At the present moment it is we, the taxpayers, who pay the cost of keeping criminals in prison. We pay for the incarceration, supervision and administration of those who have abused their membership of our society. We do it to protect ourselves. That seems fair to me.

Some people who abuse our society make a considerable profit from abusing us; drug dealers for example. There are laws now to confiscate criminal profits. That seems fair to me.

Sex offenders sometimes receive special treatment after they serve their allotted time. Because of the nature of their crimes there is a general public repugnance and fear of having them living ‘next door’ and they are housed under assumed identities. The guiding philosophy is the need for rehabilitation for the reformed offender. This is not in any way a satisfactory solution but I accept it is the best we can think of at the moment.
Because of possible reprisals from their victims or their victims’ families some sex criminals also receive police protection.
Relocation and police protection all cost a lot of money and we, the taxpayers, pay for it. That also seems fair to me.


One sex criminal, while banged up, won several million pounds on the National Lottery. He reportedly earns £30,000-a-month interest on his winnings. He behaved despicably to his victims over a period of years until he was caught, tried and jailed. He is now released to the society he abused and we, the taxpayers, are now paying for his relocation, rehabilitation and police protection. Reportedly about £10,000 a month. That doesn’t seem fair to me at all.

It’s interesting to see the comments that some people made to the BBC News item on this,

Interestingly: Harry Fletcher, the general secretary of probation union Napo, urged ministers to consider means-testing offenders who need supervision and protection.

Understandably: Wearside Women In Need director Clare Phillipson said … £10,000 a month "could offer protection to hundreds of women and their children who were experiencing sexual assault".

Predictably: North East Conservative MEP Martin Callanan is calling on the Home Office to withdraw Hoare's protection "and let him protect himself".

Those of us who have friends or relatives or neighbours who have served their time know how difficult it usually is for people to get back into society and live a non-criminal life. I wouldn’t want to see any legislation introduced that would make that task any more difficult than it already is. But I do think that criminals who have a private income of such large proportions should pay for their board and lodging …

What do youse think?


Footnote: -

The Sun recently exposed the location of this particular criminal who behaved so despicably to his victims but nevertheless served his time. Now that he has been exposed the police and probation authorities will have to spend even more of our money to start the process all over again. Perhaps we need a law to stop this media behaviour too. We all like to think that the UK is a haven for ‘press freedom’’ but journos and their editors should not be above the law.

hmm... tricky one. Here we have a "strip 'm" law, meant to confiscate proceeds of convicted criminals. But they are only allowed to confiscate means that were gotten illegally. It turns out to be very difficult to prove whether money was earned illegally, so it hasn't been a big succes. But make people pay for their own incarceration.... sounds weird to me.

The case you raise is an interesting one, but I think it’s probably a case of “hard cases make bad law”. Where an income is so “undeserved” as a lottery win, and the crime so repugnant as rape or sexual abuse, and where (I assume) there are no “innocent” members of the family who need to live from the income of the offender it does seem to be obvious “make em pay”…

But how on the margins do we judge “enough” money to make them have to give it up – is it all savings or savings over a certain amount – or is it just interest on savings or interest over a certain amount. Should they have to sell their home? But what if other people live there? What if no-one else lives there? Where does the offender go on release? On the streets – to the top of the list for very limited social housing?

And of course what if they chose not pay for protection and therefore don’t receive it – tough luck them we may say if they are attacked – but also tough luck on those who are driven to do the attacking and who will potentially have to face criminal penalties and tough luck on society because we tacitly encourage vigilantism (if that’s a word..)

And just finally what about the “criminal” with whom we do have sympathy – the man enraged by an attack on his child who attacks the attacker – should he lose in addition to his child and his freedom his wealth and property?

If we were able to have a system which looked at every case on a case by case basis we might get a system that society thought was just – but it probably wouldn’t be equal – it would certainly be expensive. I don’t begin to see how we could design rules which would allow the same kind of emotive decisions to be reached.

For these reasons I think on the whole that we have to accept that the State pays entirely for both penal and rehabilitation systems – and just occasionally we’ll think “that’s unfair” and have a momentary glimpse into the mind of a tabloid leader writer…..

scary

Oh heck this one is a bit deep, so why should the guy have to pay for his own prottection? Granted he could afford to move to south america and dissapear, but he doesnt want to. To what extent do people have to pay for their crimes financially? I am sure that Jeffery Archer was not slapped a bill for his board and lodgings when incarcerated. Surely it is better to keep certain offenders closely monitored at the expense of the state, so we can all rest a little sounder at night? So what he has a stash of dosh, but he has not got free liberty anymore to do as he wishes. Are we supposed to means test the punishments that our judicial system hands out? Now thats a hot potato.

For these reasons I think on the whole that we have to accept that the State pays entirely for both penal and rehabilitation systems – and just occasionally we’ll think “that’s unfair” and have a momentary glimpse into the mind of a tabloid leader writer…..


Too true! You see right through me ...

Yes, it is an interesting case of moral/social dilemma ... and I doubt there is a satisfactory income line that can be drawn. I don't know how the the UK authorities work it out for drug dealers or whether they take into consideration the fate of other dependents. Leontien says that in Holland it is difficulat in practise to work out what is 'illegal' income and what is 'lawful' income when working out claims. I imagine we also have difficulties with it.

No, I may not have made myself clear on protection. I believe that some criminals must receive protection, whether they want it or not. I still think it is unfair that tax payers have to pay for millionaires to receive it. In cases where victims have had their lives destroyed by the criminal acts of these people it seems a ferocious irony that they are contributing to the free accomodation, food and protection laid on for their attackers. (That is, for those victims who have managed to recover enough to work and earn a wage again).

You pinpoint the problem with dealing with emotive issues with equally emotive legislation. I don't disagree. The new terrrorism legislation probably falls within this qualification. On the surface it looks as if it is only a reasonable response to horrifying and peculiar events. Underneath it means you can be sent to prison for life for owning a document.

And I like Judy's comment ...
Are we supposed to means test the punishments that our judicial system hands out? Now thats a hot potato ...
Just think of it ... Judges working out the cost of a long sentence in terms of what can be recovered in the 'claims against rich criminals' court ... mind boggles.
But I was only referring to released criminals who 'enjoy' free accommodation and police protection.

Perhaps this case highlights more important issues ...

I believe that the whole system that deals with criminals who commit sexual crimes against women and children needs looking at. The events surrounding this particular criminal have highlighted a serious problem. For instance, there is a very popular perception in the UK that criminals get a fairer deal than their victims. The enemies of a fairer and better society seize on this 'perception' as a true example that Labour are 'soft on crime'; that we actively promote legislation that protects the criminals at the expense of their victims. That perception needs addressing and we need to prove it wrong.

We should be able to demonstrate with conviction that victims are treated much better than their attackers. I am not sure that we can in this case. In fact, I think there is good reason to think that victims of sexual crimes do not get a fair deal under our present criminal legislation.

it amazes me that the woman from exeter was locked up for non payment of poll - oops sorry- council tax and yet people who have commited indecent offences - i refuse to call them "sex crimes" cos to me sex is something which is entered into on equal and willing terms - are walking free either because of "inconclusive evidence" or ridiculously short sentences.

well said .

I feel all accusations of offences (as well as convictions) should be retained by the police AND those accusations should be allowed to be presented in a court of law,if it shows a pattern of possible behaviour.

thats a marvellous idea in trials of indecent assaults but it would cause problems .
Defence teams would use it as an excuse to try to introduce the sexual history of the victim -arguing that if the history of the defence can be introduced as relevant evidence so too can be the history of the victim.
over zealous criminal prosecutors -and i am not talking about indecent or violent crimes-would then use it as an excuse to introduce previous charges on people who end up in the judicial system because of nothing more than their sexuality, moral beliefs, chosen lifestyle or the colour of their skin.

