Yes they should. Some of them are proper dickheads.
Youths of today can commit tens of crimes before they ever see even a threat of secure care, nevermind actually end up there.
In an age of youths facing almost no consquences for their actions, the last thing we need is an even softer touch.
>”One boy was in here for seven days because he had nowhere else to live
Does she realise that will be because he has made living at parents, fosterers, or just within the care system completely untenable because he’s so disruptive
In some cases, we should absolutely incinerate some young people.
In the vast majority though we should avoid punitive sentencing and look toward rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Our recidivism rates in the UK are horrendous. [75% of ex-inmates reoffend within nine years of release, and 39.3% within the first twelve months](https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FK002023%2F1). In contrast, [Norway works to rehabilitate it’s offenders and recidivism has fallen to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-48885846).
Prison does not work. It creates a “criminal culture” that only benefits the for profit companies that either run prisons or work in extremely lucrative support services. We need to break the cycle of criminality and re-offending rather than facilitate it’s growth for profit.
Both the Tories and Starmer’s Labour have take the ill educated and popularist stance of supporting harsher sentencing rather than trying to address an issue they are both guilty of promoting. It’s low hanging fruit to keep the electorate happy.
Prison, especially for young offenders should be the last resort, not the normal course of action for the majority of offenses.
I think it’s by case. Did the kid make a stupid decision that doesn’t have any long term damage? probably best to just educate them and ensure they are put on the right path (education, monitoring, only a private criminal record).
If the damage is long term, or there was no naïveness to what they did then fuck them
Thankfully, this article is about Scotland, not England.
17 year old stabby mandem who infest London’s streets should definitely be in prison.
This article is *specifically* talking about Scotland.
Buried lede: “The chief inspector said the young offender institution at Polmont was in effect an adult prison.”
She went on to say:
“We have to realise there will be people under the age of 18 who commit heinous crimes and they need to be in secure care but for everybody else custody must be a last resort.
“I have met too many children in here [Polmont] who are not in as a last resort.
“**One boy was in here for seven days because he had nowhere else to live** or **children are in here because they were a protected witness**. We should not be doing that, we should be looking at alternatives.”
So. It’s being run like an adult prison, most of the inmates are on remand and haven’t stood trial, some of them absolutely shouldn’t be in detention in the first place.
In what way is this controversial?
Why under 18? 18 may be adult age but it’s pretty much fact that young peoples development on average doesn’t end until age 25.
If it’s truly about rehabilitation then it should be properly thought out and then extended for younger people of adult age. Rather than giving a free pass as they’re a minor.
Awful lot of these comments sound like their authors have not read the article.
Say that to the 14 year old repeat offender who carries a knife, threatens to stab people and spits in peoples faces when confronted.
**eye roll**
I think it would depend on the nature of the crime that has been committed. Crime and Justice isn’t a black and white affair.
10 comments
Yes they should. Some of them are proper dickheads.
Youths of today can commit tens of crimes before they ever see even a threat of secure care, nevermind actually end up there.
In an age of youths facing almost no consquences for their actions, the last thing we need is an even softer touch.
>”One boy was in here for seven days because he had nowhere else to live
Does she realise that will be because he has made living at parents, fosterers, or just within the care system completely untenable because he’s so disruptive
In some cases, we should absolutely incinerate some young people.
In the vast majority though we should avoid punitive sentencing and look toward rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Our recidivism rates in the UK are horrendous. [75% of ex-inmates reoffend within nine years of release, and 39.3% within the first twelve months](https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FK002023%2F1). In contrast, [Norway works to rehabilitate it’s offenders and recidivism has fallen to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-48885846).
Prison does not work. It creates a “criminal culture” that only benefits the for profit companies that either run prisons or work in extremely lucrative support services. We need to break the cycle of criminality and re-offending rather than facilitate it’s growth for profit.
Both the Tories and Starmer’s Labour have take the ill educated and popularist stance of supporting harsher sentencing rather than trying to address an issue they are both guilty of promoting. It’s low hanging fruit to keep the electorate happy.
Prison, especially for young offenders should be the last resort, not the normal course of action for the majority of offenses.
I think it’s by case. Did the kid make a stupid decision that doesn’t have any long term damage? probably best to just educate them and ensure they are put on the right path (education, monitoring, only a private criminal record).
If the damage is long term, or there was no naïveness to what they did then fuck them
Thankfully, this article is about Scotland, not England.
17 year old stabby mandem who infest London’s streets should definitely be in prison.
This article is *specifically* talking about Scotland.
Buried lede: “The chief inspector said the young offender institution at Polmont was in effect an adult prison.”
She went on to say:
“We have to realise there will be people under the age of 18 who commit heinous crimes and they need to be in secure care but for everybody else custody must be a last resort.
“I have met too many children in here [Polmont] who are not in as a last resort.
“**One boy was in here for seven days because he had nowhere else to live** or **children are in here because they were a protected witness**. We should not be doing that, we should be looking at alternatives.”
So. It’s being run like an adult prison, most of the inmates are on remand and haven’t stood trial, some of them absolutely shouldn’t be in detention in the first place.
In what way is this controversial?
Why under 18? 18 may be adult age but it’s pretty much fact that young peoples development on average doesn’t end until age 25.
If it’s truly about rehabilitation then it should be properly thought out and then extended for younger people of adult age. Rather than giving a free pass as they’re a minor.
Awful lot of these comments sound like their authors have not read the article.
Say that to the 14 year old repeat offender who carries a knife, threatens to stab people and spits in peoples faces when confronted.
**eye roll**
I think it would depend on the nature of the crime that has been committed. Crime and Justice isn’t a black and white affair.