| Lighter sentences for 'desperate' thieves |
| The issue: |
Sir
I am writing to you about today's announcement that Judges have been given a new recommendation by the Sentencing Guidelines Council to take an offender's dependency into account when sentencing.
I would ask that you do all that you can to overturn this recommendation. I believe that this is a slippery slope towards a two tier judicial system, that will only give criminals licence to continue their crime.
My father was stabbed nearly to death in his own home by an individual motivated by addiction. Fortunately there was no such leniency then and the offender was given a custodial sentance. However, I fear that today's recommendations for offences from/in non-domestic buildings today, will in very short time include domestic buildings.
I believe that this is purely the governments attempt to find alternatives to custodial sentences because jails are too crowded.
Has the government really considered the consequences? An increase in addiction, as part of the defence the professional offender will have to convince the jury and the police of his addition. More complex court cases as Barristers will be determined to prove addiction in court. More victims being challenged in court for defending themselves and their property. More constituants voting Conservative at the next election.
|
| Date Issue Raised: |
11 Mar 2008 |
| My response: |
Thank you for your letter dated 11th March about proposals by the Sentencing Guidelines Council which would mean that criminals who are motivated to commit some crimes because they are addicted to drugs should escape prison. I read the points you made with interest.
I appreciate why you, and many others, feel so strongly about this issue. It is understandable that the public feel uncomfortable with the proposals, which come at a time when our prisons system is in crisis. The simple fact is that it is impossible to put criminals behind bars for the appropriate period without sufficient prison places. I believe that the punishment should fit the crime, not jail capacity. If the Government is to going to be able to make the punishment fit the crime, it needs to ensure adequate capacity in the first instance. Sadly, it has not done so. The inevitable result has been overcrowded prisons and criminals being let out early. As you point out, suspicion is growing that alternatives to custody are being encouraged because of this Government’s failure to plan for projected rises in the prison population. The Government has maintained that these guidelines have been published initially for consultation with the judiciary. I therefore await the results of this consultation with interest.
The fact remains that drug addiction is a big driver of crime and social breakdown. So I do, of course, recognise that we have a responsibility to the public to rehabilitate drug-addicted offenders in order to reduce crime and make Britain a safer place. You may know that my colleagues in the Shadow Justice Team recently made a comprehensive set of proposals as to how we should go about this, both inside and outside prison, as part of the Conservatives’ Prisons Review. We have also pledged to build an extra 5000 prison places, over and above any Government spending plans. This will reduce overcrowding and enable a Conservative Government to ensure that the punishment will fit the crime. You can access the report by visiting the Conservatives website:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=safer.greener.page
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me.
|
|
Sir George Young Bt MP: Constituency and Parliamentary Website 