We allow these violent crimes to go on, and on...

[yorkie]

York press article

A VIOLENT offender who punched and stamped on his girlfriend's face during a sickening attack has been jailed for five* years.

Ilingworth, 24, battered his partner on April 17 when he turned up at a house in Ascot Way, Acomb, and flew into a drink and drug fuelled rage when she refused to give him his mobile phone back.

He broke his girlfriend's jaw, nose and eye socket and left her needing a lengthy stay in an Intensive Care Unit. The couple have since got back together.

Judge Stephen Ashurst, the recorder of York, described the frenzied attack as "one of the worst examples" of grievous bodily harm he had seen.

Ilingworth has 29 convictions for 42 offences and was jailed for four and a half years in 2010 for stamping on a man's head when he came out of a takeaway in York.

We allow people like him to continue getting conviction after conviction.

Their life of crime starts at an early age and, while at school people like him they get away with multiple offences which often go unrecorded and with no effective punishment.

Although he has been found guilty of 42 offences, people like him typically commit more acts of violence which tend to go unreported. So the true number could be much higher than this.

When released - in less than 4 years time - I can almost guarantee that he will continue to make others lives a misery as he has done before.

His rights are effectively deemed to trump the rights of others to lead peaceful lives.

That's the sort of "justice" system (or whatever alternative terminology the apologists would rather I use, I don't really care!) we have in this country. This is a system that has condemned people to be assaulted by him in the not too distant future.

Violent crimes are not taken anywhere near as seriously as they should be.

(* No, not really jailed for 5 years, only 3 years and 9 months in custody)

 

[NSEFAN]

How long would you lock him up for, Yorkie? How would you prevent him from causing further harm?

 

[yorkie]

How long would you lock him up for, Yorkie? How would you prevent him from causing further harm?

If he is going to continue to be a danger to the public, and not change his ways, why should he be released?

Why do the rights of criminals trump the rights of people to lead peaceful lives? We've got it all wrong.

When we can be certain he is no longer a danger, then he can be released. Putting someone in jail for a few years only for them to immediately re-offend is not a solution and is condemning more and more victims needlessly.

 

[DarloRich]

I wonder if the OP is the same sort of person who is happy to lock people away in new prisons unless one is built near them or thier taxes go up to pay for it.

EDIT - BTW despite what people think i am right wing in my views on criminal justice. Lock them away for a long time but in accepting that you also need to accept that :

1) We need more prison space and a wider range of correctional facilities
2) We need a more severe prison regime
3) We need to punish AND educate and treat prisoners for their "personality" disorders
4) We need more police, courts, legal aid and prison staff
5) We need harsher sentencing guidelines ( obviously that doesn't refer to decent chaps like you or me but for the criminal scum)
5) That all costs money. Lots of money

 

[meridian2]

I agree yorkie but thankfully these cases appear to be in the minority.

 

[Merseysider]

Bring back penal servitude

But in all seriousness, after 30 similar offences it's pretty clear this person isn't going to change his ways. Put him away for 10 years at a time and at least you'll have a safer society. But as DarloRich points out above, this is easier said than done...

 

[TheEdge]

Prison hulks. We have many desolate inlets and sea lochs. It would also be a far greener and beneficial to society way of recycling life expired ships than beaching them on some Bangladeshi beach for children to break up.

Two birds with one stone.

 

[Johnuk123]

I wonder if the OP is the same sort of person who is happy to lock people away in new prisons unless one is built near them or thier taxes go up to pay for it.

EDIT - BTW despite what people think i am right wing in my views on criminal justice. Lock them away for a long time but in accepting that you also need to accept that :

1) We need more prison space and a wider range of correctional facilities
2) We need a more severe prison regime
3) We need to punish AND educate and treat prisoners for their "personality" disorders
4) We need more police, courts, legal aid and prison staff
5) We need harsher sentencing guidelines ( obviously that doesn't refer to decent chaps like you or me but for the criminal scum)
5) That all costs money. Lots of money

I have worked in every level of the prison system including HQ and the only thing you would have a problem with is at least 50% of prisoners with a personality disorder are clinically untreatable at any cost.

No amount of nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists and others can cure or even come close to curing prisoners who pose a significant risk to staff, themselves and other prisoners.

I know this because part of my prison career was spent in a DSPD (Dangerous and Severe Personality Unit) inside a maximum security prison. although I was on the discipline side rather than the clinical side.

