No, they should be sent to a real prison were they wont be treated like guests in a hotel. It's a joke when there are so many re- offenders, jail must be sweet for them to want to run back again. Most of the long timers are in for murder and should think themselves very lucky there is no death penalty in the UK (worst luck)
The taxpayers must be very patient to put up with these silly judges and there stupid laws.
I am referring to all criminals, they are all costing the country a great deal of money which could be put to a better use, such as reducing income tax.
2007-02-15 02:28:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by cassidy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
They should be sent back to the country they came from - British Taxpayers should not be paying for foreign prisoners. Plus would free up jail space for our own crims
2007-02-15 02:00:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Vikstar 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This kind of 'Daily Mail' thinking is not the answer to prison overcrowding in this country. Study after study has shown prison to be at best marginally effective in preventing crime. More creative sentencing by judges, and more legislative freedom enabling them to be more flexible, is what's needed.
Prison should only be used as a last resort to avoid danger to the public.
2007-02-15 02:13:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Flup 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
If they commit a crime they should be given a sentence to serve in the country of their origin. It would free up jail space here and they don't deserve to be in our (or anyone else's country).
If they don't like the justice/prison system of their country then they shouldn't commit the crime.
2007-02-15 11:37:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sarey Gamp 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think all non-british convicts should be sent back to their own countries to do time in their own jails. It would save the british tax payer a lot of money.
2007-02-15 02:20:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by 2dog 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No i think we should send them to prisons in their own country so that the taxpayer here is in no way burdened with them.
2007-02-15 02:09:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by jb 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No if someone else was willing to them them send the British ones as well.With Chinas record it sounds like a good idea to approach them.
2007-02-15 01:59:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by frankturk50 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, as soon as the person left our "soil" they wouldn't be under our jurisdiction and could plea to be tried again in the other country. Or the other country could have a different penalty for the crime.
2007-02-15 04:40:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by shamess 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
definite, it really is a shown incontrovertible reality that maximum crime is dedicated by technique of youthful adult males. Ware homestead them till they're of their 30's and the crime recidivism cost drops critically. the issue with Ware housing them, is the fee linked with holding them them imprisoned even as maximum individuals heavily isn't a recidivist. that's likewise the underlying premise of "3 strikes" and also you're in for lifestyles. launch them after a sensible era of time is served and in the adventure that they proceed to dedicate crimes, get rid of them from society completely. Fewer human beings pass to reformatory on 3 strikes, so the overall fee is more cost-effective than holding all and sundry in reformatory till they're of their 30's.
2016-11-03 12:39:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by lobos 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No - send them to a prison in their OWN country. Why should WE have to pay to keep them either here or anywhere else - let their own country "look after them"!
2007-02-15 01:59:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Norton G 6
·
1⤊
2⤋