If the courts only allows 'officially recorded police records of accusations', it wouldn't be a problem in regard to questioning of the prosecution witnesses (unless those witnesses have recorded accusations of making false statements or other such behaviour).Anyway wouldn't it be good for justice for that to be know as well?.

klf are you talking bout indecent offences or criminal offences?
my problem with it is if previous history is presented in one part of the cjs it will then be introduced into others.
this will have a huge impact on the trails of those who are not necessarily guilty of any crime but are constantly victimised by the cjs.

I entirely agree with SallyA's response to the first issue.


This is close to my heart. A bloke I know has just finished a stretch for manslaughter - he killed a drug dealer (admittedly during an episode of speed psychosis) who was 'feeding' his girlfriend while she was trying to kick. The thought of means testing his rehabilitation into society - which is difficult enough for him as it is - frightens the crap out of me.



I entirely disagree with The KLF's proposal to include accusations of alleged previous offences. In the criminal system over here, not even previous convictions are admissable evidence in a trial. The prosecution case has to stand on its own merits. The accused's previous convictions aren't provided to the jury when they make a determination of innocence or guilt (beyond reasonable doubt is the required standard), but that information is available to be taken into account by the trial judge when sentencing. I think that is an acceptable comprimise which upholds the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise.

And how many jurors are racked with guilt and remorse,after aquiting a man of rape,only to find out minutes after the trial, that he is a serial rapist.Or aquiting a man of killing a child,only to find out that he was a serial child molester.


I believe many more correct decisions would be made by jurors,if they had as many facts as possible about the person they are trying.

Some people would rather let 100 murderes go free,in order to prevent one innocent person going to jail.Very noble, But does society suffer less because of that.NO,it suffers more.Another case of caring more about the individual ,than the safey of the general public.

I've just finished a month of jury service, so this is topical for me.

Its not for jurors to feel guilt or remorse. The prosecution should be having those feelings for not having presenting a compelling enough case for the jury to deliver a guilty verdict.

I challenge your assertion that a defendant having a previous conviction (or worse in your proposal, a previous unproven accusation) has bearing on the current case. Does that make them more or less guilty than a first offender? Does it slant a jury in favour of a guilty verdict because of suspicion rather than evidence? In your world, I can see overzealous law enforcement officials having a favourite felon they could keep dragging before the courts for every crime they can't solve. "Of course he did it; he's got form. What more do you need?" Tell me there isn't potential for abuse under your system - moreso than the system in place now. Cops would spend all their time building frames rather than collecting evidence.


How do you know how many 'incorrect' decisions are made now?!?!?


All very well - until you, or someone you love, is that innocent person wrongly convicted.

Now, say with me again: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Up until the 18th century prisoners had to pay their way in prison. Some were even allowed to beg to get money!




Whilst some sex and violent crimes need to be seen in series to understand the nature of the current offence, an offence should stand on it's own two feet if it is to be punished.

The prosecution may well present a very good case.It may be the excellent work of the defence that put a small seed of doubt in the minds of the jurors.If the jurors had all the available information,that doubt would not exist.As such the jurors are within their rights to feel duped


It means that if they have shown a pattern regarding that sort of offence,then they would technically be capable of that sort of offence again (not guilty,but technically and emotionally capable).Also.I'm not talking about allowing one accussaion to be known,i'm talking about a pattern of accusations to be permissable.So if someone is in court for mugging a pensioner and he's pleading total innocents.It would be in the public interest to know that he has been convicted twice and been subject to official accusations of mugging ,on four other occasions,for example.It shows a pattern of behaviour,and that should be known.



Not at all.Safeguards can be put in place to prevent someone being convicted on previous convictions alone.Anyway the over zealous CPS would filter out those cases with little or no hard evidence.


