Boris's plans to deal with violent crime

It's all very well to sniff and say this is a Tory policy

If you read the posts before sounding off, Day6 I think you'll find that posters are saying the the problem is in part the fault of past tory policy of cuts in the services which are related to crime prevention and the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners. I suspect, that cuts to the prison service itself, and privatisation of prisons, doesn't help, either.

But Johnson's announcement is undoubtedly specifically aimed at a certain demographic. Those who don't recognise that there is a balance to be had between respect for the victims of crime and attempting to rehabilitate criminals. It isn't one thing or the other.

Being a victim of crime does not inevitably make someone a reactionary advocate of "tougher prison sentences" Day6.

I don't know whether you have been a victim of crime but I have and my main concern is to advocate policies which will lessen the chances of you or anyone else becoming victims of crime. We can only do that if we adopt rational evidence based penal policies.

Not very new.

In the Netherlands they spend more money on rehabilitation than on prisons. As a result there are far fewer reoffenders and prisons have actually been closed.

This big blustery talk of prisons and sentencing is aimed at a certain group of voters, probably Mail and Express readers

Oh dear. Typical left-wing Guardian reader.

I'd hope the talk reaches the ears of victims of crime too, some of whom read the Observer, Mirror, i, or the Guardian

This is not a left or right wing matter, unless of course you imagine it's OK to have criminal tendencies and for leniency to be the order of the day? If you support policing and coming down hard on those who break the law you are automatically right wing and/or read the Mail?

That's a new one.

I do think the victims of crime tend to get a rough deal because we almost shrug now that nothing much can be done. If we go down that road criminals win and crime then pays.

I fully support Boris regarding his thoughts that we do have to become tough on crime, have a more visible police presence and get the message out that those who commit crimes will be a) caught and b) punished accordingly.

It's all very well to sniff and say this is a Tory policy and so find fault but I do think we have to do what we can to create a UK where people feel safe AND supported in their own environment. Criminals should not call the shots and if that involves them being caught because of a larger police force and put behind bars for longer because we have more prison spaces, I have no problems whatsoever with that.

I was horrified to read of Pritti Patel saying she wanted potential criminals to feel 'terror' at the thought of being arrested. This is the UK. This is 2019. That seems to me to amount to hate talk in itself.

Custodial sentences for juveniles need a far greater element of training with much better post-release co-ordination onto schemes run (I suppose) by the probation services.

Other relatively inexpensive solutions would be restoring youth services and providing much more in the way of support services for parents of 10-15s.

In the longer run of course sufficient affordable housing and enough new funding for schools to enable them to keep exclusions down, with proper alternatives for excluded children.

By the time people are in the court system it is too late, investment needs to be in stopping them committing the crimes in the first place. Money which has been cut in the funding of sure start centres, youth initiatives, drug programmes etc. This big blustery talk of prisons and sentencing is aimed at a certain group of voters, probably Mail and Express readers and is cynical and manipulative like most of the recent announcements

Agree with the above. Locking people up for longer doesn’t stop crime. The tories have cut police and prison officer numbers, not to mention help for struggling families, youth services, help for those with mental health and drug and alcohol problems. All these are linked to crime. An acquaintance of mine’s husband was sent to prison for a first time white collar, non violent offence. He was locked up for 23 hours a day, no education or other services, he spent some time in a high security prison at vast cost as there were no places elsewhere. A complete waste of time and money, he could have paid his debt to society in a far more constructive way. A high % of those in our prisons have been through the “care” system, lack basic education are more likely to have mental health, drug or alcohol problems. With fewer staff inside there is little hope of rehabilitation.yes, our prisons should have far more resources, staff, and effort put into protecting the public and re-education.

England and Wales already has the highest prison population per head of population in Western Europe.

Penal policy should be evidence based and all the evidence points to the failure of the present regime in terms of incidence of re-offending, which is the most appropriate measure of success. Terms of imprisonment of less than six months are particularly counter-productive.

Instead of dog whistle policy announcements aimed at the right-wing "lock em up and throw away the key" voters, a responsible government would take measures to ensure that prison sentences are appropriate and effective.

There are four separate reasons for sending someone to prison- punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and protection of the public.

In my opinion protection of the public is the only good reason to imprison an offender if other measures are proven to be more effective.

So what would you suggest paddyann? We see a lot of people doing community service, in fact if it wasn't for them all the work that's been done in the cemetery near us wouldn't have happened.

The restoration of old head stones has received awards and the cemetery looks beautiful.

prison doesn't work.Reducing crime should be the aim ,not increasing prison beds.The Prison population in the USA is massive and it doesn't deter anyone .
Prison sentences for minor/unviolent or a lot of other things should be changed to something more productive ,Sending some young people to prison just puts them in company that corrupts rather than helps them change for the better

We some how have to break the cycle dont we. I'm not sure this does!

Personally I think prison only hardens those who have offended.
There used to be an idea, from America I think, of bootcamps to teach them survival skills and productive social interdependence.
But perhaps things have gone too far now for that. And we haven't got the space there is in America.
We need more police too, as above.

Facing a custodial sentence for committing a crime is a deterrent, or at least it should be.

I agree RosieLeah but I do wonder if the younger members of society all have the respect that we had at that age for the police.

The long-term answer to cutting crime is to tackle it where it starts....in the young. I live in a rough area and crime is bred into this people. All over the country, there is a problem with juvenile nuisance, but little is done. The children get away with minor things and move on to more serious stuff. The police know this, but they have to work within the law.

We need to go back to having bobbies on the beat. At the moment, the police are only there after the crime has been committed and the culprit is long gone. Yesterday, there was a knock on my door, and there stood a large policeman. My first thought was..'What have I done'...but he had come to discuss something I reported 3 days before! A minor incident which I reported on-line...and yet, when three boys broke into the building and were threatening us...I called 999 and they were too busy to come out!

Why the need for more prisons if the plan is to deter crime/violence ?

Yes, apart from as you say the financial and staffing practicalities. Longer sentences too if there are prison places available.