Wednesday 22 June 2011

First they reduce your sentence by half and then they reduce it by a third instead and call it 'tough on crime'.

My latest blogpost: First they reduce your sentence by half and then they reduce it by a third instead and call it 'tough on crime'.Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 20:35

Labels: , , , , ,

11 comments:

James Quigley said...

Ken Clarke should be allowed a free reign to create any policies he likes in government. He's liberal, consistent and gets the detail. The complete opposite of most politicians out there who play to public opinion

22 June 2011 at 20:51
Mark Wadsworth said...

JQ, he certainly should not be allowed a free reign, although there may be some merit in giving him a free rein.

22 June 2011 at 22:00
AntiCitizenOne said...

Aha "liberal" must now mean allowing known criminal risks to prey on other law abiding citizens.

22 June 2011 at 22:55
James Quigley said...

Long live King Kenny

22 June 2011 at 23:20
James Quigley said...

He's long been of the opinion that locking people up doesn't necessarily benefit society. It just makes them feel better. I'd say thats a fairly liberal leaning way of thinking. Right or wrong

22 June 2011 at 23:22
AntiCitizenOne said...

I'd say Liberal was aiming for the minimum of use of force from both the government and non-state actors.

22 June 2011 at 23:28
JuliaM said...

"He's long been of the opinion that locking people up doesn't necessarily benefit society."

And like most of his other opinions, he's wrong.

23 June 2011 at 05:34
James Higham said...

This piece of excrement needs to be dropped off in Brussels where he belongs and all the other EUSSRists in the supposedly Conservative government.

23 June 2011 at 10:57
Anonymous said...

This man is a buffoon.He supported UK entry into the Euro and shared a platform with the traitor Mandelson,how's that working out Ken? He put reforms on the police in 1993 which wrecked the force and took years to put right (Sheehy).
Now he doesn't want anyone in prison.
As for pandering to the masses-these MPs are elected to serve the public and their opinions,not for their own agendas.
Jaded

23 June 2011 at 14:14
Tim Almond said...

He's long been of the opinion that locking people up doesn't necessarily benefit society.

He can have any goddamn opinion that he likes. The fact is that criminals already get lots of chances to reform before we send them to prison. You have to show that you're a persistent burglar, someone who stubbornly ignores the law to go to prison. At that point, it's worth locking them away partly because it might make people think about not going back again, and partly to protect the public from them.

24 June 2011 at 20:05
Mark Wadsworth said...

JT: "At that point, it's worth locking them away partly because it might make people think about not going back again, and partly to protect the public from them. "

AFAICS, the main reason to lock people up is to protect the public, so I'm happy if long term prisoners get fairly comfortable living conditions. For first time prisoners, it might be worth making their living conditions a sight more frugal as an actual punishment/deterrent.

24 June 2011 at 20:12

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)