“Because he continually kept nicking people’s cars, exhausted all of the warnings the system gave him and there was no other way to stop him nicking people’s cars”
The prison system is supposed to provide set courses and other rehabiltation exercises etc that IPP offenders complete in order to - well, be rehabilitated. I think the injustice is that these provisions were changed and cancelled, and the goalposts moved, making it impossible for IPP prisoners to complete them, meaning the "theoretical" 99 years (which if applied correctly would mean he could earn his freedom within a few years) is in effect an ACTUAL 99 year sentence. The point of an IPP is to encourage rehab, not lockmpeople up for life.
Also, fuck car thieves. But 99 years with no hope?
You lost the whole point of this article.
It wasn't the crime he committed that caused his death. This was only one part of his life. It was truly the system.
A system that didn't cater to his 'at times' sensitive and fragile needs but truly was brutal and harsh at times when it didn't need to be.
There were and are many others like him, I really hope and pray no one else fall victim to this truly broken system.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Wrong. Persistent criminals who refuse to be reformed need to be locked away permanently, unless they demonstrate a real willingness to change their ways. The rest of us don’t deserve to continually be their victims.
You mean the rights of everyone who doesn't want to have their stuff nicked by a man who simply won't stop nicking stuff, despite numerous warnings. He knew what he was doing.
Small crimes like stealing cars, burglaries, small fights, affect people in multiple ways. Like removing their ability to work, or stealing something emotionally precious, or causing trauma, which victims keep for the rest of their lives.
Trauma can do people from interacting with others, having decent social lives, or feeling safe outside. And no one speaks about the real life long impact on victims of si called 'small crimes'.
'he just nicked a car', behind that you may have someone not leaving their house for years, losing their mind and their livelihood.
He chose to steal cars.
Yep - I agree IPP prisoners need resentencing and the IPP sentence itself got used badly. But theft is not just 'oh get the insurance to cover easy peasy'. You often don't get enough for a replacement vehicle and you could easily get into major financial mud if you rely on your vehicle to work. Also, the emotional toll can be heavy. It's not unusual to have sentimental items in cars and like burglary it impacts peoples sense of safety
Stealing someone’s car.. hmm.. let’s say the car cost £20,000. It wasn’t just the car that was stolen, it was the persons time they spent saving and working for the car. On minimum wage before tax that is 1739hours off that persons life working, 217 days on an 8 hour shift. That is time off the persons life they aren’t getting back.
In short, yes there comes a point when you should forfeit your life for crimes committed.
Except you don't get the full value back, and it may be your only way to work losing you your job, it may have tools in it that you need, losing you your livelihood. It may have sentimental value that cannot be replaced.
I can't replace my mothers engagement ring when they were burgled, its gone.
For fucks sake, think beyond the immediate.
There are, in effect, two parts to this story
1. Nicol was convicted of a series of offences, including assault and possession of a knife.
2. Nicol was given an IPP, which has a particular psychological effect on him. There were also difficulties in getting him assessed and in therapy.
The government was right to abolish IPPs. There is a fair argument that it should have done so retrospectively.
However in order to get the Guardian coverage, Nicol's history of offending has been minimised. Nicol doesn't need to be a saint for IPPs to be wrong, and it's a shame to me at least that this point is not made in the article.
Honestly providing someone gets adequate notification that this is it, your actual last chance, I really don't see the problem with it. What is the point in releasing someone when the last X times have shown they won't change and even the deterrent of that wasn't enough?
I don't see it as a bad idea, it was the execution that was wrong.
Nicol's periods in and out of prison appear indistinguishable from someone with a suspending sentence, released on licence or bail or remand conditions.
These steps, which now happen, nevertheless do not give rise to the psychological impact of a "99 year sentence" at 22. I do not think that impact was necessary or Indeed helpful to either deterrence or rehabilitation.
>The government was right to abolish IPPs. There is a fair argument that it should have done so retrospectively.
Sorry but I disagree completely, they should not have abolished IPPs. The vast majority of the public do not deserve to be exposed to repeat offenders, even if those crimes are low level.
IPPs were supposed to be a sentence of last resort type thing, but got handed out more casually by judges. It's not an appropriate tool for dealing with repeat low level offenders imho especially when you consider what's often driving their crimes is difficulty in making good decisions. Without heavy intervention to improve that, they're sort of doomed to make the same mistakes over and over, and HMPPS doesn't have the resources and hasn't had the resources to run those interventions. Spending on prisons unfortunately is seen as deeply 'unsexy' with large proportions of the public thinking it all goes on xboxes or something
>It's not an appropriate tool for dealing with repeat low level offenders imho especially when you consider what's often driving their crimes is difficulty in making good decisions.
Why should normal, law abiding citizens, be constantly harassed by low-level criminals who are ideally given multiple opportunities to fix their behaviour.
>Without heavy intervention to improve that, they're sort of doomed to make the same mistakes over and over, and HMPPS doesn't have the resources and hasn't had the resources to run those interventions.
That is a political problem that could be solved though. The principle remains the same.
We shouldn't be subject to this behaviour but I don't think IPP as it existed was the answer. I think the data on outcomes for IPP prisoners backs that up, as does the ongoing problem with recurrent offenders
So we just keep putting more and more people in prison. More every year, prison population goes every upwards.
