Dealing with repeat offenders

[-Ralph-]

I think there should be a criminal totting up points system like the driving license. 100 points the limit.

A very serious or criminal driving offence gets 5 points (drink, death by dangerous, etc). A burglary gets 10 points, an armed burglary gets 25 points, a murder, abusing a child, or terrorism gets you 50 points (high enough such that you if do it twice you hit the limit, but not so high that you can hit it easily by totting other smaller offences as well).

If you reach 100 points anywhere in your lifetime, just like the 12 points on a driving licence you get an automatic ban, ie: lethal injection, goodnight sweetheart!

Just like the driving license this would be in addition to the normal punishment and would be kept as a record of how bad you've been, and there as a deterrent to re-offending.

Unlike the driving license points would never expire, but a court, just like the driving licence would have the power to let you live with more than 100 points in exeptional circumstances, ie: you totted up 95 points in your teens and 20's by being a scrote, you rehabilited and stopped totting up (otherwise you were going to die!), then in your 40's you found yourself in court as a result of something negligent but unintentional.

Lets face it, if you have been caught, convicted and punished appropriately, for murder twice, armed robbery 4 times, burglary 10 times, or serious driving offences 20 times, you are never going to rehabilite, you are a danger to society, and you are a drain on society as your going to be in and out of court rooms and jail cells your entire life.

Just take them out of the gene pool!

We all break the speed limit from time to time, but how many of you once you'd picked up 9 points, would carry on speeding? I've been in that situation myself, and I can tell you I drove like a saint and didn't break a speed limit or even stop in a yellow box, for three years. It's a re-offending deterrent system which we have already proved works.

Obviously it's the system I'm mooting, not the number of points allocated to a particular offence those are just possible examples (I'm not that bothered whether people think 10 points for burglary is wrong), although I do think no offence should carry 100 points or be higher than 50 points or you are almost just re-introducing the death penalty for individual offences. Every person has the right to rehabilitation opportunities. This is reintroducing the death penalty for a catalogue of repeated offences, but not as a punishment for any one offence.

What do you think?

[widepants]

As mentioned in the other thread.Do the Americans use the 3 strike system?

[Spank86]

Some American states do, it's generally regarded as extremely flawed and results in their prisons being a lot fuller with no comparable drop in crime.

[-Ralph-]

What's the 3 strike system?

Three opportunities is a bit low IMO, unless it's something like murder where you really don't want it to happen 3 times before you stop it completely (unfortunately under the system I'm mooting here you have to run the risk of it happening it twice, otherwise you are not giving the offender any rehabilitation opportunity).

[-Ralph-]

Is it true that some American states have the 3 stricks and you're out rule.So if strike number three is shop lifting a bag of bubble gum its still curtains

Too draconian IMO. And if the punishment for 3 strikes is jail, some people are better off in jail than out, so it's no deterrent to them. Just like driving, those who carry on offending after 9 points probably don't care about their driving license, and would drive without it anyway, so loosing it is no deterrent.

This isn't a punishment system. It's a deterrent system. People committing a crime that deserves a jail sentence, would still get the jail sentence. If they steal bubble gum, they would still get a slap on the wrist. They would just get the points recorded against them, with no bearing on the punishment for that individual crime. Stealing bubble gum could be 1 point if you want, although it would probably never get to a court room anyway so would have no impact.

If somebody's got to the point where they are repeat, repeat, repeat, offending and they don't care about the consequence of loosing their life, then they are probably better off dead anyway, for their sake and everybody elses.

[Spank86]

Literally third time guilty in court.

So the third time you steal bread for your starving children (hyperbole) you're banged up for life, no excuses, no leniency.

[-Ralph-]

Literally third time guilty in court.

So the third time you steal bread for your starving children (hyperbole) you're banged up for life, no excuses, no leniency.

Yep, that's never going to work.

One of my mates is a screw in a serious offenders prison. He runs the gym so he spends an hour at a time talking to them as he essentially acts as their personal trainer. Some of them love it in there, 3 square meals a day, a comfortable bed in a heated room, no responsibilities, education, activities, pool table, table tennis, TV rooms and film showings, and membership of a private gym.

Is jail still a punishment? We'll it depends on how good your life was on the outside. Some of them have kids and don't see them grow up. Many of them have to take it up the rrrsss in the showers on a daily basis. For some it's probably not, for others it's probably hell.

[timwilky]

The days of the sort sharp shock was supposed to nip repeating in the bud. Unfortunately beasting urks is no longer allowed. somebody told them they have rights. I would say they have abdicated all rights by virtue of being a convicted offender.

