Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Two strikes and you're out - explained
Now dear reader, you may have realised that I'm rather sceptical when it comes to this government and the slogan "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and of course I'd never really subscribed to the theory that government policy and practice would be effective, even with the so called borrowing of the "two strikes and you're out" policy from America.
My understanding of the policy (which is I believe how it operates in America) is that on conviction of the third offence (having committed two previous ones of similar type); the criminal receives a substantially increased sentence as I suppose quite sensibly they decide well he hasn't reformed so isn't likely to, we may as well lock him up for a long time and stop his offending.
In England dear reader it clearly "works" differently the first difference seems well and good it is the second strike not the third that produces shall we say "special treatment", I quote from an article linked to later:
"The two strikes and you're out law
Strike One: The sentence - Lill jailed at Croydon Crown Court for five years.
Strike Two: The sentence - Lill jailed at York Crown Court for life."
So second strike, life sentence, sounds tough uh? Even tougher than America where you need three convictions.
Let's see what the judge had to say: "Judge Paul Hoffman said: "In my view, you should not be released to the public until you are feeble."" Sounds like a vicious offender them, what's his age? It's 34, so from the judge's own words we'd hopefully expect what? 40 years? He'd be 74 then (if still alive) and presumably rather more feeble. Anyway the judge makes a "recommendation" as to a minimum amount of time he should serve before being considered for parole let's see how long he's recommended: "the judge set a tariff under national sentencing policies, allowing Lill to be considered for parole after 30 months".
"He set the tariff of two-and-a-half years, because that was half the sentence he would have imposed had he not had to pass a life sentence."
Note dear reader that on the second strike, the judge has had to impose the same sentence as imposed for the first offence - the equivalent of 5 years.
So what was the point of the life sentence? What was the point of the judge's strong words? The whole thing is just a mockery and a charade.
Two "strikes and your out" in England operates like a wholesalers discount for cash. The more crime you commit the sooner you'll be out of prison, the "out" means out of jail not out of society.
Now I understand "Two strikes and you're out". Out of jail that is.
Article quoted from here.
My understanding of the policy (which is I believe how it operates in America) is that on conviction of the third offence (having committed two previous ones of similar type); the criminal receives a substantially increased sentence as I suppose quite sensibly they decide well he hasn't reformed so isn't likely to, we may as well lock him up for a long time and stop his offending.
In England dear reader it clearly "works" differently the first difference seems well and good it is the second strike not the third that produces shall we say "special treatment", I quote from an article linked to later:
"The two strikes and you're out law
Strike One: The sentence - Lill jailed at Croydon Crown Court for five years.
Strike Two: The sentence - Lill jailed at York Crown Court for life."
So second strike, life sentence, sounds tough uh? Even tougher than America where you need three convictions.
Let's see what the judge had to say: "Judge Paul Hoffman said: "In my view, you should not be released to the public until you are feeble."" Sounds like a vicious offender them, what's his age? It's 34, so from the judge's own words we'd hopefully expect what? 40 years? He'd be 74 then (if still alive) and presumably rather more feeble. Anyway the judge makes a "recommendation" as to a minimum amount of time he should serve before being considered for parole let's see how long he's recommended: "the judge set a tariff under national sentencing policies, allowing Lill to be considered for parole after 30 months".
"He set the tariff of two-and-a-half years, because that was half the sentence he would have imposed had he not had to pass a life sentence."
Note dear reader that on the second strike, the judge has had to impose the same sentence as imposed for the first offence - the equivalent of 5 years.
So what was the point of the life sentence? What was the point of the judge's strong words? The whole thing is just a mockery and a charade.
Two "strikes and your out" in England operates like a wholesalers discount for cash. The more crime you commit the sooner you'll be out of prison, the "out" means out of jail not out of society.
Now I understand "Two strikes and you're out". Out of jail that is.
Article quoted from here.
Tags: justice, crime and punishment
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