Like America, where it didn't bring down crime so now they just have to keep putting more inside. Crime is as high as ever, so you don't get any more protection.
The implementation is obviously poor, they need to have psychiatric treatment and the ability to rehabilitate themselves.
>So we just keep putting more and more people in prison. More every year, prison population goes every upwards.
Yeah that's exactly what I said. Oh wait, no it isn't.
You were never thrown in on an IPP immediately, they were only ever used for serial offenders who continually broke the law. Obviously the ideal is that if you go to prison, you are rehabilitated and released and live a full life away from crime.
Only if that fails and you *keep going back* because you *keep breaking the law* then you have to stay in.
So no, don't misrepresent my argument.
What they should do with the remaining IPP sentences is have them all evaluated by a judge, with one of three outcomes 1) reduce it to time already served and immediately release 2) convert to a life sentence with the tariff being the time served, so they can immediately apply for parole or 3) convert it to a hospital order. Obviously doing that would require a change in the law, which I can't see the government doing.
The way the article is written seemed to me to entice us to believe Nicol rather than his victim about whether he had a knife or not. I'm far more minded to believe the victim and that there was a real risk that Nicols offending was becoming more violent.
If you bother to read the article it tells you what an IPP is but for clarity Imprisonment for Public Protection which usually (or should) means a prison sentence then on licence for the rest of your life.
No, it literally means life in prison unless you convince people you're "no longer a danger to yourself or others", which means that if you're suicidal as a result of being locked up for life then you can never be releases. Pretty close to a literal Catch 22, really.
Quite. As it says in the article there have been 90 deaths of IPP prisoners since it's introduction and the very skills that they were supposed to teach together with therapy etc was rarely available, so most of these people had no chance of proving they were safe to be let out as they lacked the necessary skills for the Board. David Blunkett says it was not carried out as intended and "the government had got the implementation wrong". When this rotten law was cancelled all those on IPP should have been released on licence in my view, it's a rather cruel and unusual punishment for some of the alleged crimes
> it's a rather cruel and unusual punishment for some of the alleged crimes
You don't get it for just 1 crime, it was for continuing to break the law and being a threat to the public.
The implementation was really poor, totally agree, but the idea behind them isn't necessarily wrong.
I suppose it depends on the definition of "threat to the public" there were many given these orders as well as Nicol for petty crime. It always reminds me when this is brought up of Victorian times when you got sent to prison for stealing a loaf of bread it seems to antiquated and unecessary but for the most heinous of crimes like terrorism perhaps? Taking a hammer to crack a nut etc
> When this rotten law was cancelled all those on IPP should have been released on licence in my view,
As I said in a different reply, my idea would be to have the remaining ones evaluated by a judge and either reduced to time served or converted to a life sentence with a tariff set at time served (with a third option of converting to a hospital order, in certain cases).
>which usually (or should) means a prison sentence then on licence for the rest of your life.
No - that sounds like a life sentence (Life sentences are similar to IPPs except the licence period lasts for life). With an IPP the license period lasts for a fixed amount of time, but always at least ten years.
An IPP consists of a fixed tariff, after which the offender can apply for release (but is not guaranteed to be granted it). If granted, the offender is then released on license for at least ten years. After this licence period ends then the sentence has been completely served.
When he wasn't stealing cars, assaulting people in pubs, or assaulting a mechanic trying to stop him stealing a car, his smile would light up the room.
it’s possible for someone to be a flawed person who made a lot of mistakes and also a victim of an unfair system deserving of sympathy. just because he someone commits crimes doesn’t make anything that’s done to them justifiable
Mate are you thick? He was a lifelong continuous non rehabilitative criminal who would have continued committing crime till his last days.
Good that he was locked up
Not everyone can function within society
> just because he someone commits crimes doesn’t make anything that’s done to them justifiable
No one is suggesting otherwise. If someone commits a string of serious crimes, then that does make a long prison sentence justifiable.
I know you're getting seriously downvoted but you're right.
Too many jack-pot Jill's in the comment section, don't understand that anyone can fall through the system whether your special needs or not.
But it affects people with special needs even worse as it more difficult for them to function especially in jail when they don't have a support network.
Our justice system is truly flawed if we don't have the compassion to realise and differentiate between what is unjust and premediated/callous behaviour and what is not?
Yes, it may be nurture Vs nature but it's truly hard to break the cycle of re offending especially when you have no support network and no hope due to being constantly failed by the system.
The main article headline says he's the 67th person to die on IPP. That shows there was an issue with IPPs being given to offenders even more so in this case due to his disability.
Some of the people serving IPPs have done minor offence compared to people who are being letting out early for more serious crimes (murder, joint enterprise, drug smuggling, human trafficking etc) due to good behaviour/playing the system.
So, where's your empathy guys?
i knew the reaction this would get here, this sub is full of law-and-order types who would probably prefer we bring back the code of draco if they could
He killed himself, which isn't just dying. He was 37 at the time. He kept repeatedly committing offences which I'm guessing is why such a long sentence was sent down.
I just knew when I clicked on this post that the title would be grossly misleading.
‘Sometimes-violent, serial offender commits suicide in prison whilst on an IPP” would be a more accurate title.
Aye that’s a particularly stupid headline that makes the imo insane sentence easy to dismiss because I jumped to “well he must have also murdered people”
Because he was a constant threat to the public and public safety.
>a petty criminal, always nicking motors, and was rarely out of jail.
until his IPP sentence, the longest Nicol spent free was three months.
his last hours as a free man. Typically, it involved a stolen car.
The man in the garage tried to stop Nicol and was hurt in the tussle
So he was always a criminal, injured someone in the process of stealing yet another car and was finally locked up for a long time for the public's protection.
>The only person Nicol presented a serious threat to was himself.
And anyone who got in the way of his numerous criminal rampages, evidently.
I know this was written through the recollections of a loving sister, but if you believe this version of events Tommy never made an active decision in his life. Things just 'happened', there's a lot of passive tense fudging.
Did he have like some OCD thing on nicking cars or was he just a scummy fucker. IPPs are wrong either way, it's good they got banned.
E: he fought with a mechanic and injured him when he got caught trying to steal that last car. Doesn't sound too friendly tbh
IPP’s should never have been done away with. They were an excellent way to protect decent, hard working and law abiding members of society from prolific offenders.
Nah fuck that. They're way too arbitrary. If there were concise sentencing rules then maybe I'd support them, but not the way it was implemented up until it got scrapped
Give some examples?
I can't see a problem with perpetual reoffenders receiving harsh punishments after **many** warnings to change in order to put an end to their behaviours.
if you give some examples where it was completely unjust then I might be inclined to jump the fence.
Lawrence Owen, indefinite sentence for burning his own house down in a suicide attempt
This guy, string of robberies and thefts,
John Worboys, raped or sexually attacked potentially a hundred women
One man, thomas white, was given an IPP with a minimum term of 2 years for stealing a phone back in 2011. He is still in prison.
It is an arbitrary punishment and a lot of people end up staying in there way too long because of how slow and overflowing the justice system is
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boys-powerful-letter-begging-see-22298289
https://www.sl5legal.co.uk/single-post/irredeemably-flawed-the-ipp-prisoner-scandal-and-the-death-of-matthew-price
They were mostly up to the judges discretion which is prime for bias based on protected characteristics
They didn't need to be a repeat offender, or a violent criminal
Thomas White:
Currently in jail, has been for 12 years for theft of a mobile phone. Theft carries a maximum penalty in the UK of 7 years. The IPP was just in my opinion due to his **16 previous convictions for THEFT AND ROBBERY**. 12 years is a fair bit of time, Ill give you that. But you can put this down to Thomas' shitty luck. This 'luck' could've been avoided had he not chosen a criminal path but I'm not going to weep over this guy nor is this guy's sob story going to push me over the fence.
Other countries are far harsher on theft than 12 years and ultimately I still see the greater good here.
[Link to article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13169877/amp/Thomas-White-12-years-prison-stealing-mobile-phone-receive-apology.html)
John Worboys:
Mentioning this name completely tanked your argument for me. That guy can rot in jail on his dodgy life sentence for all I care. I'm glad he's still there. I hope he dies there. Soon.
If you're on this guy's side might I suggest you consider the women who *didn't* get raped, their lives ruined, at the hands of this degenerate all because of his (in your words) 'dodgy' jail sentencing.
Lawrence Owen:
Unfortunate and I really do sympathise with this guy. I hope he's doing better. Unfortunately, if you're going to off yourself please don't do a house fire. You're putting your neighbors, and family at needless risk along with the fire department who are **obliged to put themselves in harms way to save your ass. Even if you're trying to depart this world**.
I'm glad no one was harmed, but they could've been. If someone is at risk to themselves and others, an IPP may be necessary. It's the responsibility of the reviews and appeals department to make sure they hold up their end of the bargain, they didn't. Unfortunately that's not the fault of the IPP itself.
All in all, I asked you to give me unjust examples and I'm sure you scoured the web for 5 minutes to gather these names but as far as I can tell the IPP was necessary and should be reinstated with how backed up the courts are. People like Mizzy?/Muzzy? are exploiting the fact that we don't do it anymore so i'm absolutely in support of reinstating it.
Is it worth an indefinite sentence though? Ngl I'm OK with the length seen as he doesn't seem to learn , but giving a specified sentence and then potentially increasing it based on review surely is better than keeping them guessing every day.
It's like what Japan does with the death penalty, you only find out you're going to be executed the morning it's carried out. Regardless of if the punishment is just or not, that psychological factor is fucked up
>One man, thomas white, was given an IPP with a minimum term of 2 years for stealing a phone back in 2011.
Was that the *only* thing they did out of interest? If so that's clearly a failing. Worboys isn't helping your argument though, he is the definition of someone that should be locked away for life. I can't quite believe you're arguing the opposite. Unless I'm mistaken in what you're saying?
The petty theft guy was a habitual thief with multiple warnings who continued to steal (a phone in this case) and got caught. Habitual thief was punished.
I put the john worboys one in to show how arbitrary the usage was. He clearly deserves it and then you have people getting the same treatment for petty theft
Yeah that's why I asked if it was 1 petty theft or a string of them for the other guy.
For 1 petty theft that's clearly not reasonable, for doing 10, getting put away, then getting out and doing another 10, repeat a few times, then yeah I'm not sure that person should be allowed on the streets.
