More than half of all crime is committed by a tiny proportion of criminals, if we implemented a “10 strikes rule” againt these “mega offenders” we could massively decrease crime at a very low cost.
The rule would be “once you are convicted 10 times, you get an automatic 10 year prison sentence”. This is an easy way to deal with these prolific offenders, who often commit hundreds of crimes and yet get non custodial sentences, and has the plus side of getting past the left wing types who complain that American style “three strikes rule” is “unfair” for someone who just made a “few mistakes”.
If we doubled prison places, we could easily house all these and other serious criminals.
Just increasing prison spaces is wrong as it doesn’t tackle the root cause of problems.
Not trying to justify actions, most prisons have inmates that fall into a few groups. There is little work undertaken to interrupt those heading to prison.
As an example families often have generational issues resulting in repeat behaviour.
Also, if you look at young offenders, they are given limited educational or mental health support, often just locked up for days. While you could argue that is the punishment, it contributes to repeat offending.
I mean it doesn’t tackle the root cause, but it tackles the effects. If criminals are in prison instead of on the streets then crime goes down. A lot.
I’d also support raising prison funding to provide many of the things you mention. TBH the best thing would probably be some combination of boarding school / army style system. (focus on disicipline / physical education / academic education ) And the irony is that somehow the likes of Eton is able to charge less each year to provide the best education in the world than it costs to keep someone in prison.
My position on this is two-fold. Firstly, part of the problem can be solved by re-introducing capital punishment for murderers and rapists. The exact saving is hard to say as these crimes are part of the broader “sexual offences”, and “Violence against the person” in data.
I am also concerned about definitions here. Do we mean 10 convictions at all? 10 of the same conviction? Can you get all 10 strikes at once or do they have to be separate criminal transactions?
IMO, the solution is a more human approach. Personally, I believe that immediate and severe correction is best. Letting someone get away with it a few times and then coming down on them like a ton of bricks is unfair on both the early victims, and them. A clear and strong demonstration that we can and will punish transgressions is reasonable. However, judges (or juries) may see true contrition in a person found guilty and grant them a second chance. This shouldn’t be a rule or a test, because if it is, it will be abused and manipulated by people and their lawyers. Instead, it should be a generally accepted thing that just is.
I don’t know about doubling prison spaces but deporting illegal immigrants and those with dual citizenship should clear quite a bit of space.
Tackling wider issues would help, such as:
Early years - first the years of a child’s life are critical in forming personality
Spectrum disorders - lots of inmates are on the spectrum
Drugs, alcohol and ultra processed foods (study showed that when diet was cleaned up nearly half of mental illness including serious conditions disappeared)
Encourage the country back into a more Christian way of life
Clean up the judiciary and make trials fairer - there are plenty of people locked up who shouldn’t be while real criminals walk the streets.
The prime reason for this is that a huge proportion of offences are carried out by a tiny minority of super offenders, and a law like this is designed to catch them.
It’s great to say “we should just immediately have harsh punishments”, but the left have used people’s kindness to make this sort of policy not have public support, “oh, it’s just a mistake, it’s just a first offence” etc. The point of my policy idea is that it circumvents that argument, these people would be serial offenders, who have had chance after chance after chance, and thus the typical leftist wouldn’t be able to deploy their usual arguments to undermine support for it.
This is a policy that would get actual public support, “come down on them like a ton of bricks for their first offence” doesn’t.
Doubling UK prison capacity, assuming foreign national criminals are deported, would eliminate chronic overcrowding, restore the ability to deliver safe and effective rehabilitation, and ensure that sentences handed down by courts are actually served—not undermined by early releases due to lack of space. With the prison population projected to rise by over 30% in four years, current expansion plans are insufficient, risking public safety and eroding trust in justice. A larger, fit-for-purpose estate would future-proof the system and allow for proper management of offenders.
