Women should no longer be sent to prison unless they have committed a serious crime, the Justice Secretary says today, as he unveils a “step change” in the way the justice system deals with female offenders.
Ministers want to “break the cycle” of sending women to jail after it emerged less than 40 women behind bars in England and Wales have committed a violent offence and most others are serving just a few months for crimes like shoplifting.
False accusations of rape, perjury, they’re not violent crimes. So presumably some bird who lies her head off to get a bloke jailed doesn’t have to serve time herself then?
It’s got nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with special treatment and special priveleges merely because they possess bumps in their T shirts.
The CM scum that make up our BluLabour government are vile beyond all measure.
The supposed PM the Fish Faced Cow herself is the worst of them. She is brazen marxist feminist scum. From her use of marxist cockrot jargon such as “mansplainning” to the Vietgirlz insanity and now this.
The useless treasonous bitch will be in this like a turd in a toilet. It has long been an aim of Marxian feminism and here it is with the stench of BluLabour on it now.
For men– 2 years chokey and a lifetime on the sex offenders register for adolescent nonsense like trying to photo a woman’s arse complete with knickers. When every Saturday night out will have thousands of drunken sluts putting anybody (anybody male) with a camera’s future in danger by raising their skirts while pissed out of their empty skulls.
But no jail time for lying female scum who make false accusations tho’. No reason for them not to do so then.
The FFC must be destroyed.
Vote Blue, get Red.
Do they explain why this does not also apply to men?
Well, obviously, it’s because men aren’t a minority, Rob.
Hang on…
By the way, and I am entirely serious about this, if I ever become dictator the first thing I will do is create a crack force of cops to track down and eliminate everyone who has ever used the phrase ‘step change’.
See also ‘gold standard’ (outwith discussions of economics), ‘best practice’ and about a hundred other bullshit bingo contenders.
Women only commit crime because some man made them do it, so obviously he’s the one who should be behind bars.
I’ve no simpathy for the rug sniffers but sometimes I can’t help feeling they are on the right track when it comes to the unfair sex.
Fiction becomes reality:
“Mr Molesworth, will you now present the case for the defence?”
” M’lud, the defendent is a GURL.”
” Very good Mr Molesworth. Case dismissed.”
@Interested: can we add ‘inappropriate’ to that list?
“…and most others are serving just a few months for crimes like shoplifting.”
If it’s progressed to jail time, almost certainly not their first offence. Probably not even their tenth!
Feminists: Sex differences are a social construct and women are just as tough and capable as men. If women earn less on average or fewer engineers/CEOs/firefighters are women that’s proof of sexist discrimination. We need positive discrimination too ensure equality of outcome and anyone who disagrees should be fired.
Also feminists: Male and female criminals are fundamentally different and women simply can’t cope with prison like men can. Putting women in a system designed for men is cruel and unusual punishment. The law should take into account women’s greater vulnerability rather than treating them as equal to men.
My sister’s stalker has just got 20 months sentence on his 11th court appearance for the same problem. Not a violent crime. Should he, in the interests of equality with the women then, not be jailed at all?
No other method keeps him away.
“it emerged less than 40 women behind bars in England and Wales have committed a violent offence ”
But that says nothing about women committing violent offences. The women who commit violent offences against men, but the police wouldn’t be interested in investigation even if they received a complaint. A woman hitting a man, That’s understandable & trivial. A man hitting a woman. That’s violent assault & must be pursued & punished.
As JuliaM said, anybody jailed for shoplifting will be a serial offender. Now personally I don’t imagine short sentences have much of a positive impact other than very temporarily removing someone from circulation – it is too short for an education or drugs rehab programme or, apparently, to work as a deterrent – and from memory the reoffending rates back this up. But, frankly, what else is to be done? These people tend to life very chaotic, fragmented lives and be dirt poor. Compliance with fines, community service, orders to attend education classes, bans from town centres etc are all likely to be poor, shop what sanction do you have ultimately against someone who has not complied, if you say imprisonment is for the violent only?
It’s still not clear to me why imprisonment should *only* be for the violent. That seems an arbitrary line for me. There are lots of non-violent sexual offences, offences against the person, serious offences involving property, are they all deemed unsuitable for prison? I’m sure you could, with a sufficiently bleeding heart, turn round and say “only a few hundred people are in prison for homicide or attempted homicide”, all other violent offences being mere scuffles in comparison, so why should they go to prison for it… And some murderers are very unlikely to reoffend, there were very particular circumstances in their case and nothing to suggest they were a serial killer, so why should they be there? I can imagine someone actually saying that. Since there are people who seriously campaign for the abolition of prison entirely – it isn’t so unusual in left-wing circles, though probably more Morning Star than Guardian – then presumably even serial killers should be let out, because it’s society’s fault they turned out that way or something.
