Reply to post: Re: Low-tech solutions

Brit prosecutors fling almost a million quid at anti-drone'n'phone ideas

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: Low-tech solutions

(2) locking fewer people up in the first place

Referring to the appalling rates of re-offending, we can be sure that a spell in clink doesn't reform the bastards. But having the scum put away certainly minimises the inconvenience the rest of us whilst they can only offend against fellow offenders (a "problem" that I don't give a shit about).

So, if you want fewer people put away, what offences that currently carry a custodial sentence do you propose should be non-custodial, bearing in mind these are people who we can confidently say are scofflaws who will take every advantage of not being in clink? Or are you proposing that the sentences net of parole should be even shorter than they already are?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019