I have never understood the idea behind prisoners serving concurrent sentences, seems kind of pointless especially as the sentences for a crime are enshrined in law and it is up to the judge to decide of the sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively.
I don't agree with much that comes form the Conservative Party but i have to agree with their idea that prisoners serve the time they are given and not released early which is another thing which has me scratching my head over.
Approximately 90% of sentences come with an automatic release granted half-way through the time and then the offender is on licence for the remainder of it so if someone is given a four-year sentence for burglary, they will spend two years in prison and two years outside.
Those guilty of more serious crimes spend a greater part of their sentence in jail, normally be two-thirds, and require approval from the parole board to gain early release.
A life sentence rarely means life in prison, averaging 17 years in jail although they will be on licence for the rest of their lives.
Apparently the intention is to allow rehabilitation for the offender in the community while critics say it is just a way of keeping prison numbers down, of the available 93,000 prison places, the current prison population stands at 84,000.
As the role of prison is to basically remove less desirable people from society for a period of time, there is an argument that prison is a punishment while others argue it is to rehabilitate criminals to become able to participate in society but i still cannot work out why serving less time than the law states you should serve benefits anyone other than the prisoner but certainly not the victims and
their families.
No comments:
Post a Comment