I know a few people who have done time. All learned from it. Not one went back to their old ways. But they were traditional criminals that prison was designed to "rehabilitate". I don't think it works for career /third generation scum who think everything is so unfair and they have a right to do whatever they want.

[Biker Biggles]

Firstly,I dont believe in capital punishment on principle so I wouldnt go for that,and we already have a system in theory where previous convictions are taken into account in court.We dont seem to be able to implement it very well though.
I also believe that those who are a danger to the rest of us should be taken out of circulation until such time as they are no longer a clear danger,and that could mean much longer terms for violent offenders or those who repeatedly drive while drunk or banned.I would not be too keen on long terms for repeat shoplifters or similar scrotes,unless there was violence as well.Maybe we should bring back the birch for that sort of thing?Or at least force them to repay society in some way.

[-Ralph-]

I also believe that those who are a danger to the rest of us should be taken out of circulation until such time as they are no longer a clear danger

So if it becomes clear that someone is going to be a danger their entire lives, do we keep them locked up their entire lives? It costs £45 grand a year to keep someone in prison. Already we don't have the prison capacity to do it. It keeps that person alive, but what difference does it make to the rest of society?

(if the reply to that is it stops the rest of society becoming murders themselves, then this whole thread falls flat on it's face under your belief system. If that's what you believe then debate over, nobody else really has the right to argue with that).

I guess a question to be asked about this system is how many criminals would risk their life by getting to 100 points? Therefore how many would actually be subject to capital punishment as a result?

[-Ralph-]

PS: I am also against capital punishment, but not because I object to death as a punishment (obviously), but because the justice system doesn't always get it right. You can't kill someone after 1 conviction IMO.

It does raise the issue of what happens if somebody tots up 50 points for 5 burglaries that they did commit, but then gets wrongly convicted of murder.

[Spank86]

Not sure about stops them becoming murderers but I'd argue it might stop them becoming murdered.

[Biker Biggles]

So if it becomes clear that someone is going to be a danger their entire lives, do we keep them locked up their entire lives? It costs £45 grand a year to keep someone in prison. Already we don't have the prison capacity to do it. It keeps that person alive, but what difference does it make to the rest of society?

(if the reply to that is it stops the rest of society becoming murders themselves, then this whole thread falls flat on it's face under your belief system. If that's what you believe then debate over, nobody else really has the right to argue with that).

I guess a question to be asked about this system is how many criminals would risk their life by getting to 100 points? Therefore how many would actually be subject to capital punishment as a result?

I am indeed against capital punishment on principle,and that can be a difficult line to take at times.Sometimes there are people who commit crimes so horrific that they clearly dont deserve to be kept alive,but to me the principle overules the individual case.There are cases where I would be quite happy to pull the lever myself,but we dont do that any more,and Im glad about that.

[-Ralph-]

I am indeed against capital punishment on principle,and that can be a difficult line to take at times.Sometimes there are people who commit crimes so horrific that they clearly dont deserve to be kept alive,but to me the principle overules the individual case.There are cases where I would be quite happy to pull the lever myself,but we dont do that any more,and Im glad about that.

Would you support this points system in principal, if the punishment for reaching 100 points was imprisonment until the day you die?

[Biker Biggles]

For certain types of crime I would support it,although I see no point in keeping people in prison when they are no longer capable of further crime,so discharging them to an old peoples home would be ok in my book.
I also dont see prison as the right place for those who are not going to harm others as in my example of the bloke who wears no clothes,so for violence or persistantly putting others at risk(like car crime)then its a tentative yes.

[Spank86]

Would you support this points system in principal, if the punishment for reaching 100 points was imprisonment until the day you die?

In my mind it would depend on how points were allocated after all you wouldn't want it too easy to et to 100 points.

Any points system is doomed to have flaws, the trick would be to make them less than the flaws in subjective sentencing.

[-Ralph-]

No thoughts on this one from the evening bunch?

[Sid Squid]

There isn't a system that could ever be considered perfect, I think we need to accept that before lauding or decrying any given suggestion. I'm not by principle against capital punishment, but a deeper part of that question is, while accepting that no system will ever always get it right so, given that there will be future errors and miscarriages of justice the ancient question remains, 'which is worse - that the innocent are punished, or that the guilty go unpunished?'
Therein, for me, is why the question of capital punishment gets kinda fruity.

Whatever merits, or otherwise, our current systems have, it's perfectly clear that we need to do better, presently there just isn't enough of a deterrent, particularly with lower level crime.