Do you think that in a civilised society prison should only be imposed for the most heinous offences?

Totally agree with you on that when how can any civilzed society consider murder as a punishment for murder?

Re whole of life terms - as I said before :

"The worst murders should have a 'life' sentence meaning whole of life."
For this I mean people like Charles Manson or Ian Brady.

I agree that the possibility of parole is essential for running a prison.

Against it, too, although there are times when I am sorely tempted on a personal level, particularly regarding horrific crimes against children. But no, murder by the state is anathema to me - a barbaric way to react to barbaric crimes.

I made that point earlier in the thread Absent if there is no " time off for good behaviour" then there is absolutely no incentive to behave in prison as it will make no difference anyway.

Slight wobble on the original thread but can I dare ask how everyone stands on the death penalty ? I will start by saying I am totally against it for any crime.

Whenim has described the programme called Intermediate Treatment. When I volunteered for a charity working mainly with child offenders, I was always struck by the common thread running through their stories: truanting, nothing to fill their time except low level crime and lack of supervision. I'd much rather we spent money on intervention at that stage than on the courts and prison when they are old enough to be prosecuted or when they've progressed to more serious crime.

When people recommend that a life sentence should mean life, I think that they should spare a thought for prison officers and others who work in prisons. If a criminal is given a full life sentence without parole it would, presumably, be for murder or more than one murder. There is then absolutely no reason why he shouldn't attack and kill a prison officer to whom he has taken a dislike or kill another prisoner who is not showing respect or any other kind of murder and mayhem – because what can they do to him that hasn't already been done. That way lies the brutal corrections system of the USA. I should hate to see our already failing penal system develop that way.

Fondasharing open prisons (Cat D) are not for minor offences, but for lowered risk prisoners, including successfully rehabilitated murderers coming to the end of their sentence, who can leave the prison to attend work nearby. Your friend won't find so much education and training facilities within such a prison as the idea is to plug into what is available beyond the prison. That includes taking home leave in hostels or with the family, where appropriate, in order to set up employment, education, training, voluntary work or to show a responsible lifestyle can be maintained on release. Many open/Cat D prisoners attend college or paid/unpaid work five days a week.

In local, training and high security prisons, there is a massive programme of training and education for prisoners, with in-house staff, contracted colleges and promotion of Open College and OU participation. Some prisoners can be trained as literacy and numeracy mentors, to support other prisoners on an individual basis. Of course, prisoners have to engage in offending behaviour and drug/alcohol treatment programmes, see doctors, solicitors, visitors, chaplains or whomever is relevant for them, so there's a lot that can be crammed into their days that can divert them from benefiting from education.

If your friend discusses his concerns with his personal officer, education staff or probation officer, perhaps they will help him find what he can do to participate or contribute.

On a previous post I mentioned that a dear friend of ours is now serving a prison sentence for something he did 35 years ago and is now imprisoned at the age of 60, away from his family and forced to take early retirement.

He sends us a weekly letter and will, when released this year, begin to riase funding for more educational programmes in prisons. He has been totally shocked by the lack of rehabilitation programmes (and he is in what is termed an "open" prison with people who have commited "minor" offences) and would agree with everything that Gransnetters have written about early intervention.

What is shocking for our friend is that his sentence was determined by a judge who thought he "should be made an example", whereas the crime he commited 35 years ago would normally be punished with community service.....leads to the question of how judges can vary their interpretation of the punishment required in each case?

We have to do everything we can to support policies of early intervention in families where children are treated cruelly, missing school and becoming social pariahs early in their lives. There should be red alerts on all medical, school, probation, social workers' records, that are shared in all agencies, in order to identify these children and then, and only then, can help be given in order to prevent many of the crimes that are punishable at present with prison sentences.

All sorts of theories about young men offending Lilygran. Rebellion, anomie, unemployment, peer pressure, deprived communities, lack of good role models, single parent families, testosterone - take your pick!

IT (Intermediate Treatment) used to be the thing that tended to work because it was linked in with local employment and education, then Youth Offending Services took on the role with teenagers.

