Honestly it probably wouldn’t make things better and is likely to make things worse if we don’t also spend far more money on trying to fix the systematic/societal issues that push people to join gangs.
My view, is while this may not help with recidivism, it will allow us to put these people behind bars for as long as we possibly can, and postpone the inevitable.
The problem is, study after study has shown that increasing prison terms actually increases the overall rate of crime in society. It’s all very well saying that this one particular criminal can’t continue to reoffend, but if it increases the crime rate, what’s the point? Especially when it’s probably the most expensive way to combat this kind of crime.
Have a look at my comment here. That’s something that’s been proven to work elsewhere. I’m interested in what you think.
It’s not just that the original criminals are more likely to reoffend. Suddenly removing people from society has a huge range of negative flow-on effects throughout the wider community, especially if you’re putting them in prison. The longer you do it for, the worse the impact is. It’s those flow-on problems that make others more likely to commit crimes. If your goal is minimise crime, it’s not the best way to go about it.
On the other hand, I would argue for very stern punishments for being a gang leader. There are much fewer of them, so the negative impact of imprisoning them isn’t nearly as severe. And if it successfully eradicates gangs, or at least cripples them, the benefits will far outweigh those problems. Also, the punishment needs to be severe enough to act as a deterrent for the next would-be leader.
National’s policy on making gang membership an aggravating factor in sentencing is a great idea, I don’t understand how it isn’t already law.
Honestly it probably wouldn’t make things better and is likely to make things worse if we don’t also spend far more money on trying to fix the systematic/societal issues that push people to join gangs.
My view, is while this may not help with recidivism, it will allow us to put these people behind bars for as long as we possibly can, and postpone the inevitable.
The problem is, study after study has shown that increasing prison terms actually increases the overall rate of crime in society. It’s all very well saying that this one particular criminal can’t continue to reoffend, but if it increases the crime rate, what’s the point? Especially when it’s probably the most expensive way to combat this kind of crime.
Have a look at my comment here. That’s something that’s been proven to work elsewhere. I’m interested in what you think.
What if we just don’t let them out?
Although locking up the leaders is also a smart move.
It’s not just that the original criminals are more likely to reoffend. Suddenly removing people from society has a huge range of negative flow-on effects throughout the wider community, especially if you’re putting them in prison. The longer you do it for, the worse the impact is. It’s those flow-on problems that make others more likely to commit crimes. If your goal is minimise crime, it’s not the best way to go about it.
On the other hand, I would argue for very stern punishments for being a gang leader. There are much fewer of them, so the negative impact of imprisoning them isn’t nearly as severe. And if it successfully eradicates gangs, or at least cripples them, the benefits will far outweigh those problems. Also, the punishment needs to be severe enough to act as a deterrent for the next would-be leader.