How do you know how many correct decisions are made? I think everyone accepts that at present the percentage of guilty people acquited is far far higher, than innocent people who are convicted.In fact with the CPS, i would say that it is quite rare for a guilty person to be wrongly convicted in Britain today.


All very well,when someone you love is murdered or raped by someone aquitted of that very crime a few months before.As i said,if that one innocent person goes to jail.it affects him and his family.If you let 100 guilty people walk free ,they will cause havoc and pain, to hundreds of people and their families when they inevitable re-offend.

It would be still the same, but the jury would be in posession of ALL the facts, and as such would be able to be much more accurate.If someone if more likely to be convicted or rape,because he has done it three times before,TOUGH.And yes, if he has done it before he iS more likely that the average man on the street to have done it again.


PS.......I presume you came to a not-guilty verdict during your time on the jury-Geoff? I bet you slept well that night.Not sure the victims did!

Excuse my ignorance of your system, but who is the CPS?


I did, and I did. The 'victim' of the alleged assault was in court, and was a less credible witness than the defendant, who we agreed had a legitimate legal defence to the charge. And during his examination of the defendant, the barrister let slip that he had recently "been released". Of course we were directed to ignore that comment, and whether we did or not, it didn't make him any more guilty.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/


The cps has to believe there is a very good case to prosecute or a least a legitimate case to answer, before it allows someone to be tried in a court of law.They have a reputation for dismissing lots of cases including serious ones, if they think the crime will be difficult to prove in a court. Thats why they are sometimes reluctent to let alleged sexual crimes be tried or Your word against my word cases.So for the CPS to allow a case to go to court,they CPS must think that the accused has a case to answer and that there is a reasonable chance of a conviction.


Here's one of many examples: A 14 year old schoolgirl reported to the police a few years back, that she had been sexually attacked by a certain man called Ian Huntley.The police gave her statement to the CPS, but they decided that there was sufficent evidence to prosecute.

This is not a court of justice son
This is a court of law.

Indeed!

So what you are telling me is the CPS, who presumably know about an accused's form, as well as knowing what evidence is available to suggest guilt, make a decision about whether or not to send a case to trial. Sounds like the system works fine just the way it is.


I think you meant to say insufficient, but I fail to see your point. If the CPS decided not to go to trial, then its pretty tough to be blaming what could or couldn't be told to a jury as the reason he didn't get done. And when he did go to trial, the jury then didn't need to know about the prior accusations to be able to convict him.

NO.It means as the CPS realise that previous convictions can't be used.So they accept that the defendant would give the usual sob strory,not me guv, i'm an upstanding citizen.So CPS resign themselves to another miscarrage of justice.

If the CPS knew that 'patterns of behaviour' from previous convictions could be admissable.They would refure alot more cases to trail,and a lot more justice would result from that.

It depends whether you would rather see the injustice of one innocent former-rapist go to jail.or the injustice of 20 guilty rapists being aquitted. most on the Left would rather see the later.

Lets be hoest Geoff.It wouldn't have mattered who was up before you, or how much evidence.You would have been seriously troubled to find anyone giulty 'beyond reasonable doubt'.As such you and other like you are the defences trump cards.

My Brother and two work colleages have recntly been on jury survice over the last year,and in all three trials ,the left wing element on the jury has resisted giving a guilty, even though i have been reliably informed that all three defendents were bang to rights.In my brother case, 3 agitators held the trial up for two day, refusing to give a guilty verdict. In the end the judge exepted a 9/3 verdict.In the other two cases, half of the jury knackered the trails,and they had be be re-tried.

I was only talking about this particular case. A millionaire who has served his time and now lives in a nice house. He has served his time for the offences he committed. He isn't in prison. He is in a house, in a community where he is anonymous.
Because his crimes were so anti-social and so damaging to the women he attacked his identity has to be kept secret and he has to live in protected circumstances. Firstly, to protect the societyaround him from the perceived expectancy of possible reoccurences of his crimes. Secondly, to protect him from angry friends and families of his victims. I have no problem with that.

