Do you think that harsher sentencing would reduce crime?

A very good and understandable Question , However the actual "Sentencing" is readily available but handing out ,shall we say - "stiffer" sentences is Interfered with by the Army of C P S and Defence Lawyer Tossers , It seems that the Climate in our country is very much in Favour of the Offender - I.e the Bloody Criminal and the Victim is treated Like an Offender and a Nuisance - Thousands and Thousands of Pounds in Fines are never , ever Paid . Our Country is without any Doubt in a great crisis with our Law and Order - in fact the Criminal Fraternity are having their own way Through and Through Aided and Abetted by the Lunatic "Politically Correct" - The the Sick and Demented "Do Gooders" and the Sinister "Enemy Within",I.e Politicians , Now "Importing" Criminals by the thousand - A situation which is gradually "Destroying" our once Great Country- --- Not by Accident-- This Is a Great and ever increasing Disaster --- Good Luck to You

Ronnie B T

Where there is no punishment, there is anarchy, but there are always people who think they are so good, they can fool the system, so harsher punishment will have a positive effect, because they are off the streets longer. I think we should make prisons, prisons. Take away TV and entertainment and make it really bad to be there. Too much coddling.

phooey

Go to somewhere like Cuba where possession of drugs will get you 20 years in prison, you will serve 20 years and guess what; they don't have much of a drug problem.
Build more prisons, take away prisoners playstations etc and give out proper long sentences and we'll go a long way to improving our society.

tonybobette

I believe the victim of the crime should have a say in the sentancing. As for deterring crime, we need to get rid of these politically correct rules that protect the criminals. National Service could be another way i suppose

Dickie

bring back hanging, make the b.sards swing for there crime

Gary

yes i think harsher sentencing would reduce crime.

we should also make an example of those who do break the law. This could act as a detterance because people would know not to break the law because they would not get away with it

Hibee

China executed 10,000 people last year. India executed 1.

Which is the more crime-ridden society?

d3midway

Yes if they had to serve the full sentence and if you get the dealth sentence don't sit on dealth row for 20 yrs we have alot of those. Plus they have it good they have medical, dental, education, tv, 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in every night etc.. so why not commit another crime and go back!!! They need to make it tough on them while they are in there and they may not want to go back!!!

Blue Steel & Lace

I think that sentences should be a little longer, and it should be harder to get an early release. Do the crime, do the full time.
It may not deter others, but it certainly will deter the person who is in prison.

I wish it would.

We already have some harsh sentences for some crimes, and people just keep on committing them, then cry when they are sentenced. (??????)............sigh.

Simon T

The sentencing should be stiffer, and the offenders should serve their full sentence.

Take on the American system, 3 strikes and your out!!

The police arrest them, the offender peas NOT GUILTY at court, then waits until the last possible minute and then changed their plea to guilty. They do this in an effort to get the case thrown out of court due to witnesses not turning up and get adjournments for silly reasons - all this gives the offender more time on the streets. If they were guilty in the first place they should make that plea from the start. In most cases they will get a reduced sentence due to the fact they have gone guilty, regardless if this was from the start of 6 months down the line of the trial, but I think that they should be given the full term of sentence in this scenario. They know they are guilty, but have waisted the courts time the police's time and witnesses time.

Karen

Yes I do. That said,what is the point of sentencing those criminals to imprisonment,when prison itself is more like a hotel!!! They have most comforts of home!! It cannot be that bad,thousands seem to want to go there!!! Perhaps harsher prisons along with harsher sentences is the way to go.Oh,sorry,they can't do that,it would violate their human rights!!! Its a joke. Its time to start PUNISHING criminals,then, and only then, will the crime rate drop!!!!

