Yes, I do sign up for this from Sir Brian Barder.
Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection are an abomination.
Fair enough when the determination is of, as an example, mental illness. A sectioning of indeterminate time until that mental illness is dealt with seems entirely reasonable. We don\’t hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions: we only ask that there\’s some idea that they won\’t do it again before they come out for a pint with their mates.
However, an indeterminate sentence for a criminal act, one where responsibility, the possibility of it, is acknowledged, is that abomination.
So while I do, as entirely the bleeding heart lefty that I am, support the abolition of such sentences, I do wish that Sir BB hadn\’t relied so much on the economic cost. The cost of keeping such in prison.
There really are things more important than economics and civil liberties are one of them (umm, many of them?).
That you\’ve both done the crime and served the time is it. Over. Done with.
There is no possibility whatsoever of having any even vague approximation to a free society if you can be jailed, with criminal responsibility, for what you might do in the future. Sectioned, as a nutter, yes. Jailed for what you might do, no.
So while I support the idea I\’d just like to slip in this important point: there are things far, far, more important than economics or money or the taxpayers\’ wallet. The freedom and liberty of us all being one (or many) of them.
So let\’s call this locking up of people for what they might do what it is: an abomination.
An abomination that has no place in either the society that we are, a reasonably free one, or in the society that we wish to become, a free one.