But this man is a millionaire ... not a poor unemployed ex-prisoner trying to get back into society without a job or home to look forward to.

His secret house and his living expenses are being paid for by the tax payer. We are also paying for his police protection.

This person's crimes left his victims physically and mentally damaged and they, poor souls, are not living off the taxpayer. The taxpayer has not paid for a new identity for them, or rehoused them free of charge. In fact some of them are paying taxes and contributing to his secret and protected lifestyle.

I just don't think that is fair.

That's all ...

Get me a doctor I actally agree with Alberr.

As Alberr was too cautious to spell out the case.Let me.


A violent rapist who recently won 7million on the lottery whilst in jail.Has recently been released,and even though he earns £30,000 a month in interest . The tax payer has been footing the bill to protect him, house him,feed him,cloth him,provide a TV/ DVD player...etc.

Its a joke..I know Charles Clarke is moving quickly to close up this absurd loop-hole.

I'm sorry I'm in on the tail end of this discussion. But, you make a geralization here that I don't think is fair. I don't believe that people on the left would allow 20 "known" rapists to go free in order to keep one "known" innocent from being convicted.

Unfortunately "known" is the key word. That is what trials are for -- they are to determine the facts of the case and let a jury of the defendent's peers decide his guilt or innocence. I think most on the left believe that defendents should be given a fair trial with all the admissable facts heard.

I'm not sure how it is in England, but in the United States the decisions seem primarily tailored to money. Budget-strapped investigators and prosecuters often have a difficult time prosecuting criminals, and poor defendents typically have a difficult time paying for adequate counsel.

Remember also, that many criminal cases never reach trial. Often deals are made between the prosecutor and the defendent prior to trial, based on the respective strengths and weaknesses of the case and the likliehood of a particular verdict.

In any case, people on the left are as likely as people on the right to be victims of crime. Neither, I believe, would like their assailant to go free.

The current British legal system lets at least 20 guilty people escape justice ,in order to maintain the ideal of not convicting an innocent person.For example,only 3% of rape claims in Britain, end in a conviction.

Hazarding an educated guess.How many reported rapes are genuine.Even if you were sceptical, you would say 50%. So 17 out of every 18 guilty rapists are currently eascaping justice and are free to strike again and again.In fact they could attack 18 times before they are likely to be convicted.

If thats justice, I want no part of it.

I'd like to see a source for those statistics.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1539646,00.html

klf. you told me that the grauniad was a load of tosh!

Thank you for the citation. And, while I find that situation in England appalling (we seem to be far more effective punishing rapists in the U.S.), the statistics in the article you cited do not bear out what you claim when you stated, "The current British legal system lets at least 20 guilty people escape justice ,in order to maintain the ideal of not convicting an innocent person."

Your statement makes two claims:

1. The "British legal system" allows 20 rapists to escape justice for every one it convicts, and

2. The British legal system does this to prevent convicting innocent people.

I’ll address the second claim first:

Nowhere in your article was there the suggestion that prosecutors, judges or juries were concerned about preventing innocents from being convicted. The reasons the article gives for rapists going free include:

a. the effect stereotypes have on the believability of victims.

b. prosecutors looking at the likelihood of conviction in deciding to seek justice.

c. the quality of trial preparation available to the accuser and defendant in these cases.

If I missed the part in the article which said rapists escape justice because the legal system wants to prevent innocents from being convicted, please point it out.

