Carry a knife...go to jail (or not...)

[easty]

I see the Tories have decided to change their mind, election pledge actually, regarding the carrying of a knife.

Cameron did say - "We have to send a clear message that carrying a knife on our streets is completely inexcusable and unacceptable in a civilised society,"

"So we're proposing that anyone convicted of knife crime should expect to go to jail. I don't believe the government's presumption to prosecute is enough. It doesn't send a strong enough signal. We need a presumption to prison."

I couldn't help but agree with that at the time. Shame that cutting the numbers of people sent to prison seems more important than getting dangerous nutters off the streets.

[Sylar]

I see the Tories have decided to change their mind, election pledge actually, regarding the carrying of a knife.

Cameron did say - "We have to send a clear message that carrying a knife on our streets is completely inexcusable and unacceptable in a civilised society,"

"So we're proposing that anyone convicted of knife crime should expect to go to jail. I don't believe the government's presumption to prosecute is enough. It doesn't send a strong enough signal. We need a presumption to prison."

I couldn't help but agree with that at the time. Shame that cutting the numbers of people sent to prison seems more important than getting dangerous nutters off the streets.

His statement is quite confusing actually - on the one part, he starts off by denouncing the very act of carrying a knife, yet in the "punishment" aspect of his commentary, he only mentions being convicted of a knife crime.

Does one = the other (I genuinely don't know)?

[RyeSloan]

His statement is quite confusing actually - on the one part, he starts off by denouncing the very act of carrying a knife, yet in the "punishment" aspect of his commentary, he only mentions being convicted of a knife crime.

Does one = the other (I genuinely don't know)?

Yup, typical political comment....makes it sound tough but when you look at it he is really saying those CONVICTED of knife crime should PRESUME they are going to prison.

So he has not said any one caught with a knife should go to prison nor those actually prosecuted and convicted must go to prison.

Anyway as we all know politicians talking tough on crime and then legislating minimum sentences for all manner of crimes doesn't actually do much towards lowering the crime they are targeting so don't think I will get to upset at this one.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It's really starting to annoy how many empty promises where made before the last election, and before you leicester and beefy get all hot under the collar, all parties lied to us, not just those evil tories.

I personally think it's about time we had a method of holding politicians to account if they break election pledges.

[Killiehibbie]

I personally think it's about time we had a method of holding politicians to account if they break election pledges.
If they were salesmen they'd get done under the trade descriptions act but as they know better it makes it alright to lie through their teeth. Get a few of them in jail for their expenses and hopefully more to follow for all manner of other things.

[Leicester Fan]

It's really starting to annoy how many empty promises where made before the last election, and before you leicester and beefy get all hot under the collar, all parties lied to us, not just those evil tories.

I personally think it's about time we had a method of holding politicians to account if they break election pledges.

I never actually heard this pledge during the election and I thought Labour had introduced something like this when they were in power.

However if the Tories have changed this or watered it down then I'm not happy about it, especially if it's just to save money. Violent crims should be behind bars.

[Dinkydoo]

His statement is quite confusing actually - on the one part, he starts off by denouncing the very act of carrying a knife, yet in the "punishment" aspect of his commentary, he only mentions being convicted of a knife crime.

Does one = the other (I genuinely don't know)?

To make matters even more confusing I heard on the radio yesterday that it is only to be "people convicted of serious knife crimes which should expect to go to jail.".

What is the difference between serious and non-serious? :confused:

I think that this really sends out a mixed message, one that says carrying a knife isn't serious but commiting a crime like threatening or hurting someone with it is.......

We have all been told before that even carrying a kinfe (or any weapon for tht matter) is a serious offence; what has changed?

[easty]

I'm fed up hearing about how sending more and more people to prison isn't helping....that it has to be more a job of rehabilitation to prevent it happening again.

For me, first and foremost, prison should be about punishment. And in the case of carrying a knife, I believe you should be punished and sent to jail.

Would the threat of guaranteed jail time for anyone caught with a knife mean nobody would carry them? Of course not, but I bet it would make some of the idiots think twice.

[Beefster]

I'm fed up hearing about how sending more and more people to prison isn't helping....that it has to be more a job of rehabilitation to prevent it happening again.

For me, first and foremost, prison should be about punishment. And in the case of carrying a knife, I believe you should be punished and sent to jail.

Would the threat of guaranteed jail time for anyone caught with a knife mean nobody would carry them? Of course not, but I bet it would make some of the idiots think twice.

If they are idiots, not necessarily. I'm all for prison sentences for violent crimes or those showing the intent to carry out a violent crime (i.e. carrying knives, screwdrivers, bars etc) but there's no doubt that the re-offending rate for those who have been in prison needs to be tackled in a new way.

[easty]

If they are idiots, not necessarily. I'm all for prison sentences for violent crimes or those showing the intent to carry out a violent crime (i.e. carrying knives, screwdrivers, bars etc) but there's no doubt that the re-offending rate for those who have been in prison needs to be tackled in a new way.

That's why I said some, though. I concede that regardless of the punishment there will always be some who will not care.

You're right, the re-offending rate has to be tackled, but that shouldn't mean that people aren't reasonably punished for committing a crime. Make jail time harder for a start. If it was up to me (and it should be :cool2:) I'd have had prisoners from Saughton out in a chain gang clearing the snow from the roads through the night.

[Woody1985]

That's why I said some, though. I concede that regardless of the punishment there will always be some who will not care.

You're right, the re-offending rate has to be tackled, but that shouldn't mean that people aren't reasonably punished for committing a crime. Make jail time harder for a start. If it was up to me (and it should be :cool2:) I'd have had prisoners from Saughton out in a chain gang clearing the snow from the roads through the night.

You couldn't have that, they might slip and break a nail then sue the prison service.

[Mibbes Aye]

If they are idiots, not necessarily. I'm all for prison sentences for violent crimes or those showing the intent to carry out a violent crime (i.e. carrying knives, screwdrivers, bars etc) but there's no doubt that the re-offending rate for those who have been in prison needs to be tackled in a new way.

The scale of the problem of re-offending is quite dramatic. Sadly I don't think anyone in the political mainstream has yet shown the courage to try and shift the narrative on why people re-offend and how to reduce that.

If we are genuine when we say that prison is about retribution for breaching our society's codes, but also about rehabilitation - trying to ensure that people are capable of making a contribution to society - then there are ways of reducing re-offending, but they won't be to the tastes of many, especially in financially-straitened times.

I would go out on a limb and say it's irrefutable that offenders, but critically, re-offenders even more, are going to tend to be less-educated; less likely to have stable employment; more likely to have mental health problems; more likely to have drug and alcohol problems and a bunch of other things as well.

Some of these problems will be linked. Some will be the cause of the other, some will be the effect of the other. Some will be linked to choices made, some not, most probably in that grey area inbetween (and there's another debate for the sociologically-minded :greengrin).

If you want to reduce re-offending then these are the areas that need attention. As I say, I can imagine how some would react to the thought of spending money trying to create jobs for criminals, trying to give them some qualifications, or counselling, or support to stop misusing substances. There's another deeper debate about how much responsibility lies with the individual and how much with the state.

Nevertheless, people are less likely to reoffend when they have something to lose. And when they have something to lose, it's usually because they're properly part of our society, with all the binds and self-constraints that come with that.

As long as people are marginalised, there's far less incentive for them not to re-offend (and that's not necessarily even a conscious decision). If they're brought in, they're not just less likely to re-offend but are more able to contribute to society, to all our benefit.