*live very chaotic ; so what sanctions ; and any other corrections that autocorrect inflicted upon me, sorry.
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/our-prison-system-is-broken-is-it-time-to-abolish-prisons-altogether/
https://cape-campaign.org/what-is-prison-abolition/
https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/lets-abolish-prison-not-reform-it/
What’s common in these circles (it’s explicitly in that Red Pepper piece) is to argue that women’s prisons should be used as the thin end of the wedge. Easier to persuade people that women’s prisons should be abolished than men’s, but once they’ve gone you can then argue that men shouldn’t be imprisoned either.
They’re also deliberately vague about what should be done about serial killers and other violent offences… Some combination of “transformative justice in the community”, “social justice and reduced inequality” and “improved mental health provision” should supposedly deal with the next generation of train bombers or moors murderers. I remain unconvinced. Having said that, I can believe that decriminalisation of drugs might reduce violent offences, and giving addicts drugs for free on the NHS plus massively increasing their benefits payments (all parts of the same political programme) might cut down significantly on shoplifting. But whether voters would want to live in a society that went down that route is another question.
For what it’s worth, given the ineffectiveness of prisons (poor record on rehabilitation, lots of drugs and violence and suicide, lots of very hard-core violent criminals getting converted to radical Islam which has the potential to go very badly wrong when they’re released) we probably send too many people to prison, especially on short sentences which have little potential to reform, and we don’t seem to fund prisons enough to make them safe and effective institutions. But saying that women or non-violent offenders don’t belong in prison under any circumstances seems wrong to me, and it does feel like we are being buttered up to take the thin end of a potentially very thick wedge.
“it emerged less than 40 women behind bars in England and Wales have committed a violent offence ”
I find this absolutely impossible to believe. There are fewer than forty female murderers, other killers, GBH offenders etc in the entire country? Complete and utter bollocks.
According to this ONS survey 224 convictions for homicide in the year to March 2017, 24% female so that is 53. In a single year, and that’s just homicide. One assumes that each or at least most received a lengthy prison sentence.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017#what-do-we-know-about-suspects
Rob: “I find this absolutely impossible to believe. There are fewer than forty female murderers, other killers, GBH offenders etc in the entire country?”
Not so impossible. The key words there are ‘behind bars’. All the others are roaming free!
MyBurningEars: “But whether voters would want to live in a society that went down that route is another question.”
And it’s easy to answer.
@JuliaM
“And it’s easy to answer.”
Decriminalisation of hard drugs is one of those things that for many decades has seemed to its advocates to be on the cusp of widespread popular support – after all, young people are very liberal about drugs and old people are dying off so it must surely be just a decade or two away? – but in practice anyone advocating it still becomes virtually unelectable.
I think this might have something to do with permissive people getting to the age when they have to think about their kids doing drugs, then experiencing a rethink…
Even schemes we know have significant benefits in terms of reduced mortality, like clean and safe injection rooms, seem to face vociferous and determined local opposition. Again, likely because of the kind of druggies and their hangers-on it attracts and the way the majority of people living around one cannot countenance the fact that it might he one of their daughters or nieces whose life might be saved by it. If they don’t like health authorities providing the needles, they’re hardly about to welcome the NHS providing the drugs too. I doubt it would help much if they were told it would cut down on street prostitution and shoplifting, I still don’t see them buying it.
At least the BBC would no longer be able to send anyone to prison for watching TV. All those jailed for that are women.
@Rob
“According to this ONS survey 224 convictions for homicide in the year to March 2017, 24% female so that is 53. In a single year, and that’s just homicide.”
Excellent statting – had intended to look this up when not on my phone. Would love to know how this other figure was concocted.
No jail for non-violent offences?
Didn’t stop the fuckers jailing Tommy Robinson.
Or are they planning to empty the jails for all the political prisoners then?
Ecks:
“Didn’t stop the fuckers jailing Tommy Robinson.”
Ah, but TR is literally Hitler, so he deserves to be killed in prison. Preferably by muslims.
The data on the prison population is here
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2017
you actually want the excel Prison population 31st march 2018. Table 1.2b
I’m going to guess that they really mean that the percentage of the 3,200 women serving custodial sentences who committed violent crimes is 40%
Judges in Canada have sentencing guidelines specifically for taking into account inter-generational trauma impact on indigenous/first nations offenders and reducing the tariff or suspending sentence entirely
@PJF
I am no fan of the BBC, quite the opposite, but you only get sent to prison if you refuse to pay a fine handed out by the magistrates.
The whole idea that it is a criminal offence to watch live TV without permission from the state is, of course, a disgrace; moreover it is in breach of EU human rights law. Be interesting to see if said law (about the right to receive information) gets brought onto our statute book after Brexit.