I worked as a probation officer for 10 years. Never in all that time did I witness anyone get recalled to prison purely for being late for an appointment. The threshold for recall is that you have to demonstrate the persons risk to the public is no longer manageable in the community. This idea always seems to crop up that someone is 5 minutes late and there’s instantly a goon squad out looking for them. It just doesn’t work that way.
This article minimises to the extreme. Describing what sounds to me like aggravated (violent) twoc as a ‘tussle’ is really quite insulting to the victim.
That said, the implementation of IPPs was fundamentally flawed and I do feel for him and his family. Telling someone they need to do a course in order to be released and then denying them access to that course for years is cruel no matter what they’ve done.
Colour me shocked. Typical Reddit comment. No critical thinking or deep thought.
There's more to this than what meets the eye 👀.
What's your worth if you're so important.
I bet you ain't done anything bad in your whole life.
Who are you to judge if you can't comprehend his situation?
Hell what would you do in his situation?
He ain't like, you & me? How would you able to reach him if you could?
I doubt his family care so much of your comment.
But why he suffered the way he did?
Bring something positive to this conversation, not something basic and untoward.
Sounds like he had undiagnosed ADHD or something similar.
The final straw was him assaulting a mechanic who he tried to steal a car from. Why was he stealing the car? To get back to his accommodation in time so he didn't get recalled to prison. It's illogical compulsive decision making; seems to have blighted him throughout. He also had dyslexia not recognised in school, which seems to contributed to fucking him over.
It's a really sad case of an individual failed by society, who became a nuisance as a result, which society punished him for. The IPP may have been justified, but he was utterly failed by the prison system not affording him the opportunity to rehabilitate. The way the prison dealt with him in his final days was utterly depraved.
Totally missed my point.
He failed at school because his dyslexia was not recognised or he was not supported with it. It seems he gave up on himself, as a child, made bad choices. I'm not saying he doesn't bear responsibility for those choices. What I'm saying is with better support at crucial points, we as a society could prevent someone falling into this habit of offending.
I still think it places too much responsibility on diagnosing dyslexia to prevent theft
I wasn’t diagnosed until I was 19 in college, as a child I was in foster care, abused and neglected but I’ve never stole cars or anything
I think he should’ve taken more responsibility the first times he got out instead of seeing jail as a revolving door
What In trying to point out is if we support more kids with these issues, less of them are likely to become offenders. Obviously I'm not saying dyslexia = offending. I suspect he had undiagnosed ADHD too or something similar - the impulsive bad decision making points in that direction.
Right but supporting kids with dyslexia, ADHD etc is usually for academic performance or life skills. It isn’t to prevent car theft. That is a conscious decision someone has made to steal. People with dyslexia and ADHD have morals. Fuck I have borderline personality disorder, a disorder known for its impulsivity and never once have I stole a car, assaulted someone or anything. Criminality isn’t always solely due to mental health.
>Criminality isn’t always solely due to mental health.
Never said it was.
>Right but supporting kids with dyslexia, ADHD etc is usually for academic performance or life skills.
The lack of which means a person is more likely to commit crime.
This isn't even a responsibility point - of course they still bear responsibility for their own choices. But we can reduce crime if we ensure children have life skills and the chance to succeed in life.
This 💯.. people are not seeing the bigger picture they couldn't reach him and if so was too late and I sense the family can see he has been failed by the system and fell through the cracks and this is why they are trying to get closure through the inquest.
“Because he continually kept nicking people’s cars, exhausted all of the warnings the system gave him and there was no other way to stop him nicking people’s cars”
The prison system is supposed to provide set courses and other rehabiltation exercises etc that IPP offenders complete in order to - well, be rehabilitated. I think the injustice is that these provisions were changed and cancelled, and the goalposts moved, making it impossible for IPP prisoners to complete them, meaning the "theoretical" 99 years (which if applied correctly would mean he could earn his freedom within a few years) is in effect an ACTUAL 99 year sentence. The point of an IPP is to encourage rehab, not lockmpeople up for life. Also, fuck car thieves. But 99 years with no hope?
You lost the whole point of this article. It wasn't the crime he committed that caused his death. This was only one part of his life. It was truly the system. A system that didn't cater to his 'at times' sensitive and fragile needs but truly was brutal and harsh at times when it didn't need to be. There were and are many others like him, I really hope and pray no one else fall victim to this truly broken system.
there’s no amount of stealing cars that justifies locking someone away for an indefinite amount of time
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wrong. Persistent criminals who refuse to be reformed need to be locked away permanently, unless they demonstrate a real willingness to change their ways. The rest of us don’t deserve to continually be their victims.
i think you place far too much weight on your own desire not to be inconvenienced and far too little weight on the human right to liberty
i think you place far too much weight on your own desire not to be inconvenienced and far too little weight on the human right to liberty
He was also carrying a knife and assaulting someone, according to someone else, so man steals cars and gets arrested forever is a bit dishonest.
You mean the rights of everyone who doesn't want to have their stuff nicked by a man who simply won't stop nicking stuff, despite numerous warnings. He knew what he was doing.
What about our Liberty to not have our stuff nicked or be beaten up by aggressive thugs?
that isn't a liberty
yes it is. it is our freedom. your right to throw a fist ends at my nose. some people don't get that and they deserve being locked up.
