It is well known that the majority of guilty people WILL re-offend within 12 months of gaining their freedom.
Why,therefore, will fewer prisoners go to prison? This is a question on many a tongue. This is a question to which we, the normal people with common sense who inhabit this earth, already know the answer.
It's a laugh don't you think? The people in charge of criminals have now realized that over 90% of those charged, re-offend. Oh what a big surprise!
The other 10%, in my opinion, must surely be the innocent ones who were found guilty by a faulty justice system.
We all know it costs a small fortune to keep the guilty (and, unfortunately, some of the innocent) in prison.
Who pays? In my opinion that is a dumb question - WE do.
Those who us who actually pay taxes I mean.Some people believe that, rather than send these guilty people back out into society to re-offend, why bother keeping them in prison (or jail) in the first place?
Wouldn't it be better for all those found 'guilty' to be sent to 3rd World Countries to work for free, building schools, putting in fresh water to villages who have none.
Oh my! It sounds like something England did many years ago. Didn't England send prisoners to Australia? Yes they did.
Was that a good move or not? During the first few decades, Australians were, apparently, embarassed to find that they were decendants of criminals. Now - many are searching the internet for their 'criminal ancestors' - "proudly".
Therefore, why would it NOT be deemed acceptable to ship all of the criminals now residing at Her Majesty's Pleasure, in jails/prisons around the, over to an uninhabited island, big enough to house them all.
Just think, in the future, people will be researching THEIR family trees and be so proud to find that their ancestors were killers, rapists, thieves and-in some extremely unfortunate cases - INNOCENT PEOPLE.