The cost per prisoner place was roughly £100,000 p.a.with limited success so it's a very expensive project.

The rest of your list is pretty accurate.

 

[DarloRich]

I have worked in every level of the prison system including HQ and the only thing you would have a problem with is at least 50% of prisoners with a personality disorder are clinically untreatable at any cost.

No amount of nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists and others can cure or even come close to curing prisoners who pose a significant risk to staff, themselves and other prisoners.

I know this because part of my prison career was spent in a DSPD (Dangerous and Severe Personality Unit) inside a maximum security prison. although I was on the discipline side rather than the clinical side.

The cost per prisoner place was roughly £100,000 p.a.with limited success so it's a very expensive project.

The rest of your list is pretty accurate.

I will bow to your experience - I only have knowledge of putting them away or getting them out.

EDIT - I might be tempted to add detoxify prisoners to that list.

 

[Johnuk123]

I will bow to your experience - I only have knowledge of putting them away or getting them out.

EDIT - I might be tempted to add detoxify prisoners to that list.

What do you do then.
Second thoughts don't tell me as everybody doesn't want their occupation plastered about.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I have worked in every level of the prison system including HQ and the only thing you would have a problem with is at least 50% of prisoners with a personality disorder are clinically untreatable at any cost.

No amount of nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists and others can cure or even come close to curing prisoners who pose a significant risk to staff, themselves and other prisoners.

I know this because part of my prison career was spent in a DSPD (Dangerous and Severe Personality Unit) inside a maximum security prison. although I was on the discipline side rather than the clinical side.

The cost per prisoner place was roughly £100,000 p.a.with limited success so it's a very expensive project.

The rest of your list is pretty accurate.

I'm sure Johnuk123 is correct from his background in the Prison Service, from mine in the NHS I heard of very few successes in treating people with a Personality Disorder, and of course, as John says..it is very, very expensive!
Of course...based on the story posted by the OP, we could restrict the sale of Alcohol.........................

 

[DarloRich]

What do you do then.
Second thoughts don't tell me as everybody doesn't want their occupation plastered about.

I don't do it anymore and it was a while ago now

 

[FQ]

Are my eyes deceiving me? Does the article really say that the couple got back together?

 

[muddythefish]

If he is going to continue to be a danger to the public, and not change his ways, why should he be released?

The couple have got back together (amazingly) so presumably she's forgiven him and isn't pressing charges. On the assumption he is therefore not a danger to society as a whole (only to his girlfriend) there's no much that can be done about this nasty piece of work.

 

[yorkie]

The couple have got back together (amazingly) so presumably she's forgiven him and isn't pressing charges. On the assumption he is therefore not a danger to society as a whole (only to his girlfriend) there's no much that can be done about this nasty piece of work.

I don't think that's right, because I am pretty sure the vast majority of the 42 offences were against other people!

Another example is that of another well known individual in York, John Harris, who has arouund 100 convictions. He is regularly sent to jail for short periods, and re-offends shortly after his release. I understand he is in jail right now but he will be released in a few years and will definitely re-offend. I can say he will re-offend with certainty but of course none of us know who his next victims will be.

 

[swj99]

....... Lock them away for a long time but in accepting that you also need to accept that :

1) We need more prison space and a wider range of correctional facilities
2) We need a more severe prison regime
3) We need to punish AND educate and treat prisoners for their "personality" disorders
4) We need more police, courts, legal aid and prison staff
5) We need harsher sentencing guidelines ( obviously that doesn't refer to decent chaps like you or me but for the criminal scum)
5) That all costs money. Lots of money

Society definitely needs protecting from people who repeatedly behave like that. I was thinking about all these cuts to public services the other day, and a lot of it doesn't add up. For example, due to the fact there are more people in his country than there were 50 years ago, we need more police officers, hospitals, fire stations, prisons etc. And on the basis that all these extra people are paying taxes, either directly if they earn enough, or indirectly in the form of VAT, fuel tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax etc if they don't, then surely the country can afford to expand the infrastructure where necessary, and if it can't, this raises the perfectly valid question, why is that ? Where has all the money gone ?
Obviously keeping people locked up costs lots of money, but I suspect the cost to society of not locking some of them up is probably far greater then not doing so.

 

[radamfi]

For example, due to the fact there are more people in his country than there were 50 years ago, we need more police officers, hospitals, fire stations, prisons etc.

