your principles.
The sole job of the criminal justice system to minimise lawlessness at acceptable cost.
There are going to be big changes and they need to be thought through in detail.
But do I care about some politician making promises? Nah. They're not going to keep them anyway. And even if they did someone would accuse them of breaking them.
I've given Utah a lot of shit over the years but this is breathtaking in it's simplicity and utilitarian elegance. It may work, it may not but you've got to applaud them for trying such a bold move.
For those PB unionists who now feel a Yes vote is less risky than a No one - Eric Joyce now almost agrees (with one of his articles that have considerably impressed me in recent years).
Wasn't that caused by the lead in petrol problem?
(I.e. coming with a shedload of caveats?)
I suspect the ending of conscription also contributed to it as well.
Cameron probably knows his party will not countenance this deal. When the powers aren't forthcoming and Scotland is disappointed he has nothing to lose. He has very little skin in this game.
Ed has plenty.
Politically for the Tories, they can do what they want to Scotland if its a "No" as it makes no difference to their seats.
So a new leader can say "Cameron signed it without party agreement, Barnett goes". Much harder for Dave.
Only works for him if uses it as part of moving to English MP's only on English issues. Otherwise he's toast.
Also if we're talking correlations, wasn't that also around the time they criminalised drugs?
As an aside: I'd point out that there are reasons beyond the criminal justice system for higher crime rate. Like:
1. Lots more things are illegal now than were illegal then! In the 19th Century I could smoke opium or snort cocaine. Now I can't. (And remember a substantial portion of inmates are there for drug offences). And domestic violence used to never result in prosecutions, it does now.
2. We have a tax and benefit system that discourages work. And people who don't work are more likely to commit crimes.
3. Our education system has created a class of people who are unemployable.
Labour Scotland.....
Or are you just saying you're factoring it in when you're actually ignoring it.
Of course its hard to know what the crime rates are now because a) Police Constabularies have been found to be doctoring the figures and b) creative accounting has been used to manipulate the Fraud and Internet Crime figures so that if 100 thousand e-bay customers are defrauded that could be recorded as a single crime (whereas before it would have been 100,000 individual crimes) and the whole thing has been hived off into a separate set of statistics under the auspices of a new separate Fraud organisation.
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is shouting down your opponents. It’s the ugly politics of the minority mob. It’s genuinely intimidating
@Markfergusonuk: This isn’t campaigning. This is the mob. The atmosphere is turning ugly here. This is the politics of Salmond’s “Team Scotland” and division
Betfair offers 3.5 [5/2] on such an eventuality. I think that's too big, even if Clacton is the only by-election they win between now and May.
Alex Salmond has unleashed the mob.
@Markfergusonuk: Aggressive pushing and shoving from the Yes campaigners. Bully boy tactics out in force again
Therefore its reasonable to think if you reverse those sentencing changes the likelihood is that it will over time (after a short term rise in those convicted and imprisoned) deter crime and reduce the numbers in prisons.
@peterdominiczak: So Yes activists greet Ed Miliband by screaming that he's a "f***ing liar". More positive tactics... #indyref
Who in their right mind would invest in a country of such hooligans?
The Scots are screwed.
For non-Scots: http://www.scotsman.com/gaelic/scottish-word-of-the-day-guddle-1-2915914
I use my judgment of course. But if I'm making a statement about historical statistics I tend to consider myself as holding a burden of proof to back it up beyond a gut feeling (and at the very least acknowledge the caveats rather than present it as certain fact).
I mean comparing recorded crime rates with 30 years ago is considered problematic for various reasons, let along a hundred years ago.
And of course these are the people David Cameron wants to give more power and money to, at the expense of his own voters. A country with a significant minority of revolutionary socialists.
"Would you say you have or have not felt personally intimidated by the YES campaign during this referendum ?"
also on whether Eck should resign if he loses .
Err.....David Cameron. With ever more English taxpayer money......
Our leaders have taken leave of their senses. On Friday the tory party is going to explode.
Let's try lots of different things in different regions and see what works best.
That's all I'm saying.
Be data driven and use controlled experiments so we're not simply catching historic correlations.
It is methodologically simple. It tracks crimes that affect people. It can't be manipulated by enthusiastic chief constables.
Vote yes and live in Novo-Cuba without the sunshine?
Former journalist jailed for rape, played a part in exposing expense fiddles.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/ben-leapman-guilty-20083/
These are the people Dave, Ed and Nick have decided to give more power to, and invest more money in.
Without asking the rest of us.