UK Democratic Forum

The Nameless Tory:

OK, good topic to start with.

We need to understand what prison does before we can discuss those points. Prison must serve (at least) one of the following purposes:

1. Punishment

2. Reformation

3. Imprisonment of those who are a danger to society.

And those objectives are potentially contradictory. If you are punishing someone, it is difficult to reform them at the same time. Equally, if you are looking to reform someone then sending them to prison, where they will be surrounded by other criminals, might be the worst possible thing to do. And some people are clearly a danger to others, but if prison is genuinely to reform people, then the concept of life meaning life has to be abolished. But then again, can you reform Dennis Nielsen or Peter Sutcliffe?

If prison is to play a meaningful part in today’s society, perhaps we need to focus more on the deterrence side. People should be afraid of going to prison. And it also needs to be clear what crimes will result in what sentences. We need to be sending the right people to prison. Is there any point in sending Pete Doherty to prison, where he can buy more drugs? No, there is more mileage in sending him on enforced rehab. Equally, if someone commits an assault, they should know that they will be going to prison and the length of the sentence will depend on the severity of the assault. Also people need to have more faith in the sentencing laws. If you can get 20 years for using a forged note and 7 years for raping someone, well, people are not going to respect the prison/justice system, are they?

Probation probably needs to play a part in the debate.

The Moai:
As does early release, which has been involved in a frightening number of recent murders.....

When you read what that gang did to those two girls, you struggle to believe that there were no warning signs.

Sion Jenkins is another interesting point. In theory you can only stand trial for the same offence once in this country. He has had multiple trials and is still not, in the eyes of the media and therefore the eyes of the general public, and innocent man. And the one striking thing is that regardless of whether he is innocent or not, a child killer is walking the streets. This has to be seen on some levels as a failure of both the police and of the criminal justice system.


As ever, statistics comes into the debate. It is often said that we imprison a lot of people in this country compared to the European average BUT when you look at how many we bang up compared to our (relatively high) crime rate, it is actually far less than comparable economies. See here.

The imprisonment-for-its-own-sake function of prison is seriously underestimated by policy makers. I have seen whole communities breathe a sigh of collective relief when a one-man crime-wave is finally incarcerated, and they know they can safely leave their cars out in the street again. Similarly, the same people feel utter dismay when these individuals are released. My own village was different place for the two years when a certain evil b*stard I went to school with was finally banged up after his umpteenth offence. He has moved now, and similarly, the relief is palpable.

Prison is no longer a deterrent. If it was, reoffending would not be as high as it is.

As for reforming the Sutcliffes et al of this world, I would argue they are not criminal as such, they are ill and must be treated. And if they are not treatable, permanently incarcerated. This is another good example of someone who should have been treated or at least kept away from the public - an awful, awful case.

I once read that forgery, fraud etc. get higher sentences because of the relative rarity of these crimes - judges do not become inured to them, unlikely assault, mugging, and all the other petty things that only happen to plebs - and because more often than not, the government itself is a victim.

I would point out that Sutcliffe is not mentally ill. He claimed to be schizophrenic and is being treated at a mental hospital, but there is strong evidence he knew exactly what he was doing and was in control when he killed. Legally, you are criminally insane if you are not in control of your actions – the best way of explaining it is the case of John Christie. At a trial a psychiatrist was asked whether Christie would have killed repeatedly if a policeman was stood next to him. The answer was no – therefore he was in control of his actions. Amongst other things, Sutcliffe had a pair of trousers with the crotch cut out so he could pleasure himself as he killed. And when he was arrested he hid his weapons and managed to appear little more than a man soliciting sex. He may have had terrible, violent impulses but he did have a choice – and he chose to act on them.

A good example of someone who murdered then was released to kill again is Henry Lee Lucas. He murdered his abusive mother and served his time, before being released. He then went on a killing spree across America which, if his confessions are to be believed, may have claimed up to 350 lives. Interestingly, he is also the only death row inmate granted clemency whilst George W Bush was Governor of Texas.

The reason why forging money gets such a high tariff if because it is seen as attacking the infrastructure of the state. Although if you want to be popular and looked after in prison, forgery is a good thing to go down for.