Showing posts with label Chris Grayling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Grayling. Show all posts

Monday, 11 November 2013

Soft Judges and short sentences equals more reoffending - Who'd have thunk that?

 
"SEX attackers and violent criminals given short sentences offend again at a rate of more than 50 a week within a year of being released."
 
"According to figures revealed by the Ministry of Justice, there were 356 sex offences or serious violent crimes together with 2,482 robberies carried out by convicts who had served for less than a year."
 
"During the course of a decade the Ministry of Justice figures show 35,835 offenders jailed for short- term sentences went on to reoffend, including 3,914 committing violent or sexual crimes. The proposed new Bill aims to drive down Britain’s high reoffending rates, which currently account for 600,000 crimes committed every year."
 
 
Blimey! No shit, Sherlock! Talk about stating the blindingly obvious. Someone commits a serious crime, gets a suspended sentence or a pathetically small sentence of a few months, then reoffends when they are released. Who would have guessed that? Of course giving offenders sentences like this, will end up with a greater chance of re-offending - it doesn't take a genius to figure that out!!
 
Lets have a quick look at the five purposes of sentencing in brief, used supposedly by judges when determining an appropriate sentence for a crime:
 
1) The punishment of offenders This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine.
2) The reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence).
3) The reform and rehabilitation of offenders This is aimed at reforming the offender and changing their behaviour. It also links to the purpose of reducing crime. An example of reform and rehabilitation includes a drug and/or alcohol treatment requirement.    
4) The protection of the public. This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation. the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences
5) The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences This requires the offender to make amends to those who have been affected by their criminal behaviour. This may be achieved, for example, by the payment of compensation or through restorative justice.  
 
Mr Grayling, 2 questions:

1) Using these guidelines, how on earth can someone who has committed a violent or a sexual offense NOT get a sentence that runs into years? What goes through judges minds when they pass, for example, a suspended sentence for offenders who Abducted a thirteen year old child , Downloaded eighteen thousand IIOC, Abused boys during the 70s, 80s, and 90s etc?
 
2)  With the above crimes, (paedophile crimes), there is no excuse whatsoever for dishing out any sort of soft sentences if this crimes is to be taken seriously. Taking Jailed: Paedophile Who Claimed Appalling Abuse Was 'Benefit' To His Victims as a prime example, shows that paedophilia is a different type of crime to the norm. You can "treat" paedophiles, but there is no cure, it isn't a disease - it is a long standing fetish/sexual attraction to children & the only proper way to protect the public from offenders who commit these crimes is a proper, long custodial sentence. Not suspended sentences. Not sentences that are a matter of a few months. Proper ones that reflect the above guidelines, "Protection of the public", "Punishment of Offenders", "Reduction of Crime". When will you take this crime seriously? When will you realise that "once a paedophile, always a paedophile", and put in place proper sentencing guidelines and a proper deterrence that will reduce this crime, and make paedophiles who claim "they can't help themselves" think twice before committing these offences?
 
This is your second "promise" in just over a month, remember Tough justice for those who watch IIOC: Grayling announces perverts will no longer escape with 'slap on the wrist' in crackdown on soft punishments from September this year? So Mr Grayling, will we see anything from either of these "promises", or are these both the usual empty ones? Words are one thing, but taking action is another? We will be watching.

Monday, 30 September 2013

IIOC vs ULS vs Indictable Offenses - An Open Question

 
 
 
A quick update on my post from a couple of days ago.
 
Following the above article published yesterday, the below has been sent, with the question asked if the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Police Minister Damian Green would be happy for me to publish their responses here.
 
awaiting their replies with interest ...
 
"Dear Mr Grayling, Mr Green,

 I read with interest the article in the subject of this e-mail, regarding "Tough justice for those who watch child porn" (not my choice of words, these images or videos are images of children being abused and exploited by paedophiles, not pornography, but that's another issue that I continually take up with the media).

As you can see by the below, I have been trying to find out why some offences are able to be appealed against under the "Unduly Lenient Sentences" scheme, whilst others are not.

I received a reply from the Sentencing Policy and Penalties Unit this week, with the gist of their e-mail reply being it all depends on the classification of offences. It seems that only sentences that are considered "indictable only" can be considered under the ULS scheme, and as the crime of making/downloading of Indecent Images of Children is not an "Indictable Only" crime, this is why it cannot be considered when appealed against.

I have blogged a little on this, the link is here http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/09/indecent-images-of-children-unduly.html, please feel free to read this, I have included in there a small part of the e-mail I received.

My question to both of you, is if the British Justice system is to get tougher on crimes, this one in particular, why is it not considered "indictable only"? I would have thought that all paedophile crimes or crimes against children would automatically be classified as this, not as a "Summary" or "Either Way" offence. As more people become aware of the ULS scheme, surely having this crime included as Indictable Only, and letting the public be able to appeal under the ULS scheme if sentences are too light, would eventually affect the sentences that are passed down going forward if enough people complained?

Thank you & look forward to your reply.

Richard Bougeard"