Cynically, the old adage about 'the love of a good woman' does indeed have a positive effect on curtailing offending. Young men grow up!

Thanks, whenim. Do we know why it's that age group? There used to be programmes of intervention years ago to capture youths and young men. Did it work at all?

Capital punishment - never. It is a sign of a civilised society to end such barbarism.

They don't always get the right person anyway, and the death sentence often depends on how much money the defendant has, to get the best lawyer.

Also, it is easier to get a conviction if there is no death sentence - many people are loathe to put a rope round someone's neck, and they therefore refuse to give evidence.

Having said that, the worst murders should have a 'life' sentence meaning whole of life.

In America it costs much more to have someone on death row for ages, and then kill them, than to just give them a long sentence.

Something wrong with a society that can lock people away because they don't unjderstand why some people do these things. to have your freedom taken away is somehow very cruel. What is wrong is our sentencing, You get a longer sentence for offences against property, than for offences against people.
Having said that I do believe in capital punishment for first degree murder, but imprisonment for crimes of passion

18 to 24 is the age of most male offenders, Lilygran. In most urban areas, 50% of males of that age have acquired a conviction, mainly driving offences like no insurance or MOT, but plenty of possession of drugs and common assaults, too.

Trouble is, you don't know which ones will go on to a life of crime and which are genuinely remorseful and changed. There are GNetters who have first-hand knowledge in this area but I believe most crimes are committed by people under 45 so perhaps they do move on.

I have just been reading my local paper. The crime stories are almost all GBH. Young men attacking other young men who offered no provocation and were often unknown to the assailants. This is petty mindless crime by petty mindless men but I still think that they should go to prison. I cannot see how restorative justice/probation/supervision can be suitable for thugs like this.

I notice that one of the lads who killed Damilola Taylor is returning to prison for the third time for a crime of violence and he had previous before he killed Damilola. I do think persistently violent criminals should get life imprisonment after the third crime. A 'life' sentence does not mean the rest of their life in prison but it does mean that if released they can be recalled if they transgress the terms of their license so they could well be pulled in for minor crimes before they regress to violence again.

Yes, Ernest Saunders. Rich,poweful - ergo, untouchable.

JessM No one gets sent to prison for not paying their TV licence but they do sometimes get sent there for contempt of court for failing to pay once the court has ordered them to do so. Courts and their officers are very strict about contempt. Rightly so I suppose as the rule of law is important for a civilised society. (I just wish they weren't so pompous.)

But he did have terminal cancer, the Lockerbie man. And his conviction was extremely fishy indeed.
One of the problems is that prison is still a dumping ground for an illmatched assortment of folks. Still working mainly on the Victorian model and sometimes in buildings that old too. Some can be rehabilitated and some probably cannot. Some are determinedly criminal and some are a danger to society. Not a lot of point trying to rehabilitate them.
I think it is also the case, as alluded to earlier, that it is a class based system with the rich and powerful defining which crimes merit the punishment of imprisonment and which are not so bad really because they are only committed by upper middle class types. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens to the News of the World defendants. Meanwhile women from council estates still get sent to Holloway, I believe, for not paying their TV licences or shoplifting.

Greatnan Was his name something like Ernest Sanders or Saunders?

Anno - there was something very fishy about the Lockerbie case and perhaps deals were done behind closed doors.

What about the Lockerbie bomber? Although he is now dead, it took a good deal longer than his doctors in Scotland predicted.

Yes, he was the one I remembered, but not his name!

What about the Guinness guy who is the only known case of a full recovery from Alzheimers?

And what about Pinochet?

Greatnan - about sudden mental collapses - I remember one of those televangelists in the USA, who got rich on the money of his followers, getting done for fraud. His lawyer said he should not go to prison because he was suffering from depression.

Of course he damn well was!! He was about to leave his lavish lifestyle for a horrors of a US prison - anyone would be depressed. It was probably a sign of sanity.

It didn't work.