The reason that so many women get prosecuted is that the BBC targets high-density housing. It’s more efficient use of the goons’ time: they’re on a bonus system and lose money if they don’t sell so many licences a week. So they prefer single mothers who aren’t very bright. Most men just tell the doorstepper to, er, go away, which is normally an effective tactic.
“. . . most others are serving just a few months for crimes like shoplifting.”
Couldn’t that also be said for most male offenders? That they’re serving time for ‘minor’ crimes (or even non-crimes like solicitation or drug use/possession)?
So we (well – you) could reform the criminal justice system in one fell swoop by ending incarceration as a default penance – and keep these minor criminals from mixing in with, and being influenced by, the truly dangerous people that need to be separated from the rest of us.
But no, this guy just wants to score points so he’s going to stir up more culture war bullshit.
@ Thomas Fuller
Most men are out at work so don’t see the door-stepper. I got threats through the post for not paying for aTV licence when I didn’t have a TV. I threatened them with the police and they stopped.
@ john 77
Source: https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/p/free-book.html
@ Thomas Fuller
In those days I was normally out at work from 8 am to nearly 9 pm on Monday-Friday – and I’m fairly sure they were working shorter hours than I – and I never heard of them knocking on doors at the weekend.
There was an entryphone system which left a “Jehovah’s Witness” outside the door to the staircase while I pointed out a long list of errors in his mis-analysis of the Book of Daniel – I am not usually that mean but it wasn’t raining and he really was asking for it. Was that why no-one knocked on my door? Or is the threatening letter the first step and the knock on the door only applied to those who don’t respond?
John, they really do have to fulfil a quota or they’re in trouble, so they prefer not to waste time on what might be fruitless confrontations.
The letters are sent out wholesale and don’t mean a thing, except that the recipients’ households show up, on the notoriously inaccurate LASSY database, as being ‘unlicensed’. If you do get a knock on the door, it’s because TVL have decided to descend on your neighbourhood.
You are under no obligation to parley with them and the best tactic is simply to shut the door in their face. The likelihood that you will be served with a warrant is vanishingly small, especially if you have not been abusive and/or they have no grounds to suspect that you are, after all, concealing a contraband telly. The PDF in that link is worth a read, especially for those of us who abhor the vulgar mind-rot of television and harbour residual unease about the possibility of having our door kicked in.
My experience is that the empty threatening letters (roughly one a month) happen whatever you write and tell them? It has never made any difference?
In reality, those knocking are nothing more than door-to-door TV licence salesnen, on a commissiom.
Hence, if they ever do knock, then – once they’ve admitted who they are – a simple “no thank you, it’s not needed or wanted” is more than enough. And just “close it out / shut the door” as one would for any other pushy chugger / Jehova / bog brush type / whatever.
Something that apparently will see them scoot off instantly (not that it’s needed if you firmly dismiss them), is if they realise they are being filmed. Whether that is CCTV at the entrnace, or being filmed once the door is opened. Too many uploads to youtube etc, destroying the “authority” myth, that they really are nothing more than poor sods on a commission.
Indeed, and it should be nil, as they have to persuade a magistrate to issue a warrant (to force entry), which should require hard evidence presented to the magistrate.
Which is why being very brief with them is useful. The more one engages (perhaps trying to be helpful or simply sucked in by their attempt at conversation?), the more chance that the desperate / criminal element amongst them may chance their arm and illegally try and falsify something from a conversation.
In today’s ‘Grauniad’, we see another of these ilk:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/prison-women-minor-crimes
“In 2013, I spent nine weeks in prison for a speeding points offence…”
Except….not.
“This piece was amended on 28 June 2018, removing a reference to Vicky Pryce’s book, and making it clear that she was not sent to prison for a speeding points offence”
Julia – Now amended to this.
“In 2013, I spent nine weeks in prison after a speeding points offence, first in Holloway and then in an open prison. In the process, I spoke to dozens of women whose lives had been ruined by a wrong turn. Many of them had left their children behind and were despairing for their futures. Their stories were heart-rending.”
The dishonest message also being that “No, I wasn’t *really* a convict, more of a journalist whilst spending the time there”…
@JuliaM
Love it. You have such an eye for these things!
The Grauniad has closed comments.
Why should we believe anything about her reports about prison since she was sent to prison for lying?
@ PF
I thought I had posted an answer earlier but …
In my case the threatening reply seemed to work as I never got another threatening letter. [Many years later, after I got married and moved to suburbia, my wife was given a TV by her mother and took out a licence]
As a contrast: after my mother-in-law died my wife dutifully wrote to TV Licensing to inform them and the free over-75 licence lapsed. Before we got Probate – so the flat was empty – we got a threatening letter “This flat has not got a TV Licency … threat …threat”