Fires are less common nowadays so no need for more fire stations.

Crime has been consistently falling for many years. That trend is similar in most industrialised countries. Whilst this has puzzled academics, on that basis you could argue that a reduction in police officers isn't unreasonable. Despite that, the prison population has been increased in the UK in the last few decades, contrary to what has happened in other European countries where crime has also fallen.

Health is getting more money, but that does not necessarily mean more hospitals. Health experts consistently say that concentrating resources at super-hospitals is better than keeping a hospital in each town, but understandably people get upset about losing their local hospital even if on paper it is the right decision.

 

[Kernowfem]

I think ONE key factor here is the "drink and drug fuelled" bit. I've dealt first hand with the effects one or both of these things have on a person through my previous job. I've been punched, grabbed, slapped, threatened with a used needle and been spat on more times than I care to remember.

It doesn't state whether he's addicted to either or if his previous convictions have also been committed while under the influence. But I'm willing to bet its more than likely they have. I don't think it's a case of "letting these crimes continue" more a case of "what the hell do we do with them?"

Prison seems to work for some offenders, while for others it simply doesn't. I've had contact with some who simply can't cope with life outside and once released reoffend simply to get back there.

I don't believe simply locking criminals away help. Those who have mental illnesses, addiction and other social difficulties will continue in a vicious circle. I dare say they need therapy and rehabilitation. But then we have the argument against spending money on criminals. Do they deserve help? Shouldn't we be spending money on their victims instead? Would rehabilitation actually work for the individual?
Aren't prisons cushy enough? Etc etc.

No easy answers and solutions. The subject is a minefield.

On another note, and speaking as a woman. His girlfriend needs to ask herself why she feels the need to stay with a man who quite easily could have killed her. However this thread isn't about domestic violence.

 

[radamfi]

Search for "Bastoy prison." This is an extremely comfortable island prison in Norway. The reoffending rate is extremely low.

 

[Antman]

I think ONE key factor here is the "drink and drug fuelled" bit. I've dealt first hand with the effects one or both of these things have on a person through my previous job. I've been punched, grabbed, slapped, threatened with a used needle and been spat on more times than I care to remember.

It doesn't state whether he's addicted to either or if his previous convictions have also been committed while under the influence. But I'm willing to bet its more than likely they have. I don't think it's a case of "letting these crimes continue" more a case of "what the hell do we do with them?"

Prison seems to work for some offenders, while for others it simply doesn't. I've had contact with some who simply can't cope with life outside and once released reoffend simply to get back there.

I don't believe simply locking criminals away help. Those who have mental illnesses, addiction and other social difficulties will continue in a vicious circle. I dare say they need therapy and rehabilitation. But then we have the argument against spending money on criminals. Do they deserve help? Shouldn't we be spending money on their victims instead? Would rehabilitation actually work for the individual?
Aren't prisons cushy enough? Etc etc.

No easy answers and solutions. The subject is a minefield.

On another note, and speaking as a woman. His girlfriend needs to ask herself why she feels the need to stay with a man who quite easily could have killed her. However this thread isn't about domestic violence.

I've known people with drug and alcohol problems and they don't behave like this. Sounds like this bloke is just a thoroughly nasty piece of work who needs to be locked up for a long time. And I'm afraid some women really are their own worst enemy.

 

[Kernowfem]

I've known people with drug and alcohol problems and they don't behave like this. Sounds like this bloke is just a thoroughly nasty piece of work who needs to be locked up for a long time. And I'm afraid some women really are their own worst enemy.

Don't get me wrong, I know there are people who have addictions who most certainly don't behave the way he did. The point I was making was every offenders circumstances are unique, I was in no way excusing his behaviour because he may have addictions

As for some women being their own worst enemy, quite. But we must never forget that men are also victims of domestic violence, and do choose to stay with their partner too. Domestic violence can be extremely hard to escape, for so many reasons. In this instance the bugger is now serving a sentence and she is now no longer at risk from him, but yet she still wants to be with him. That's why I think she should re evaluate her worth.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I don't understand when a bloke is given a Life jail sentence, then gets a recommendation that he could come out in 4 or 8 years as recently happened a week or so ago on the news. Surely life should mean for the rest of life. ?

 

[Johnuk123]

Search for "Bastoy prison." This is an extremely comfortable island prison in Norway. The reoffending rate is extremely low.

