Perhaps equally as interesting is the fact that politicians constantly beating the Law and Order drum are always reluctant to introduce harsher laws to prevent crimes like corruption in office when one of their own gets caught - even when the offender is on the other side of the political divide. You could swear that some of them imagine that they themselves might end up being punished........why would they think this I wonder? I also think that these really are crimes that would drop in number if harsher penalties were introduced as the people carrying out these crimes have a lot more to lose than say the bloke that robs the local bank.
I think the aligns with research around what sort of policing policies reduce crime. Whilst increasing sentences may not reduce crime, the likelihood of being caught does.
So when someone who commits a crime (such as burglary) and doesn't get away with it and gets a longer minimum sentence, it almost makes sense that they stop committing that crime. They realise following sentencing that they aren't going to get away with it and the definite longer sentence is too much for them to commit the crime again.
So this all does make sense in light of that research.
In other words, investigation and enforcement do pay dividends. With evidence assimilation becoming easier over time , whether it be forensic or other technologically enabled evidence assimilation - and AI should help the process yet further- costly trial based on circumstantial evidence may hopefully become in the vast majority of prosecutions a thing of the past.
well, there are plenty of lag effects in social policy, especially when you are talking about a cohort that does not regularly read the newspapers. We humans are social animals, and respond to the word around the campfire more than to stern warnings from judges and politicians.
Ed West among others has noted that (at least in the UK) 90% of crimes are committed by 10% of criminals. Simply isolating repeat offenders from society works wonders, at least he says. It seems to be a similar case in Japan, where judges have no problem in incarcerating a repeat offender for decades, since they believe less in the Western principle of re-socializing the offender, and more in the Eastern principle of protecting the majority from criminal actions of a minority.
People in prison are there because they've made bad choices, usually a whole string of them. Bad habit die hard they say, this is true of those who habitially make bad choices.
Also I wonder if there is a sort of filtering effect going on i.e. it's the less skilled, lower-IQ criminals who are most likely to get caught. This would mean that lots of prisoners are both ingrained with bad habits and also stupid. Thus the two most difficult-to-change categories are combined in the same person.
A perennial dog whistle. I agree increased detection is key, although every criminal thinks she (more likely a ‘he’) will get away with it.
Underlying it all is the lack of resources. The Criminal Justice system has never recovered from the large cuts in 2012. Read “The Secret Barrister”.
Alongside we have grossly overcrowded prisons. If we condemn people to live in horrible conditions with little rehabilitation, we reap the consequence.
The ongoing problem is that there are no votes in Criminal Justice. It will get worse. The public looks on in horror at failure to deter violence against women; and should hope they never become involved as a victim, witness or wrongly accused.
That sending people to prison doesn'y make them better, is nothing new. To me it is rather obvious that gathering criminals together will produce continued and worsened criminals. I think electronic tagging should be enlarged as a method to counter this. In order to reform criminals, society must take responsibility for reintegrating them.
Perhaps equally as interesting is the fact that politicians constantly beating the Law and Order drum are always reluctant to introduce harsher laws to prevent crimes like corruption in office when one of their own gets caught - even when the offender is on the other side of the political divide. You could swear that some of them imagine that they themselves might end up being punished........why would they think this I wonder? I also think that these really are crimes that would drop in number if harsher penalties were introduced as the people carrying out these crimes have a lot more to lose than say the bloke that robs the local bank.
I think the aligns with research around what sort of policing policies reduce crime. Whilst increasing sentences may not reduce crime, the likelihood of being caught does.
So when someone who commits a crime (such as burglary) and doesn't get away with it and gets a longer minimum sentence, it almost makes sense that they stop committing that crime. They realise following sentencing that they aren't going to get away with it and the definite longer sentence is too much for them to commit the crime again.
So this all does make sense in light of that research.
In other words, investigation and enforcement do pay dividends. With evidence assimilation becoming easier over time , whether it be forensic or other technologically enabled evidence assimilation - and AI should help the process yet further- costly trial based on circumstantial evidence may hopefully become in the vast majority of prosecutions a thing of the past.
well, there are plenty of lag effects in social policy, especially when you are talking about a cohort that does not regularly read the newspapers. We humans are social animals, and respond to the word around the campfire more than to stern warnings from judges and politicians.
Ed West among others has noted that (at least in the UK) 90% of crimes are committed by 10% of criminals. Simply isolating repeat offenders from society works wonders, at least he says. It seems to be a similar case in Japan, where judges have no problem in incarcerating a repeat offender for decades, since they believe less in the Western principle of re-socializing the offender, and more in the Eastern principle of protecting the majority from criminal actions of a minority.
People in prison are there because they've made bad choices, usually a whole string of them. Bad habit die hard they say, this is true of those who habitially make bad choices.
Also I wonder if there is a sort of filtering effect going on i.e. it's the less skilled, lower-IQ criminals who are most likely to get caught. This would mean that lots of prisoners are both ingrained with bad habits and also stupid. Thus the two most difficult-to-change categories are combined in the same person.
A Venn diagram overlap of recidivist misery.
A perennial dog whistle. I agree increased detection is key, although every criminal thinks she (more likely a ‘he’) will get away with it.
Underlying it all is the lack of resources. The Criminal Justice system has never recovered from the large cuts in 2012. Read “The Secret Barrister”.
Alongside we have grossly overcrowded prisons. If we condemn people to live in horrible conditions with little rehabilitation, we reap the consequence.
The ongoing problem is that there are no votes in Criminal Justice. It will get worse. The public looks on in horror at failure to deter violence against women; and should hope they never become involved as a victim, witness or wrongly accused.
People only seem to care about law and order/ criminal justice when they have personal interaction on some level with it. Pretty lamentable.
That sending people to prison doesn'y make them better, is nothing new. To me it is rather obvious that gathering criminals together will produce continued and worsened criminals. I think electronic tagging should be enlarged as a method to counter this. In order to reform criminals, society must take responsibility for reintegrating them.