Free expression, or sickening offence?

[Nearly Sane]

It seems highly dubious to me. For starters, in the absence of proven telepathic powers you can never tell for sure, beyond any doubt, that contrition is genuine in the first place.

Secondly, you could end up with a ludicrous infinite regress of remorse and retraction - "I'm really sorry for what I did wrong ... haha, no I'm not! ... No, honestly, really I am ... fooled you!"

So therefore given that we shouldn't make any difference between someone expressing remorse and not for sentencing in your opinion?

[Rhiannon]

It's supposed to cover 'further information' that the court wasn't aware of at the time of sentencing.

Any criminal can display false contrition. Equally it's conceivable that stupid 'gloating' happens in the contrite as a result of too many beers and/or egging on by mates.  What this seems to say is that 'further information' includes things that haven't actually happened at the time of sentencing.

[Rhiannon]

So therefore given that we shouldn't make any difference between someone expressing remorse and not for sentencing in your opinion?

Contrition's easy to fake and not everyone is stupid enough to blow it on Facebook when they get home.

Why not issue an adequate sentence in the first place?

[Nearly Sane]

Contrition's easy to fake and not everyone is stupid enough to blow it on Facebook when they get home.

Why not issue an adequate sentence in the first place?

What's 'adequate'? Note i'm not taking a position here I just asked the question about should we make any difference in sentencing between those who 'show' remorse and those who don't in sentencing. Any opinion?

[Udayana]

"Adequate" is a sentence sufficient to deter re-offending.

If someone is genuinely contrite then obviously a lighter sentence can be imposed. If they are "gloating" about how lightly they got off or the impact on the victim, then it seems perfectly reasonable to drag them back and increase the sentence - especially in the case of a suspended sentence.

[Nearly Sane]

Just deterrence? No retribution? Does that mean for the same crime 1 day and life would be reasonable, if that was the deterrents needed by different criminals?

[Udayana]

Obviously the law itself states minimum/maximum limits for most offences. There is an element of "retribution" in most cases but difficult to account for it separately- should it be affected by any "gloating" factor?

[Nearly Sane]

Obviously the law itself states minimum/maximum limits for most offences. There is an element of "retribution" in most cases but difficult to account for it separately- should it be affected by any "gloating" factor?

I'm not linking it to 'gloating". You stated that 'adequate' was about deterrence. I asked you if you didn't see it as also linked to retribution. Do you think that if a day would deter one person as a sentence and a lifetime another person, then that's what should determine their sentence?

[Udayana]

Yes, essentially. The main point of the sentence is to change the future behaviour. However "retribution" for past events may be needed as emotional compensation for victims or to "assert the authority of the law" - and I would expect it to be considered in sentencing.

If someone kills a person by driving carelessly, say, the penalty is usually much harsher than for just driving dangerously. In fact, I think it may actually, somewhat illogically, be a different offence.

[Rhiannon]

I think deterrent is important if there's a chance it will avert harm. It should be a given that if you use someone's head as a football - and we all know what the consequences of that can be - you get a custodial sentence. I don't see the point in custodial sentences for offences like receiving or handling stolen goods even if the person then boasts about leniency on FB.

[jeremyp]

I don't disagree. But nevertheless, that was the sentence he received, and it disturbs me greatly that having received that sentence anyone can in effect be dragged back to court and imprisoned for something like "gloating."

The original suspended sentence might have been handed down on the basis of various assumptions that the Facebook post proved were not true. Defence council might have argued leniency based on the defendant's remorse.

Just because the judge said the post was gloating doesn't mean it was the only reason for the sentence change.

[Owlswing]

On a similar thread on the old Beeb board I posted that I was in favour of custodial sentences for the purposes of 'isolation' first and 'rehabilitation' secondary; custodial sentences are to isolate the law-breakers from the law-abiding. I have seen no view whatsoever yet expressed to give me reason change that view

Were I to have the power to do so I would leave the problems caused by the over-crowding of prisons in this way to those who can solve said problem by doing absolutely nothing - the law-breakers! Stop breaking the law and the problem of overcrowded prisoins solves itself. At the moment an awful lot of law-breakers are betting on a non-custodial sentence precisely because of do-gooder social workers pleading that subjecting them to an over-crowded will be bad for their poor little client, regardless of the nastiness of the crime with which they were charged and found to be guilty of. 

[Harrowby Hall]

I know of no evidence to suggest that British citizens and residents are inherently more "criminal" than people in other, similar, countries but it does seem that we have tendency to incarcerate more people for longer than do other countries. (I do not include the USA in this comparison.)

What concerns me is the cost of incarceration - almost £40,000 per inmate per year. And the number of prisoners appears to be growing. At a time when public services are being subjected to harsh cost cutting measures but increasing incarceration appears to be immune from scrutiny (I may well be wrong.)

The use of imprisonment as a means of retribution is certainly justified but is there any evidence that prison acts as a deterrent? I remember as an undergraduate nearly half a century ago considering the lack of any evidence supporting this notion. After all, if it were a deterrent it would put people off committing crimes - which it clearly does no.

I can think of many situations where a custodial sentence is unnecessary: the shame of public exposure and denunciation may be punishment enough - especially where the offender is well-known in a community.

There are some offences which should only be punished by removal from society and - in some cases - prolonged imprisonment is entirely appropriate, but in many cases it does seem to me that incarceration is a knee-jerk response by the judge.

One thought that I have had is that judges should have a prison budget for all cases where prison is an optional punishment. And when a judge exceeds his or her budget, he or she should be made to give a public justification of sentencing habits.


http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prisonthefacts.pdf

[ippy]

Bit of an insensitive twerp but not a criminal.

ippy

[Owlswing]

I know of no evidence to suggest that British citizens and residents are inherently more "criminal" than people in other, similar, countries but it does seem that we have tendency to incarcerate more people for longer than do other countries. (I do not include the USA in this comparison.)

What concerns me is the cost of incarceration - almost £40,000 per inmate per year. And the number of prisoners appears to be growing. At a time when public services are being subjected to harsh cost cutting measures but increasing incarceration appears to be immune from scrutiny (I may well be wrong.)

The use of imprisonment as a means of retribution is certainly justified but is there any evidence that prison acts as a deterrent? I remember as an undergraduate nearly half a century ago considering the lack of any evidence supporting this notion. After all, if it were a deterrent it would put people off committing crimes - which it clearly does no.

I can think of many situations where a custodial sentence is unnecessary: the shame of public exposure and denunciation may be punishment enough - especially where the offender is well-known in a community.

There are some offences which should only be punished by removal from society and - in some cases - prolonged imprisonment is entirely appropriate, but in many cases it does seem to me that incarceration is a knee-jerk response by the judge.

One thought that I have had is that judges should have a prison budget for all cases where prison is an optional punishment. And when a judge exceeds his or her budget, he or she should be made to give a public justification of sentencing habits.


http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prisonthefacts.pdf

Don't be daft! Enough people who should be imprisoned are not already. Don't make it any worse.

I really must try and find statistics on crimes committed by people who should have been jailed but were not; crimes committed within the time period of the sentence that they should have got!

I seem to remember, way back. a boy/youth who had committed over 500 burglaries, had been charged and taken to court about 30 times, and had never served a day. His "take" was calculated at about £150K. 

This is the downside of your post!