I think similar prison conditions here may not go down that well with the public, whatever the re-offending rate is.

 

[Stats]

I don't understand when a bloke is given a Life jail sentence, then gets a recommendation that he could come out in 4 or 8 years as recently happened a week or so ago on the news. Surely life should mean for the rest of life. ?

A person is not usually given a life jail sentence. He is given a life sentence. When that person is judged suitable for release into the community he will be released on license and if he breaks any conditions of that license he will be straight back in prison.

This is a common misunderstanding of our judicial system. The sentence awarded by courts is made up of a custodial sentence and a sentence on license.

 

[Antman]

A person is not usually given a life jail sentence. He is given a life sentence. When that person is judged suitable for release into the community he will be released on license and if he breaks any conditions of that license he will be straight back in prison.

This is a common misunderstanding of our judicial system. The sentence awarded by courts is made up of a custodial sentence and a sentence on license.

Indeed and there are many people who are released part way through a life sentence who go on to lead law abiding lives, they know where they'll be going if they step out of line but it's not these people who make the news.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I don't think that's right, because I am pretty sure the vast majority of the 42 offences were against other people!

Another example is that of another well known individual in York, John Harris, who has over 100 convictions. He is regularly sent to jail for short periods, and re-offends shortly after his release. I understand he is in jail right now but he will be released in a few years and will definitely re-offend. I can say he will re-offend with certainty but of course none of us know who his next victims will be.

That is the price we pay for a free society. You are on trial for the matter before the court, and previous convictions tend to be considered prejudicial. I think they may affect sentences, but sentences have to fall within guidelines. You can't for instance be sent to life in prison for shoplifting a mars bar just because you were previously imprisoned for mass-murder.

Search for "Bastoy prison." This is an extremely comfortable island prison in Norway. The reoffending rate is extremely low.

Let's go the Star Trek route and turn all of New Zealand into a prison. It worked for Australia!

 

[DarloRich]

I don't understand when a bloke is given a Life jail sentence, then gets a recommendation that he could come out in 4 or 8 years as recently happened a week or so ago on the news. Surely life should mean for the rest of life. ?

You get a life sentence for murder. However, would you want to incarcerate someone for a whole life term for, say, killing the abusive partner who routinely beat and abused them for years?

It isn't as simple or clear cut as it often looks from the outside.

As for some women being their own worst enemy, quite. But we must never forget that men are also victims of domestic violence, and do choose to stay with their partner too. Domestic violence can be extremely hard to escape, for so many reasons.

I was about to type that male victims of domestic violence are often overlooked and behaviour in very similar ways to female victims as they will not or can not leave their abusers.

 

[ainsworth74]

You get a life sentence for murder. However, would you want to incarcerate someone for a whole life term for, say, killing the abusive partner who routinely beat and abused them for years?

Indeed! I must admit I do like the flexibility that is offered by the judiciary being able to give a life sentence made up of a period of time in custody and then allowing, if appropriate, to release them back into society but with the knowledge that if they commit another crime then they'll be straight back to prison.

I think this flexibility is essential to deal with the complexities that life throws up. Plus keeping someone in prison for potentially decades when they could actually be safely reintegrated into society is an economic cost I think we can do without.

 

[Kernowfem]

You get a life sentence for murder. However, would you want to incarcerate someone for a whole life term for, say, killing the abusive partner who routinely beat and abused them for years?

It isn't as simple or clear cut as it often looks from the outside.



I was about to type that male victims of domestic violence are often overlooked and behaviour in very similar ways to female victims as they will not or can not leave their abusers.

Indeed. There should be NO difference in how male or female victims of domestic violence are treated. However the emphasis and awareness always seems to cover vulnerable women as apposed to men and it gets my back up a little.

Victims are victims regardless of gender. I believe I know of only a small handful of nationwide shelters for men. However my knowledge is a well out dated now. We were trained to look for the signs, again with the emphasis on women even though many of the suspected DA cases I came across were in fact injured males.

Fear is one reason abuse victims stay, fear of being found and punished because the perpetrator is still at large. In this case not so. God help her if she feels she doesn't deserve better.

 

[Antman]

Indeed and there are many people who are released part way through a life sentence who go on to lead law abiding lives, they know where they'll be going if they step out of line but it's not these people who make the news.

That said it does sound a bit ridiculous when you hear that somebody has been jailed for life and will serve a minimum of seven years.