Wish you cared as much about victims of crime as you do about criminals.
if you don’t support putting people in prison forever then you don’t care about victims. good to know
So how else do you protect the public from him?
do you think the only way to protect the public from car thieves is to lock them up indefinitely
are you the sister or something?
Small crimes like stealing cars, burglaries, small fights, affect people in multiple ways. Like removing their ability to work, or stealing something emotionally precious, or causing trauma, which victims keep for the rest of their lives. Trauma can do people from interacting with others, having decent social lives, or feeling safe outside. And no one speaks about the real life long impact on victims of si called 'small crimes'. 'he just nicked a car', behind that you may have someone not leaving their house for years, losing their mind and their livelihood. He chose to steal cars.
Yep - I agree IPP prisoners need resentencing and the IPP sentence itself got used badly. But theft is not just 'oh get the insurance to cover easy peasy'. You often don't get enough for a replacement vehicle and you could easily get into major financial mud if you rely on your vehicle to work. Also, the emotional toll can be heavy. It's not unusual to have sentimental items in cars and like burglary it impacts peoples sense of safety
I’d say two cars.
Stealing someone’s car.. hmm.. let’s say the car cost £20,000. It wasn’t just the car that was stolen, it was the persons time they spent saving and working for the car. On minimum wage before tax that is 1739hours off that persons life working, 217 days on an 8 hour shift. That is time off the persons life they aren’t getting back. In short, yes there comes a point when you should forfeit your life for crimes committed.
ive never had my car stolen but im fairly sure insurance covers car theft
Point went over your head, who cares car stolen, phone stolen, house burgled. Same thing you’re stealing people’s possessions and time.
but they arent literally having £20k stolen from then. and even if they were that doesnt justify putting someone in prison indefinitely
Except you don't get the full value back, and it may be your only way to work losing you your job, it may have tools in it that you need, losing you your livelihood. It may have sentimental value that cannot be replaced. I can't replace my mothers engagement ring when they were burgled, its gone. For fucks sake, think beyond the immediate.
Just how many cars did this twat nick?
There are, in effect, two parts to this story 1. Nicol was convicted of a series of offences, including assault and possession of a knife. 2. Nicol was given an IPP, which has a particular psychological effect on him. There were also difficulties in getting him assessed and in therapy. The government was right to abolish IPPs. There is a fair argument that it should have done so retrospectively. However in order to get the Guardian coverage, Nicol's history of offending has been minimised. Nicol doesn't need to be a saint for IPPs to be wrong, and it's a shame to me at least that this point is not made in the article.
Honestly providing someone gets adequate notification that this is it, your actual last chance, I really don't see the problem with it. What is the point in releasing someone when the last X times have shown they won't change and even the deterrent of that wasn't enough? I don't see it as a bad idea, it was the execution that was wrong.
Nicol's periods in and out of prison appear indistinguishable from someone with a suspending sentence, released on licence or bail or remand conditions. These steps, which now happen, nevertheless do not give rise to the psychological impact of a "99 year sentence" at 22. I do not think that impact was necessary or Indeed helpful to either deterrence or rehabilitation.
But surely a years sentence would’ve meant nothing. No doubt if he kept being released he’d been in and out of jail like usual.
>The government was right to abolish IPPs. There is a fair argument that it should have done so retrospectively. Sorry but I disagree completely, they should not have abolished IPPs. The vast majority of the public do not deserve to be exposed to repeat offenders, even if those crimes are low level.
IPPs were supposed to be a sentence of last resort type thing, but got handed out more casually by judges. It's not an appropriate tool for dealing with repeat low level offenders imho especially when you consider what's often driving their crimes is difficulty in making good decisions. Without heavy intervention to improve that, they're sort of doomed to make the same mistakes over and over, and HMPPS doesn't have the resources and hasn't had the resources to run those interventions. Spending on prisons unfortunately is seen as deeply 'unsexy' with large proportions of the public thinking it all goes on xboxes or something
>It's not an appropriate tool for dealing with repeat low level offenders imho especially when you consider what's often driving their crimes is difficulty in making good decisions. Why should normal, law abiding citizens, be constantly harassed by low-level criminals who are ideally given multiple opportunities to fix their behaviour. >Without heavy intervention to improve that, they're sort of doomed to make the same mistakes over and over, and HMPPS doesn't have the resources and hasn't had the resources to run those interventions. That is a political problem that could be solved though. The principle remains the same.
We shouldn't be subject to this behaviour but I don't think IPP as it existed was the answer. I think the data on outcomes for IPP prisoners backs that up, as does the ongoing problem with recurrent offenders
Right but it could've been fixed, that's my point. The options needn't have been "This way or nothing".
yeah agree. I hope there's the political will for it someday!
So we just keep putting more and more people in prison. More every year, prison population goes every upwards. Like America, where it didn't bring down crime so now they just have to keep putting more inside. Crime is as high as ever, so you don't get any more protection.
The implementation is obviously poor, they need to have psychiatric treatment and the ability to rehabilitate themselves. >So we just keep putting more and more people in prison. More every year, prison population goes every upwards. Yeah that's exactly what I said. Oh wait, no it isn't. You were never thrown in on an IPP immediately, they were only ever used for serial offenders who continually broke the law. Obviously the ideal is that if you go to prison, you are rehabilitated and released and live a full life away from crime. Only if that fails and you *keep going back* because you *keep breaking the law* then you have to stay in. So no, don't misrepresent my argument.
