Can’t stand the “three strikes” policy - it’s just ridiculous, doesn’t take into account the gravity of the offences or the circumstances. Ugh! Anathema to a lawyer.

Dave, I think the US is an even more stark example of how no matter how many gaols you build, they’ll get filled up to overflowing. And some States have that “three strikes” policy, which seems injust in the extreme to me.

Guido, I think that’s spot on - the judge’s directions to the jury have a lot of influence over what the jury decides. Hence many appeals are based on errors in the judge’s direction.

I suspect juries tend to look for guidance from the judge as the ‘expert’ in the proceedings.

The Economist has a few interesting pieces about the UK changes here and here, from which I’ll draw a couple of pertinent quotes from the second:

But Britain’s jails always fill up, no matter how many there are. And new cells cost about £100,000 (US$184,000) apiece. A better answer than banging more people up inside is to strengthen facilities to deal with them outside.

Jailing offenders is supposed to do four things. It satisfies society’s legitimate desire to smite evildoers (though advocates of restorative justice may favour community work or fines). It deters potential offenders (though many crimes are committed on impulse, or when drunk or drugged). It protects the public by taking dangerous offenders out of circulation. And it provides an opportunity to change the way offenders will think and act on their release.

These last two—incarceration and rehabilitation—are often cast as competitors in the tussle for scarce resources. In fact they should be seen as complementary. Society is protected in the short run when offenders are locked up, and in the long run when they are reformed.

It was a Tory home secretary who said, a decade and a half ago, that “prison is an expensive way to make bad people worse”. Not much has changed.

Hard-nosed economists and touchy-feely social justice advocates on the same side? That ought to make this issue a no-brainer, if journos and politicians were fulfilling the duties of their profession.

I’m generally sympathetic to shorter sentences and an increase in education (surprise, surprise) and other opportunities for reform (a lack of which usually precipitates the crime in the first place). That being said, I’ve been exposed to a fair bit of crime in my life, either vicariously or somewhat closer to home and I’ve seen some examples that make my blood run cold while simultaneously causing it to boil. Enough to test my patience somewhat.

One example was a couple of violent psychopaths (and I say “psychopaths” as in the currently un-treatable clinical variety* - they have since been diagnosed after the test became available in the late 90s) getting clemency in the hope that they may take the opportunity to right themselves. Despite the pair of them threatening to kill my grandmother if my brother didn’t hand over my father’s firearm (this was just prior to the mid-90s handback), I was hoping for a while that they’d be reformed rather than punished (one of them was an ex-friend from my junior primary days) but since the psychopathy diagnosis there hasn’t been much in the way of hope for them.

Another example was only a few years ago and involved a crash in rural Victoria which killed a mate’s Uncle and Aunt. A little old couple was speeding in their 4WD and speed through a crossroad where they were supposed to give way - in the process plowing into the side of friend’s Uncle and Aunt’s car, killing them instantly.

The thing that bugged me (and said friend) was that the couple showed no remorse when they simply explained that they were running late for bowls, as if their justification was self-explanatory. Given their age, the driver didn’t go to prison, rather they got a fine and the driver’s license was taken away. Not that there was the greatest call for vengeance from amongst the family (although they did let them have it in the victim impact statement), there was some degree of offense taken at the ageism inherent in the way things were handled.

The deceased who still had a lot of their lives to look forward to, would never been extended this level of clemency (albeit with a penalty more in line with the goal of rehab fitting those with years to learn from their mistake) if they had made the same mistake with the same level of disregard or remorselessness. The consequence to the elderly driver simply couldn’t be equal to the impact a criminal record could have upon the life of a younger person (e.g. employability/career and so on.)

It was generally opined that the elderly couple shouldn’t have had access to the option of driving given the obvious diminished psychological capacity (if not practical skills), and that younger people who are sentenced for similar offenses should be treated more fairly. Alternatively, failing this and to even up the system, “justice” (aka vengeance**) should be served by eking out whatever trace of dignity the offender had by having them possibly die of old age on the inside.

The latter option was somewhat of a reductio of course.

* They sure do raise ethical questions don’t they; can they be held to account? What to do with them if they can’t be rehabilitated?
** I’d really wish people would be more honest and not conflate these terms.