Leeds burglar’s letter to victim... ...

electricaldave · Post by **electricaldave** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 3:10 pm

Having seen the hand 'written' note, the comment I would make is that this 16 year old is never likely to contribute to society.The spelling and grammar are incredibly poor, this person cannot string together a correctly spelt coherent sentence.Imagine this lowlife applying for work - not that this would be likely. They would be in competition with the masses of crime free young people who can read and write and spell.It is a very typical ploy of the offender to blame the victims for their actions and is an abrogation of personal responsibility. This nasty little toad will have already gathered a collection of convictions where his wrists were slapped and was given yet another chance.It is not easy for a young person to make their way into prison, it takes a lot of hard work to get in there, this particular gem seems to have demonstrated he is ready for this next phase of his life. The future will be a round of incarceration release and further incarceration, until he gets too sick of it or too old - unless he commits a much more serious offence. They usually give it up at around 35 - which means that society must put up with the unacceptable behaviour for around 20 more years, during which time folk will be robbed and resources consumed in fruitless attempts at rehabilitation.You may be interested to know that drug addict can easily consume over £5 million in financial damage to society before they decide to give it up - multiply that up by the 88,000 other criminals we have locked up, and its no wonder it costs us all a total of £13 billion per year in reoffending.My belief is that offenders should be required, compulsory, to hold down work as the main condition of their licence upon release, and if they can't manage that, then they return to prison - and this should keep going until they complete an uninterrupted period of such employment, any breaks in employment and its back down to zero again.If they are unemployable, they should never ever be released until such time as they make themselves so. The only prison sentence a prisoner actually fears is the Protection of Public sentence (IPP) where the offenders release date is only notional, and depends exclusively on the offender proving themselves suitable for release to the parole board. This means that IPP offenders can be in prison many years after their original tariff has expired, because although they have done all the courses, very often the offender concerned has not changed as a person. Since offenders fear this type of sentence, it should be used far more often.

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 3:26 pm

A couple of years ago, I was severely harranged on here by one poster for expressing my belief that there was a growing proportion of individuals who showed a complete disregard fosociety, authority, and the normal social values which any right-minded person should expect ( apparantly I didn't understand those to whom I referred......).I continue to stand by that statement the reality of which is being demonstrated more and more by events we see or see reported and, and is a view which seems to be echoed by more and more people as time goes on. That growing intolerance is an encouraging sign though sadly the increasing extent of disorder causing it of course, not.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 5:57 pm

electricaldave wrote: My belief is that offenders should be required, compulsory, to hold down work as the main condition of their licence upon release, and if they can't manage that, then they return to prison - and this should keep going until they complete an uninterrupted period of such employment, any breaks in employment and its back down to zero again. Presumably you'd get an exemption for redundancy or ill health where you absence was not down to your ne'er do well character? I see a lot of exploitative employers threatening ex cons with the sack and a raft of bureaucrats to adminster the process and any appeals.Wouldn't be ironic if blowing the whistle on your gaffer for insisting you do something dangerous or you'd go back to prison, resulted in you going back to prison.

Uno Hoo · Post by **Uno Hoo** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 6:04 pm

electricaldave wrote: My belief is that offenders should be required, compulsory, to hold down work as the main condition of their licence upon release, and if they can't manage that, then they return to prison - and this should keep going until they complete an uninterrupted period of such employment, any breaks in employment and its back down to zero again.If they are unemployable, they should never ever be released until such time as they make themselves so. The only prison sentence a prisoner actually fears is the Protection of Public sentence (IPP) where the offenders release date is only notional, and depends exclusively on the offender proving themselves suitable for release to the parole board. This means that IPP offenders can be in prison many years after their original tariff has expired, because although they have done all the courses, very often the offender concerned has not changed as a person. Since offenders fear this type of sentence, it should be used far more often. I agree very much with the principle of your points, electricaldave. The best crime prevention resource is regular employment, but as we all know, this is becoming harder for anyone to obtain. Much of the unskilled labour market has gone, as have many labour-intensive industries. As always, the uneducated and consequently unskilled - a category which encompasses many (most?) offenders - jobseekers go to the bottom of the pile.Sadly, many prisoners are unemployable, or at best uncompetitive for jobs. It's some years since I retired from the criminal justice industry, but even by then the requirement in prison licences to hold down employment had of necessity been removed.

electricaldave · Post by **electricaldave** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 7:30 pm

The employment condition should be enforced, however unfair it seems. The offender already knows about unfairness, having visited such this upon their victims many many times.I have come across individuals around 21-22 years old with 150 convictions against their names, and I cannot see any justification in releasing them unless they are extremely tightly controlled - and that is very expensive to do.If they can't get a job, then they simply should not be free to offend again - ever. This may seem simplistic, but there are many unemployed law abiders who do not cause mayhem. I have absolutely no sympathy for them at all, I could run a prison extremely cheaply and stuff it full of these types, and such prisons would be a superb example to offenders in more forgiving prison environments.We have a population of offenders who are pretty much an undesirable but integral part of various districts of Leeds, and the community would be better served by not having them around in any sort of role model or societal norm - they should be seen as societies' freaks or not seen at all.We may not enjoy the idea of it, but the fact is, that a growing number of these individuals are human garbage, but their values are both corrosive and infectious to their age peers. As such we would best serve society by isolation - for good - except for the few who maybe wake up to reality and reform.IPP sentencing really does rattle them, it strikes fear into other offenders who are just one step away from it, it is a fantastic sentence and should be used far more widely.Offenders do not think in anything like the same way as the rest of us, things that may cause you to consider the consequencies are just minor obstacles around which they must find a dodge, and very often they do just that. The IPP sentence is a blunt tool with little sublety, the offender either plays ball or does not get released, even after their recommended tariff, trust me, offenders fear it.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 8:09 pm

Who would want to employ them?

electricaldave · Post by **electricaldave** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 8:41 pm

Thats their problem, not ours, until they make themselves employable by learning to read and write, and actively taking part in trade training, why should we release them to reoffend?Of all places on earth, offenders should learn that compliance in prison is central to their rehabilitation, its up to them if they ever want to be released. They don't stop committing crime in prison, the places are awash with drugs, and control of dealing networks from within the prisons themselves.Offenders serve their time and are given their freedom, this is completely the wrong concept, they should earn their right to return to society. All they do at the moment is simply pass time and reduce their boredom whilst doing it - basicly clockwatching. It's not the clock that should be the important consideration at all, it should be the chances of successful rehabilitation, and that means changes in outlook.Until they change that outlook they cannot ever be fit for release.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Fri 25 Nov, 2011 8:45 pm

What's trade training got to do with remorse and right and wrong? Plenty of crooks have trades.

Kimura · Post by **Kimura** » Sat 26 Nov, 2011 5:50 pm

Would it work the other way round?For Example:Dear Burgalar, I am writing this letter just to say that i don't feel sorry for you and show no remorse that my two Boxer dogs have ripped both your arms off whilst you were robbing my house. It's your own fault by the way!!!Don't think so, me as a victim would probably have to have my dogs destroyed.

Kimura · Post by **Kimura** » Sat 26 Nov, 2011 5:54 pm

Geordie-exile wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that burglars and arsonists are put to death? Not death but at least give them a punishment that makes them at least think twice the next time....fear is a greater feeling than greed.