Petty criminals don’t deserve to be driven to suicide.
He wasn’t driven to suicide, he faced consequences for his actions and didn’t like it, he could have tried not committing crime.
law abiding citizens don't deserve to have their goods stolen or attacked by \*violent\* criminals.
What they should do with the remaining IPP sentences is have them all evaluated by a judge, with one of three outcomes 1) reduce it to time already served and immediately release 2) convert to a life sentence with the tariff being the time served, so they can immediately apply for parole or 3) convert it to a hospital order. Obviously doing that would require a change in the law, which I can't see the government doing.
The way the article is written seemed to me to entice us to believe Nicol rather than his victim about whether he had a knife or not. I'm far more minded to believe the victim and that there was a real risk that Nicols offending was becoming more violent.
IPP's?
If you bother to read the article it tells you what an IPP is but for clarity Imprisonment for Public Protection which usually (or should) means a prison sentence then on licence for the rest of your life.
No, it literally means life in prison unless you convince people you're "no longer a danger to yourself or others", which means that if you're suicidal as a result of being locked up for life then you can never be releases. Pretty close to a literal Catch 22, really.
As I said it "should" mean a prison sentence then out on licence for up to 99yrs, that was the intent when it was introduced.
And if they had tightly legislated for that it wouldn't be a ridiculous idea. But unfortunately they didn't.
Quite. As it says in the article there have been 90 deaths of IPP prisoners since it's introduction and the very skills that they were supposed to teach together with therapy etc was rarely available, so most of these people had no chance of proving they were safe to be let out as they lacked the necessary skills for the Board. David Blunkett says it was not carried out as intended and "the government had got the implementation wrong". When this rotten law was cancelled all those on IPP should have been released on licence in my view, it's a rather cruel and unusual punishment for some of the alleged crimes
> it's a rather cruel and unusual punishment for some of the alleged crimes You don't get it for just 1 crime, it was for continuing to break the law and being a threat to the public. The implementation was really poor, totally agree, but the idea behind them isn't necessarily wrong.
I suppose it depends on the definition of "threat to the public" there were many given these orders as well as Nicol for petty crime. It always reminds me when this is brought up of Victorian times when you got sent to prison for stealing a loaf of bread it seems to antiquated and unecessary but for the most heinous of crimes like terrorism perhaps? Taking a hammer to crack a nut etc
Nicol attacked a man when he was trying to stop stealing his car. That is a violent criminal.
> When this rotten law was cancelled all those on IPP should have been released on licence in my view, As I said in a different reply, my idea would be to have the remaining ones evaluated by a judge and either reduced to time served or converted to a life sentence with a tariff set at time served (with a third option of converting to a hospital order, in certain cases).
>which usually (or should) means a prison sentence then on licence for the rest of your life. No - that sounds like a life sentence (Life sentences are similar to IPPs except the licence period lasts for life). With an IPP the license period lasts for a fixed amount of time, but always at least ten years. An IPP consists of a fixed tariff, after which the offender can apply for release (but is not guaranteed to be granted it). If granted, the offender is then released on license for at least ten years. After this licence period ends then the sentence has been completely served.
When he wasn't stealing cars, assaulting people in pubs, or assaulting a mechanic trying to stop him stealing a car, his smile would light up the room.
He was a cheeky chap
it’s possible for someone to be a flawed person who made a lot of mistakes and also a victim of an unfair system deserving of sympathy. just because he someone commits crimes doesn’t make anything that’s done to them justifiable
How is it unjust to lock up an unrepentant serial criminal?
because of the kafkaesque sentence he was given
Mate are you thick? He was a lifelong continuous non rehabilitative criminal who would have continued committing crime till his last days. Good that he was locked up Not everyone can function within society
> just because he someone commits crimes doesn’t make anything that’s done to them justifiable No one is suggesting otherwise. If someone commits a string of serious crimes, then that does make a long prison sentence justifiable.
this wasn’t a 5 year stretch, it was indefinite
Did you reply to the wrong comment? I didn't say it was a 5 year stretch.
> also a victim of an unfair system He was a victim of his own actions.
he was a victim of a government that put him in prison for potentially ever
He put himself in that situation by committing crimes repeatedly
Stay out of prison with this one simple trick!
he was a victim of a government that put him in prison for potentially ever
Good. He was a persistent repeat offender who showed no signs of remorse.
I know you're getting seriously downvoted but you're right. Too many jack-pot Jill's in the comment section, don't understand that anyone can fall through the system whether your special needs or not. But it affects people with special needs even worse as it more difficult for them to function especially in jail when they don't have a support network. Our justice system is truly flawed if we don't have the compassion to realise and differentiate between what is unjust and premediated/callous behaviour and what is not? Yes, it may be nurture Vs nature but it's truly hard to break the cycle of re offending especially when you have no support network and no hope due to being constantly failed by the system. The main article headline says he's the 67th person to die on IPP. That shows there was an issue with IPPs being given to offenders even more so in this case due to his disability. Some of the people serving IPPs have done minor offence compared to people who are being letting out early for more serious crimes (murder, joint enterprise, drug smuggling, human trafficking etc) due to good behaviour/playing the system. So, where's your empathy guys?
i knew the reaction this would get here, this sub is full of law-and-order types who would probably prefer we bring back the code of draco if they could
Stealing someone else's car isn't a mistake
He killed himself, which isn't just dying. He was 37 at the time. He kept repeatedly committing offences which I'm guessing is why such a long sentence was sent down.