Further, I have yet to see any policy statement from anyone within the British legal system that says they would willingly allow 20 criminals to go free to prevent the conviction of a single innocent. Of course, I do not live in England, so I could be mistaken. My experience with people within the legal system suggests that most investigators and prosecutors feel the opposite -- they would trade an occasional innocent facing some form of justice to ensure the conviction of criminals. Some judges and some criminal defense attorneys may feel like its worth letting some criminals escape conviction to ensure that innocents aren’t convicted. However, rather than suggesting a trade of free criminals for free innocents, they usually suggest that the processes required to convict a criminal be established in such a manner that guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even if that means that those who are shown guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a shadow of a doubt, escape justice.

Now, let me address your first claim:

As the article you posted suggests, of the alleged 50,000 women raped (and I do not say alleged because I question these women's claim, I say alleged because the number itself is alleged -- no one really knows how many unreported rapes actually occur) only 11,869 were reported to the police. I don't feel that the British legal system can necessarily be held responsible for a woman's decision not to report a crime.

Of those 11,867 reported cases, slightly less than 10% (1,649) of those went to trial. As I noted in my previous post, there are many reasons cases (in this case 10,218 cases) do not go to trial. Some possibilities as to why these cases did not go to trial include (note my hypotheticals use male and female pronouns to describe roles in these cases even though I recognize that they could be used interchangeably):

a. Those investigating the crime did not believe the victim's claim and refused to pass it on to the prosecutor.

b. The prosecutor did not believe the victim's claim and refused to press forward to trial.

c. The prosecutor believed the claim but realized the chances of conviction given the evidence were slim and decided not to proceed.

d. The person suspected of the crime could not be found.

e. The victim could not distinguish between a number of possible suspects.

f. The victim for whatever reason after reporting the crime decided not to go forward with the trial.

g. The attacker worked out a deal with the prosecutor to plead on a lesser charge.

In situations a. b. and f., there is some question as to whether a rape really did occur. If a rape actually occurred and for either of these reasons, a trial was never held, it would certainly mean a rapist escaped justice. However, it might also be the case that a rape wasn't committed and one of these situations occurred in which case there was no rapist to escape justice.

Further, only a. and b. represent possible failures in the British legal system -- that the victim should have been believed but wasn't. Situation f. on the other hand, represents the victims own decision not to take the case to trial, not necessarily a failure of the legal system.

In situations c., d., e. and f., we assume a rape actually occurred, but not all of these suggest that a failure of the legal system resulted in the attackers escaping justice. There are likely instances of prosecutors failing the victims in situation c., by not pressing forward to trial anyway. However, in situation c., the prosecutor maybe facing a situation in which no forensic evidence exists and the rapists is a distinguished member of the community with no criminal history. In this case, it is not necessarily a failure of the legal system, but a case of overwhelming odds against conviction.

In situation d. it might be a failure of the legal system that they do not have the resources to track down a particular rapist or they have chosen to use their resources elsewhere. However, situation d. might also be a case of a crafty criminal adept at eluding the criminal justice system, in which case its not the failure of the system, per se, that allows him to escape justice.

Situation e. represents a failure of the victim (not to excuse the crime in the least) rather than a failure of the British legal system. While situation g. suggests that the rapists is punished (albeit not with a rape conviction) which means the rapist does not escape justice at all. Situation g. represents about 90-95% of the cases in the US, even those cases in which a prosecutor has a strong case against a suspect.

That leaves 629 successful prosecutions of the 1,649. This suggests that only one third of those prosecuted for rape are convicted. It doesn't however describe the other two thirds. It is quite possible some of that two thirds is innocent (it may also be the case that some of the one-third might be innocent). In either case, it certainly doesn't necessarily suggest a failure of the legal system. There can be any number of reasons that a prosecutor doesn't make his case with a jury one of which is that the suspect is innocent.

Given the various likelihood of each of these situations of cases not going to trial, I think it safe to say that only a portion of the 10,218 reported cases that don't go to trial are a failure of the legal system. Looking at this closer, let's be generous to your position and say that 20% or 2,044 of the reported cases not going to trial represent situations in which the British legal system fails the victim (these are the cases in which a rape occurs and no suspect has any action taken against them – its probably closer to 5% given the number of cases plea bargained but we can use 20% for the sake of this argument).

