Tougher prison sentences for violent crime in force (England and Wales)

[DerBear]

Knife Crime, is quite high in the UK even though recent rates have saw it fall. I am quite interested to see how this will play out and if it will be effective.

Tougher prison sentences for violent crime in force

There will be a new criminal office for people who wield knives in a public place or school
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Ban on cash payments for scrap
Knife crime jail terms increasing
A raft of new criminal offences have come into force in England and Wales, as well as tougher prison sentences for violent crimes.

There is a new offence of aggravated possession of a knife, and mandatory life sentences for anyone committing a second serious violent or sexual crime.

Some dangerous prisoners will have to serve two-thirds or whole sentences, instead of parole after half the term.

Ministers said they were determined to crack down on violent criminals.

The offence of aggravated knife possession targets those who wield knives in a public place or school to threaten and create a risk of serious physical harm.

In almost all such cases, judges must impose a custodial sentence - a minimum six months for an adult or a four-month detention and training order for 16 and 17 year olds.

There is also the "two strikes" system - a new mandatory life sentence for people convicted of a second very serious sexual or violent offence.


Justice Secretary Chris Grayling: "When somebody behaves in an aggressive way with a knife, they should and will go to jail".
For those dangerous criminals who do not come under the two strikes rule, the government is introducing an extended determinate sentence (EDS).

Unlike normal sentences, offenders on EDS are not automatically released from prison halfway through their jail term.

They have to serve at least two-thirds of their sentence and may be detained until the end of it.

EDS replaces the controversial "indeterminate" sentences under which prisoners deemed a danger to the public could be detained indefinitely.

The measures have been introduced as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis


Clive Coleman
BBC News legal correspondent
The combination of the "two strikes" rule and Extended Determinate Sentences marks the end of the highly controversial Indeterminate Sentence For Public Protection, or IPP.

These sentences were introduced under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act to solve a vexing problem: how do you deal with an offender who has served their sentence, but remains a real danger to the public when released?

IPP was intended to be the answer, to be used for a small number of dangerous, violent and sex offenders.

However, IPPs were used very widely and became de facto life sentences, in many cases for criminals serving relatively short tariffs - in some cases months rather than years.

To be released the offender had to show that he or she no longer posed a danger to the public. That required the provision of rehabilitative courses, and there simply weren't enough of these.

The government hopes the new system will be clearer, while still protecting the public from truly dangerous offenders.

The provisions in the Act are being introduced in stages. A new criminal offence of squatting came into effect in September 2012 and the remaining measures will come into effect in 2013.

Some of the changes have attracted criticism.

With regards to knife crime, Michael Turner QC, chairman of the criminal bar association, said "a very blunt instrument" was being used in the form of deterrent sentences which, he said, "research shows doesn't work".

"No-one in that moment of pulling a knife thinks about the deterrent and a lot don't even know about it," he said.

And Kate Whaley, from the charity Mothers against Murder and Aggression (MAMAA), said the measures failed to factor in rehabilitation.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we need to be doing is finding ways to stop young people carrying weapons in the first instance.

"What is going to be done to change the offending behaviour of these people? That is what we should be looking at."

Speaking about the changes, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling told the BBC the changes would mean "a small number of additional prisoners going to prison for longer", adding that he was "all in favour of that".

'Second chance'
He said the two-strikes rule would apply to serious sexual offences or violent offences that would command a sentence of 10 years or more.

"Everyone deserves a second chance. If they don't use that second chance they go to prison for life," he said.

"If you're wandering round carrying knife in a threatening way, you will go to jail. I'm also looking at the issue of cautions for knife crime, which I'm not happy with at all."

Mr Grayling, who became justice secretary in September's cabinet reshuffle, said he would make "more changes" as he continued to review sentences.

BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman says that while some people see the new measures as reducing a judge's discretion, others will welcome what is considered to be a tough new regime.

In Scotland, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said last week that the maximum prison sentence for carrying a knife in Scotland would increase from four to five years.

Mr MacAskill also announced a crackdown on people released from prison who commit more crime before their original sentence has ended.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20576580

[TigerBoy]

On balance I like both of these. To those who argue that punitive sentences "don't work" I say it is more accurate and honest to state they "don't work well on their own". If those sentences are part of a range of measures including education, rehabilitation then I see no problem, and if they aren't then critics should be arguing for such things to be introduced as well. The "stick" or the "carrot" on their own are not half as effective as having both together.

[Mortal Coil]

Honestly, I find that knife crime is more often than not robbery at knifepoint, which is born out of sheer desperation. This means that improving the economy (and putting tax dollars towards something other than housing prisoners) would probably be a better, more effective investment. But that's just my two cents.

[UnknownError]

Honestly, I find that knife crime is more often than not robbery at knifepoint, which is born out of sheer desperation.

no in the uk 15 year olds just go about stabbing each other in the street while getting "mwi" its really not got a purpose.

[DerBear]

Honestly, I find that knife crime is more often than not robbery at knifepoint, which is born out of sheer desperation. This means that improving the economy (and putting tax dollars towards something other than housing prisoners) would probably be a better, more effective investment. But that's just my two cents.

Maybe within the USA. However the UK is a lot more like Lindsay mentioned.

no in the uk 15 year olds just go about stabbing each other in the street while getting "mwi" its really not got a purpose.

I'd have to agree. Many people within the UK carry knives (well a lot of the youngsters do) and usually it is from a wide variety of backgrounds not just the not so well off people. We don't do robbery at knife point as little people get mugged which involves a knife. More often than not, its basic gang fights or two people disrespecting each other and then suddenly a knife breaks out.

Also it can be quite random. Often knife attacks are done to gain "status" in a group or gang. Sometimes it just to prove something.

On the other hand it can be desperation and things like that but most of the time its usually a lot further on and tends to be related to other things like what I've mentioned above.

[Mortal Coil]

Maybe within the USA. However the UK is a lot more like Lindsay mentioned.

Fair enough, I was just going from experience.
Also... did you just call Connor "Lindsay?" :P

[CharlieFinley]

I feel like this is incredibly foolish.

"Hmm. This young man stabbed another young man. I strongly suspect that it was not because of a disagreement at the latest debutante ball, but rather because he wanted to be gangsta, yo. The obvious solution is to put him with more atrocious role models, make it nigh-impossible to ever obtain a job when he gets out, and generally treat him like scum. That'll solve the problem, that will."
"Capital idea, Holmes!"

[DerBear]

Fair enough, I was just going from experience.
Also... did you just call Connor "Lindsay?" :P

Yes due to the first half of the username :)

[TigerBoy]

I feel like this is incredibly foolish.

"Hmm. This young man stabbed another young man. I strongly suspect that it was not because of a disagreement at the latest debutante ball, but rather because he wanted to be gangsta, yo. The obvious solution is to put him with more atrocious role models, make it nigh-impossible to ever obtain a job when he gets out, and generally treat him like scum. That'll solve the problem, that will."
"Capital idea, Holmes!"

There are already laws that cover your scenario and would lead to a custodial sentence with plenty of time for a prisoner to pick up more anti-social behaviours. What is changing is the length of that sentence or sentences for different scenarios where a knife was possessed but stabbing did not actually occur.

In support of custodial sentences, society benefits for the duration of the sentence while violent offenders are excluded from society. Critics of custodial sentencing have pointed out the existing threat of sentencing isn't sufficient to prevent the issue occurring, however the difficulty with this position is substantiating it with facts given the difficulty in quantifying the effect of a presumed deterrent that individuals are clearly capable of ignoring. I would argue that the efficacy of a sentence is not defined (solely or primarily) by its threat value but by its efficacy at removing dangerous individuals from society.

Custodial sentences alone are a flawed implementation as I stated in my earlier post. Where these exist without any rehabilitation schemes then I agree that they can - as you note - be counter-productive for society. I fear this is the reality of the current system based on comments about resourcing rehabilitation above (specifically in relation to knife crime).

I would personally prefer to see an increase in rehabilitation funding. I don't feel the new violent crime initiatives are wrong in absolute terms, but the issue is that the balance isn't there. I suspect that there is a case to be made for a more creative solution to the proposed one whereby the increase in prisoner housing costs of longer sentences are offset against funds that could go towards rehabilitation schemes. The practical reality is that this alternative is unlikely to appeal to a conservative-majority government who tend to prefer 'stick' to 'carrot'.

[CharlieFinley]

There are already laws that cover your scenario and would lead to a custodial sentence with plenty of time for a prisoner to pick up more anti-social behaviours. What is changing is the length of that sentence or sentences for different scenarios where a knife was possessed but stabbing did not actually occur.

In support of custodial sentences, society benefits for the duration of the sentence while violent offenders are excluded from society. Critics of custodial sentencing have pointed out the existing threat of sentencing isn't sufficient to prevent the issue occurring, however the difficulty with this position is substantiating it with facts given the difficulty in quantifying the effect of a presumed deterrent that individuals are clearly capable of ignoring. I would argue that the efficacy of a sentence is not defined (solely or primarily) by its threat value but by its efficacy at removing dangerous individuals from society.

Custodial sentences alone are a flawed implementation as I stated in my earlier post. Where these exist without any rehabilitation schemes then I agree that they can - as you note - be counter-productive for society. I fear this is the reality of the current system based on comments about resourcing rehabilitation above (specifically in relation to knife crime).

I would personally prefer to see an increase in rehabilitation funding. I don't feel the new violent crime initiatives are wrong in absolute terms, but the issue is that the balance isn't there. I suspect that there is a case to be made for a more creative solution to the proposed one whereby the increase in prisoner housing costs of longer sentences are offset against funds that could go towards rehabilitation schemes. The practical reality is that this alternative is unlikely to appeal to a conservative-majority government who tend to prefer 'stick' to 'carrot'.

They're funding the wrong things, though. Be like Norway. Norway actually rehabilitates its criminals, and doing so works.

[TigerBoy]

They're funding the wrong things, though. Be like Norway. Norway actually rehabilitates its criminals, and doing so works.

What are they funding that works in Norway that the UK doesn't fund, out of curiosity?

[CharlieFinley]

What are they funding that works in Norway that the UK doesn't fund, out of curiosity?
Not being particularly interested in this sort of thing, I have no earthly idea. From what I've heard, they place an emphasis on treating prisoners with dignity, respect, yadda yadda yadda... I'm not particularly well-versed on justice systems in other countries. All I have to offer is the argument that convinced me, a while ago, that the solution is not "being tough on crime."

[DerBear]

Actually,

More often than not. We are focusing on keeping people out of jail by giving them things like community payback/community service and getting them involved in various schemes. It overall seems to be working. Its not yet readable via stats on how effective this is as prison rates in both Scotland and then the rest of the UK are moving up then down. However very new reports would suggest that community sentencing is working and is effective.