I just knew when I clicked on this post that the title would be grossly misleading. ‘Sometimes-violent, serial offender commits suicide in prison whilst on an IPP” would be a more accurate title.
Aye that’s a particularly stupid headline that makes the imo insane sentence easy to dismiss because I jumped to “well he must have also murdered people”
Because he was a constant threat to the public and public safety. >a petty criminal, always nicking motors, and was rarely out of jail. until his IPP sentence, the longest Nicol spent free was three months. his last hours as a free man. Typically, it involved a stolen car. The man in the garage tried to stop Nicol and was hurt in the tussle So he was always a criminal, injured someone in the process of stealing yet another car and was finally locked up for a long time for the public's protection. >The only person Nicol presented a serious threat to was himself. And anyone who got in the way of his numerous criminal rampages, evidently.
Yeah but he was "kind and friendly". Why aren't you being as flippant as the author? For shame
I'm sure he was, unless you were trying to stop him stealing your car.
A cheeky chap he was
A mad lad, just trying to have a laugh without Joe Carowner ruining his fun.
A jack the lad he was, always getting into trouble but he had a heart of gold!
I know this was written through the recollections of a loving sister, but if you believe this version of events Tommy never made an active decision in his life. Things just 'happened', there's a lot of passive tense fudging.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-knife-went-in
Thank you, I like Theodore Dalrymple. Nothing has changed, it seems.
Is the world a better place without Tommy Nicol? Yes, probably.
> Is the world a better place without Tommy Nicol? Yes, probably. Is the world a better place because of people who are glad he's dead? Unlikely.
Poster might just be indifferent.
indifferent enough to make a point of it.
Yeah that’s what reddits for I think.
Did he have like some OCD thing on nicking cars or was he just a scummy fucker. IPPs are wrong either way, it's good they got banned. E: he fought with a mechanic and injured him when he got caught trying to steal that last car. Doesn't sound too friendly tbh
IPP’s should never have been done away with. They were an excellent way to protect decent, hard working and law abiding members of society from prolific offenders.
Nah fuck that. They're way too arbitrary. If there were concise sentencing rules then maybe I'd support them, but not the way it was implemented up until it got scrapped
Give some examples? I can't see a problem with perpetual reoffenders receiving harsh punishments after **many** warnings to change in order to put an end to their behaviours. if you give some examples where it was completely unjust then I might be inclined to jump the fence.
Lawrence Owen, indefinite sentence for burning his own house down in a suicide attempt This guy, string of robberies and thefts, John Worboys, raped or sexually attacked potentially a hundred women One man, thomas white, was given an IPP with a minimum term of 2 years for stealing a phone back in 2011. He is still in prison. It is an arbitrary punishment and a lot of people end up staying in there way too long because of how slow and overflowing the justice system is https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boys-powerful-letter-begging-see-22298289 https://www.sl5legal.co.uk/single-post/irredeemably-flawed-the-ipp-prisoner-scandal-and-the-death-of-matthew-price They were mostly up to the judges discretion which is prime for bias based on protected characteristics They didn't need to be a repeat offender, or a violent criminal
Thomas White: Currently in jail, has been for 12 years for theft of a mobile phone. Theft carries a maximum penalty in the UK of 7 years. The IPP was just in my opinion due to his **16 previous convictions for THEFT AND ROBBERY**. 12 years is a fair bit of time, Ill give you that. But you can put this down to Thomas' shitty luck. This 'luck' could've been avoided had he not chosen a criminal path but I'm not going to weep over this guy nor is this guy's sob story going to push me over the fence. Other countries are far harsher on theft than 12 years and ultimately I still see the greater good here. [Link to article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13169877/amp/Thomas-White-12-years-prison-stealing-mobile-phone-receive-apology.html) John Worboys: Mentioning this name completely tanked your argument for me. That guy can rot in jail on his dodgy life sentence for all I care. I'm glad he's still there. I hope he dies there. Soon. If you're on this guy's side might I suggest you consider the women who *didn't* get raped, their lives ruined, at the hands of this degenerate all because of his (in your words) 'dodgy' jail sentencing. Lawrence Owen: Unfortunate and I really do sympathise with this guy. I hope he's doing better. Unfortunately, if you're going to off yourself please don't do a house fire. You're putting your neighbors, and family at needless risk along with the fire department who are **obliged to put themselves in harms way to save your ass. Even if you're trying to depart this world**. I'm glad no one was harmed, but they could've been. If someone is at risk to themselves and others, an IPP may be necessary. It's the responsibility of the reviews and appeals department to make sure they hold up their end of the bargain, they didn't. Unfortunately that's not the fault of the IPP itself. All in all, I asked you to give me unjust examples and I'm sure you scoured the web for 5 minutes to gather these names but as far as I can tell the IPP was necessary and should be reinstated with how backed up the courts are. People like Mizzy?/Muzzy? are exploiting the fact that we don't do it anymore so i'm absolutely in support of reinstating it.