Similarly, lets say in addition to the 629 successful prosecutions 25% (255) of the unsuccessful prosecutions were because the defendant was actually not guilty of the crime. This would suggest that there were 884 situations in which the British legal system was successful.

By then comparing 884 successes prosecutions with 2,044 possible failures, at most you could say that the British legal system allows a little over 2 (rather than 20 as you claim) rapists to escape justice for every one it convicts.


This may seem like a more detailed response than the statement required. But, I felt it important to dismantle this claim. I found your statement writing off the very appalling situation facing rape victims in England as the result of leftists protecting criminals, a misleading and ultimately dismaying conclusion that does nothing to engender a solution to this situation. In fact, the article you cited, in addition to contradicting your claims, builds on the reasons it gives for the current situation by recommending a number of solutions that appear to me to be an effective way of rectifying this situation.

Crap.


Crap.


Utter crap. As it happens, a friend of mine on the same jury panel sat on a murder trial and found the bloke guilty of manslaughter. A weak prosecution case and an innocent defendant are the defence's trump cards.

Lets get this straight. The CPS have to decide on whether to try a man accused of molesting a child.It is the defendents word against the childs.The CPS think it would be hard for the case to be proven and to gain a conviction.

The CPS are then told that the defendants previous convictions for child abuse are to be legally revealed to the jury.

Given that fact that 'previous offences ' will be known to the jury.The CPS would be more likely to feel that a sucessfull prosecution was possible, and as a result would be more likely to refure the case to court.

As such, it is far from being CRAP .It is an accurate assumption, is it not?

I'll try and make myself clearer.


Crap.

just to get back on the topic.

if the state can means test benefits it can means test protection.

it the state can means test providing food for hospital patients (which it is considering) it can means test prison food.


not saying it should, but just that it could and it would be en par with current practices.

Beryl - I agree that the state could means test that benefit - and I realise you aren't saying that they should.

I don't believe that they should for the following reasons: our current reality is that the state only means tests benefits which the applicant (genuinely) chooses to have. However, with all benefits (at least currently) the beneficiary has the option of not bothering (however we might think that it is ill advised) In these situations I can't help thinking that the protection is at least as much for the benefit of society in general as it is for the released prisoner. It is sadly inevitable that some people in our society will take matters into their own hands when this type of prisoner is released, look at the problems on the Paulsgrove (?) estate in Portsmouth a few years back. I for one don't want to live in a society where vigilantism becomes the norm. Another reason for "insisting" that protection is provided is that it protects us - if a former prisoner is being protected the authorities know where they are and what they are up to - the chance of disappearing and offending again is reduced.

Finally, of course it would be possible for the state both to insist that protection is provided and that it is paid for - but I'm just uncomfortable with the State picking which "benefits" we receive and forcing us to pay for them - on an individualised basis - there's too much possibility of unfairness - personally I much prefer significant personal income based taxation - so that as a whole those of us in society who can afford it, pay for benefits which all members of our society need.

not sure what you mean by that

i was thinking (as i am wont to do from time to time) of incapacity benefit which is means tested. people don't generally chose to be incapacited

we live quite close to paulsgrove and i wouldn't like to see that sort of vigilante behaviour become commoplace either. Of course we could just leave people who commit such heinious crimes, that they are not safe on the street, incarcerated

and did the protection keep him out of reach of sun reporters. i seem to think not

(i'm at work so excuse rushed post)

So you DON'T think that more guilty people would be rightly convicted as a result of their past offences being admissable in court? Yes or No????

I fear that more innocent people would be wrongly convicted, if past form (convictions or accusations) was admissable in court.

My glass is half full, yours is nearly empty.

But thats the point. A signifacant minority are NOT incapacitated. They put in on, in order to claim invalidity benifit. Which is more than income support, and they don't have to sign on ,or get hassled to join Job clubs or attend interviews..etc.