*****

Harsher sentences is NOT the answer. The answer is enforcing the sentence. Some hardened criminals are being released way before their sentence is up.

bwadsp

They reserve this for minor crimes. Like putting a woman in jail for FEEDING THE BIRDS

SGT. D

Well, first off, you are assuming that Crooks have brains. They don't always. I think the legal system with all it's faults is pretty good. I had an old Patrol Sgt. of mine once say that it would be the greatest system in the world if they could just get rid of the Lawyers.

nicky dakiamadnat600bugmunchsqig

It's not the harsher sentencing that's the problem,but the fact they have it easy whilst in prison.It's a hotel for them,paid by the British tax-payer.
If they took away all the niceties,and brought back the old system of prison punishment,then maybe things would be different.
But in this day and age,everybody is shouting about there so called ` human rights`.
If they were to think of the consequences of their actions, before they commit a crime,then maybe our prison system wouldn't be overflowing

Jacqueline M

The death penalty would be a great deterrant at least murderers wouldn`t be able to re-offend.
Cutting the hands of thieves would stop them re-offending.
Bring back public flogging

Old Man of Coniston!.

It certainly would. And coupled with hard labour, most would think twice about re-offending.
Sorry, most of them only think once!.

Mong

Punishment is not a deterrant. People will always commit crime there is no deterrant. I don't believe that you can reform a criminal. The punishment should fit the crime. A jury of 12 honest men (or women, or an equal mix of both)( I'm trying to be P.C. )should decide the sentence, not a judge. I don't think the death penalty should be imposed on anybody, regardless of what they are accused of, because there is always the possibility of convicting an innocent. I know that innocents have been executed in the past, and Im sure that many more innocents will continue to be executed in the future.
I'll get down off my high horse now and let you discuss it amongst yourselves.

pampurredpuss

I have always believed in a life for a life and that is how our courts should see it to. If you murder someone why do you think it gives you the right to carry on breathing, after you have destroyed a family, and changed their future forever.
We wouldn't have to have so many prisons if they executed murderers, more of our taxes to spend on what's important like hospitals and finding a cure for cancer, aids, etc.

naplusultra

Good question. It's not the sentence for the crime it is the way it is applied. Same crime, different judge, one gives community service, other gives 3 months in prison!. Whole cps needs an overhaul and sentences for each crime be standard.

Sharky

I would like to think it does. If nothing else, harsher sentencing does keep the ones committing these crimes off the streets for longer amounts of time. That reduces to opportunities for repeat offenders to re-offend.

yohan m

10-15yrs? are you absolutely off your head? for stealing a car? maybe if kids were brought up better and taught why they should respect others property. 15yrs out of somebody's life for stealing a car? don't be an idiot. people are so ******** stupid, someone said 'let the victim have a say in the sentence'....can't you see how that's flawed?

and capital punishment will never return.....it's barbaric and it's effect as a deterrent is negligible

soobee

didn't read the text, just the question'
if harsher sentencing reduced crime, then the US would have virtually none. the US has the highest incarceration rate in the free world, and is higher than some countries where freedom is not espoused!
there are a lot of very serious penalties for crime in the US such as the three strikes you're out policy, but it doesn't stop people from being criminals
criminals don't think they're going to get caught, so harsh sentencing is irrelevant to them until they are in front of a judge

.45 Peacemaker

A liberal use of capital punishment would reduce crime

someonecanbme

what is capital punishment?

Playing Nice

I am not sure if it would. Some people just really really believe that they will not get caught.

Mountian Man

Yes, or send them to me to deal with

doctor_bongingtonnes

I think that tonybobette makes a good point with National Service. this has been brought up in Australia several times, with no success, yet would provide for the discipline required to break the habit of crime. And again, Tara Fabulous nails it with alot of people jsut don't believe they will get caught..... Yeha the thought of getting nabbed is with you all the way through, yet its not the most immediate thought in your mind..... you are at that point more concerned with (in your hypothetical situation) getting into that car an gettin outta there. The end result a crimainal sees is getting away with it....... not getting caught.....increasing sentencing times for minor crimes would just add to the worlds overpopulated jails anyway. the question is not to increase the penalties, but to have a look at some of the things that are illegal. Many crimes which are crowding out our jails have been removed from penal codes in countries all through the world, and yet the "civilised western world" refuses to adapt. Something must change somewhere, or society will all end up being criminals.

ALBERT M

i would put them on a island where there is no transport at all make them walk 20 miles a day with a chain and ball round there ankles then whip the b------- Human Rights SOD THEM

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: