Well yes, you're right on the point about inde...

2010-07-02T15:30:37.275+01:00

Well yes, you're right on the point about indeterminate sentencing but my point was more on how the sentences would still be perceived: when the media already ignores the fact that they're indeterminate and instead focuses on the minimum, they're hardly going to bother dwelling on the "softer" maximum they'll have to serve. In fact, they'll most likely be outraged about how short that is as well.

are there really going to be savings at the end of...

2010-07-02T09:09:46.617+01:00

are there really going to be savings at the end of the process even if everything goes well

Well, maybe not. But reading Dave's post, the clinching argument that there won't be savings seems to rest on some very dodgy arguments about reoffending, which I took issue with here.

This is almost to a point the current system which it comes to indeterminate sentencing

No it's not. Indeterminate sentences are, well, indeterminate - no maximum; people can be (and are being) detained for years on end after getting a relatively short sentence. The maximum makes a big difference.

This is still a Tory government, God knows, but in penal policy the big question isn't so much "left or right" as "vindictive authoritarian who likes demonising powerless people, or not" - and sadly that one cuts right across the main political parties.

Comments on Obsolete: Unconnected events, Ken Clarke and the breaking of an orthodoxy.

Well yes, you're right on the point about inde...

are there really going to be savings at the end of...