Many people diagnosed as having depression or bad-backs are currently on invalidity benifit. Many of them are genuine,but some people are also claiming to have those,illnesses, and it is vertually impossible to know a genuine sufferer, from a sponger. The government seems at last to be clamping down on this practice, but it is the genuinly sick and ill who will suffer, by having to endure the strict questioning and government harrassemnet, that is necessary to weed out the malingerers.

Source?

can i tell him to fuck off yet

or shall i just incapacitate him

point of order

Plenty of sources Don't have time to 'google' them all.Did do a quick search on the BBC news site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4225695.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3334783.stm

point of order

Beryl - sorry I was posting in a tearing hurry before going (late) to work... I don't think I was a clear as I could have been. I was trying to say that with most means tested benefit the beneficiary wants the benefit - (not that it's their fault they claim or that they are fiddling FFS KLF) - so if you are incapacitated and apply for benefit you want that benefit - for those people who choose not to apply we might encourage or persuade them (not least in case it's out of some wrong headed idea of pride) but in the end we don't force the benefit on them.

For protection of others/maintenance of civilisation we want to force these offenders to have protection - I do think there's a difference between means testing something which is applied for and means testing something which is forced on people (even reprehensible ones) it turns a form of rehabilitation into a form of continuing punishment...

Hope this makes more sense! I'll try again if you want me to...

that makes sense now SallyA. I was also responding quickly and hadn't worked out what you meant.

fancy klf coming out with all that stuff about spongers. who'd have thunk it

Neither of which even remotely supports your claim that "a significant minority are not incapacitated".

I think you can tell him now, Beryl.

The government (who are privvy to all information/stats/surveys/records..etc, on the subject ) obviously think there is systematic abuse of the incapacity benifit system, otherwise they would not be totally overhauling it to make proof of illness much stricter, and the time lengh of which benifit can be paid without further accessment,much shorter.

i think alan had loftier iideals.

Yes, attempting to hijack the debate with a red herring is what he always does ...

I think I agree with you ... I accept that our laws propose what sentences should be applied for criminal acts and I accept that judges will make the awards ... criminals 'do their time' and should return to society with a clean sheet and start again. The odds are against them successfully surviving but once the sentence is served they should be treated as normal citizens and not suffer additional punishment. I agree that they should not serve two sentences.

But the reality is that there are some criminals whose crimes against other citizens are so appalling that their own lives will be in danger if they are released into society without protection. They become a special category of criminal. There is a danger that many citizens will not accept the premise that such criminals are entitled to return to society and will physically attack them, becoming criminals themselves in the process. We have no other choice than to protect released criminals in these circumstances. We have 'moved on' as a society and the convenient choice, available to more primitive societies, of killing criminals is no longer available to us. Thankfully, state murder is a thing of the past and hopefully it will remain so. So I agree that we must protect these special criminals, however much their crimes have disgusted me.

Once released, most of these special criminals will be dependent on the state for part of their lives at least and some for most or all of their lives. They will receive benefits from the state to pay for their shelter, food and clothing if they are unable to work and support themselves. I agree with that.
As soon as they go to work and support themselves their benefits will be stopped. I agree with that.
The protection is a free and necessary service provided by the state and will continue as long as necessary. I agree with that.

Then along comes one who became a millionaire while in prison ...

I agree that the protection remains a necessary responsiblity of the State and should be part of the "tax payers' burden" but I still think it is unfair that I contribute to a millionaire's shelter, food and clothing.

I seem to be repeating myself ... better shut up.

There needs to be a wider debate in the UK about how we treat criminals who kill or rape other citizens. But that is a different debate to this one.

lifesnotfair

i was surprised that gambling by prisoners was allowed (i think they are changing the law)

a case yesterday made me realise (or think about it for the first time ) that voting in elections isn't.