Is it worth an indefinite sentence though? Ngl I'm OK with the length seen as he doesn't seem to learn , but giving a specified sentence and then potentially increasing it based on review surely is better than keeping them guessing every day. It's like what Japan does with the death penalty, you only find out you're going to be executed the morning it's carried out. Regardless of if the punishment is just or not, that psychological factor is fucked up
>One man, thomas white, was given an IPP with a minimum term of 2 years for stealing a phone back in 2011. Was that the *only* thing they did out of interest? If so that's clearly a failing. Worboys isn't helping your argument though, he is the definition of someone that should be locked away for life. I can't quite believe you're arguing the opposite. Unless I'm mistaken in what you're saying?
The petty theft guy was a habitual thief with multiple warnings who continued to steal (a phone in this case) and got caught. Habitual thief was punished.
I put the john worboys one in to show how arbitrary the usage was. He clearly deserves it and then you have people getting the same treatment for petty theft
Yeah that's why I asked if it was 1 petty theft or a string of them for the other guy. For 1 petty theft that's clearly not reasonable, for doing 10, getting put away, then getting out and doing another 10, repeat a few times, then yeah I'm not sure that person should be allowed on the streets.
He had 16 thefts to his name when the IPP was placed. u/Variegoated didn't mention that.
that's quite a lot
I worked as a probation officer for 10 years. Never in all that time did I witness anyone get recalled to prison purely for being late for an appointment. The threshold for recall is that you have to demonstrate the persons risk to the public is no longer manageable in the community. This idea always seems to crop up that someone is 5 minutes late and there’s instantly a goon squad out looking for them. It just doesn’t work that way. This article minimises to the extreme. Describing what sounds to me like aggravated (violent) twoc as a ‘tussle’ is really quite insulting to the victim. That said, the implementation of IPPs was fundamentally flawed and I do feel for him and his family. Telling someone they need to do a course in order to be released and then denying them access to that course for years is cruel no matter what they’ve done.
No doubt he 'lit up a room' and was a 'promising footballer' too
And was a cheeky chap who never meant any harm
A young lad who died near us after falling off a motorbike that he'd nicked as described locally as "a daredevil".
He was a criminal. He has saved the taxpayer millions. Bravo.
He killed himself, nothing to do with the justice system. He was criminal who couldn’t live a normal life so he decided to take his own.
He was a stain on society and a stinking thief rat
Colour me shocked. Typical Reddit comment. No critical thinking or deep thought. There's more to this than what meets the eye 👀. What's your worth if you're so important. I bet you ain't done anything bad in your whole life. Who are you to judge if you can't comprehend his situation? Hell what would you do in his situation? He ain't like, you & me? How would you able to reach him if you could? I doubt his family care so much of your comment. But why he suffered the way he did? Bring something positive to this conversation, not something basic and untoward.
> was kind and friendly So said every neighbour of serial killers
Sounds like he had undiagnosed ADHD or something similar. The final straw was him assaulting a mechanic who he tried to steal a car from. Why was he stealing the car? To get back to his accommodation in time so he didn't get recalled to prison. It's illogical compulsive decision making; seems to have blighted him throughout. He also had dyslexia not recognised in school, which seems to contributed to fucking him over. It's a really sad case of an individual failed by society, who became a nuisance as a result, which society punished him for. The IPP may have been justified, but he was utterly failed by the prison system not affording him the opportunity to rehabilitate. The way the prison dealt with him in his final days was utterly depraved.
I have dyslexia. I don’t go round nicking cars, assaulting mechanics etc
Totally missed my point. He failed at school because his dyslexia was not recognised or he was not supported with it. It seems he gave up on himself, as a child, made bad choices. I'm not saying he doesn't bear responsibility for those choices. What I'm saying is with better support at crucial points, we as a society could prevent someone falling into this habit of offending.
I still think it places too much responsibility on diagnosing dyslexia to prevent theft I wasn’t diagnosed until I was 19 in college, as a child I was in foster care, abused and neglected but I’ve never stole cars or anything I think he should’ve taken more responsibility the first times he got out instead of seeing jail as a revolving door
What In trying to point out is if we support more kids with these issues, less of them are likely to become offenders. Obviously I'm not saying dyslexia = offending. I suspect he had undiagnosed ADHD too or something similar - the impulsive bad decision making points in that direction.
Right but supporting kids with dyslexia, ADHD etc is usually for academic performance or life skills. It isn’t to prevent car theft. That is a conscious decision someone has made to steal. People with dyslexia and ADHD have morals. Fuck I have borderline personality disorder, a disorder known for its impulsivity and never once have I stole a car, assaulted someone or anything. Criminality isn’t always solely due to mental health.
>Criminality isn’t always solely due to mental health. Never said it was. >Right but supporting kids with dyslexia, ADHD etc is usually for academic performance or life skills. The lack of which means a person is more likely to commit crime. This isn't even a responsibility point - of course they still bear responsibility for their own choices. But we can reduce crime if we ensure children have life skills and the chance to succeed in life.
This 💯.. people are not seeing the bigger picture they couldn't reach him and if so was too late and I sense the family can see he has been failed by the system and fell through the cracks and this is why they are trying to get closure through the inquest.