Letter: Amputation and the costs of crime
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Persistent criminals gamble against the unlikelihood of detection; the odds are vastly in their favour. There is a 93 per cent chance of not getting caught (National Statistical Office) and of the 7 per cent that are, only about 3 per cent will go to court. Even then, the possibility of actual punishment is remote.
The article 'Amputation the answer to crime' (1 April) identifies the major cause of the soaring crime rate. The cost of crime should be increased to outweigh its benefits. Punishment should outweigh the crime and persistent offenders should have to compare the satisfaction of the crime with the punishment it would attract.
There is no need to resort to barbaric sentences of execution or amputation. Home Office research concludes that a minority of persistent offenders accounts for the majority of crimes. Target those offenders and give them ever-increasing lengths of sentences. Achieve this by increasing greatly the number of police officers and reforming the Crown Prosecution Service. Initially the prison population will considerably increase but will reduce when the punishment significantly begins to outweigh the benefits of the crime. Only then will crime be decreased.
Yours faithfully,
PETER COAD
Bristol
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments