Prison one inmate short of being full
Tuesday 21st February 2012, 9:00AM GMT.
Prison governor Terry Wright
LES Nicolles Prison is almost full, with room for just one more prisoner before it reaches its official capacity.
But there are no plans to expand the jail, Home Department minister Geoff Mahy has said.
Currently 121 people are locked up in the St Sampson’s facility, which was built to house 122 prisoners.
Governor Terry Wright said the jail was coping and had faced high prisoner numbers over the past few years.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Saturday 26 May
- Laid-off staff see jobs re-advertised next day
- The Week - Roots Manuva interview
- Royal celebrations of yesteryear
- The Week - Jubilee Food
- Sport - Angus Mackay takes Gib job
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
You see!!!.
Every year they tell us spaces are limited and that we should book early to avoid dissapointment.
And we never listen.
Report abuse
How many are locally born?
Report abuse
How many Guernsey born are in English prisons due to our prison not being equiped to deal with the most serious criminals?
Report abuse
Well if they didn’t send people to prison for motoring offences and drug possesion that would free up a few spaces.
Report abuse
We need a much bigger state of the art prison. Being tough on crime regardless of the costs is the most important thing for the island.
So the question is shall we pay more taxes or perhaps cut health or school spending?
Report abuse
That’s exactly what we don’t need. Prisons are like multi storey car parks. As soon as you fill one up you need another one.
A much more imaginative approach to crime is needed and SS is on exactly the right lines. Simple possession should never, ever warrant a custodial sentence and nor should a simple drink drive charge even for a repeat offender. Taking perpetrators of very serious motoring ‘crimes’ off the roads for LIFE would have the desired effect and cost the taxpayer nothing beyond the initial prosecution. But don’t expect anything radical from Mahy and Wright, the Laurel and Hardy of the Home Department, bumbling their way along and not addressing the central issues…
Report abuse
I don’t think that Mahy or Wright have much influence on the island sentencing policy
Report abuse
No, but they’re part of the same sorry establishment and doubtless contribute to the status quo in this regard.
Report abuse
You may be sensible law abiding person, but other 99% of the island need heavy draconain punishments to keep them from doing wrong.
Its only the knowledge that I would go to prison for a few months if extremely drunk and caught driving that stops me from doing it.
We don’t know how many hundreds of lives have been saved because the islands tough approach on crime.
Report abuse
haha really? that’s the only thing stopping you drink driving at all? no moral ethics of common sense for the probable damage you would cause being drunk and speeding down the grange at 25mph?
by that logic women should go to prison for not sticking to their diets and men should go for cheating on their wifes. cor blimey that’ll stop em!
anyway, who would catch you if the other 99% of the island were in prison?
Report abuse
really? I hope that you are being unduly harsh on yourself to make a point.
surely there are other things stopping you:
1. the knowledge that you could be responsible for killing or seriously injuring someone because you willingly got behind the wheel when incapable
2. knowing that you will be looked upon with contempt by friends, family, work colleagues
3. knowing that you may well lose your job
4. your own self-respect and not wanting to be a complete idiot
those things stop me. I don’t even think about the criminal punishment.
society plays a huge role in law enforcement – making sure that unacceptable behaviour is treated as being unacceptable. IMO, peer pressure is much more effective than criminal deterrent
Report abuse
“Simple possession should never, ever warrant a custodial sentence” I could agree with you there (depending on the substance and the amount)I hope you dont mean Herion or class A drugs. But to state “and nor should a simple drink drive charge even for a repeat offender”, Are you out of you mind ? Drink driving kills and someone who has been convicted and then repeats the offence should at least be birched and sent to jail.A drunk at the wheel of a car ,lorry ,motorbike is in my opinion a potential killer. Do you wait until someone dies under a wheels of a vehicle before we slap the hand of the driver and take his/her vehicle ?
Report abuse
When is the last time someone in Gsy was killed by a drunk driver? Give me one example. If a drunk driver killed someone they would go to prison which is fair enough, but its ridiculous to put someone in prison because of something they might do.
Report abuse
SS – drink drivers are not punished for something that they might do. They are punished for something that they have done – recklessly getting behind the wheel of a potentially dangerous vehicle when they have willingly reduced their ability to control that vehicle.
People who take risks with other people’s lives need to be punished.
If you see a guy shooting a gun in the high street but missing everyone, you do not say “he hasn’t done anything yet, he only MIGHT hit someone”. You stop him before he does hit someone.
Report abuse
SS is right. I used the word ‘simple’ and we’re not talking about simple drink drive offence when the driver in question has killed someone.
Report abuse
Drink drivers kills. And if it hasn’t yet, it will.
Report abuse
Martino, I cannot fathom your logic when you say a ” simple drink drive charge even for a repeat offender ” should not warrant a custodial sentence, Whereas a very serious motoring crime as you call it would? Well please explain what is serious if not a person caught drink driving particularly for a second offence, is not deemed serious? For me drink driving is very serious indeed, as i am sure everyone who has lost a loved one because of some idiot under the influence behind the wheel of a car.It is only by chance most people do not kill or injure some innocent party or themselves while they drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Report abuse
Matt
According to some, it doesn’t matter if children are not protected from drugs and paedophiles – what matters most is that they get 5 GCSE’s A*-C including English and Maths.
In answer to your question the spending priorities should be
1) Health
2) Crime
3) Education
Report abuse
Who’s talking about education? You’re obsessed. And notice it’s GCSEs, you’ve committed an apostrophe crime and in my book you should go to prison for it.
Report abuse
Martino
My remark about education was in response to Matt’s comment no. 4 at 10.56 am today. He said “So the question is shall we pay more taxes or perhaps cut health or school spending?” Do pay attention Martino!
Report abuse
Don’t put people in prison for pot!
Simple.
Problem solved.
Thank you.
Goodbye.
Report abuse
I’m with Martino on this one, surely longer bans are more cost effective and indeed more of a deterrent. First offence 3 years, second offence 10 years and third one life, or something similar. Plus a substantial fine depending on the alcohol reading, any non payment of which or driving whilst banned could be harshly dealt with by a custodial sentence.
Report abuse
Martino, once again I completely disagree with you. Serious traffic offences such as drink driving and driving whilst disqualified should definitely get prison. You can give people life bans and that wouldn’t be a bad idea but this does not stop getting behind the wheel at all. I have heard of several people who have been driving around whilst drunk and disqualified. You cannot physically stop someone driving through a ban. If they refuse to adhere to the ban then short of cutting off their hands and feet they have to go to prison to learn their lesson. You can’t ban someone who is already banned. And SS, with regards to drink drivers. Don’t be so stupid. Drink driving is a killer and there have been deaths because of it in Guernsey. You can’t say you can’t imprison someone because of what might have happened. It’s the mindset that counts. Think about the amount of people imprisoned in high security prisons in the UK who have been (rightly so) imprisoned for conspiring to commit terrorist acts. These people did nothing wrong but they had the mindset and were a danger and that it what counts. At the end if the day abide by the law or you will get locked up and you will deserve it. Double or triple up every cell if you need to.
Report abuse
As SS has said, I cannot think of a single recent case of a person who has been killed on our roads as a result of driving while over the limit. I can think of any number of cases of people being killed due to the actions of sober drivers speeding or driving recklessly. In most cases they are young male drivers so it would be far more effective, if you really are interested in driving maniacs off our roads, to have a testosterone lime rather than a blood alcohol limit.
Again, you have missed the point completely. Why cannot you and the other members of the ‘let’s build more prisons’ lobby understand that it would be far more effective to take a drink driver off the roads for double/triple the limit (as Phil suggests) rather than put him/her in prison at great expense?
You’re the ones being stupid. Mind numbingly so!
Report abuse
Martino/SS,
Why on earth would it be more effective to take a drink driver off the roads?
You are the ones being mind numbingly stupid – how many repeat drink drive offenders pass through our courts?
Quite a few I think you will find, this just proves that a licence suspension and fine is not a sufficient deterrent for some people.
Sometimes prison is the only thing some people will respond to.
Report abuse
Kevin.
And sometimes prison is the easy option. You are the one being stupid if you can’t see that the prison is full so an alternative needs to be found. Someone has mentioned about all the repeat offenders going through our courts. Is that not blindingly obvious proof that prison and driving bans aren’t working?
Report abuse
Thats not always the case, Bush and Blair are still free.
Report abuse
Comin at ya
So when was the last example? don’t be so melodramatic. No one has suggested letting anyone drive around drunk, just that alternative to prison should be found. As for doubling and tripling up, don’t be so clueless, its not just about prisoners discomfort, the staff couldn’t cope with that either. Or maybe you want rioting and prisoners and prison officers getting killed and injured?
Report abuse
How about the fatal accident involving a drink driver in the Salt pans a few years ago. We have been very lucky in Guernsey but drink driving is a killer. Don’t deny it. And no Martino I am not missing the point, you are. If you had read my comment properly you would see that I have agreed long bans is a good idea for repeat offenders but I am saying this does not stop ALL people. Most yes but some carry on driving whilst disqualified and sometimes even drunk and disqualified. These are the people that are getting prison and need to be there. They are a danger. And I am not one of these people who wants big new prisons. I havnt even hinted at that. I am saying that people who need prison should get it and spaces should not be an issue. Double them up if needs be!
Report abuse
Funny how people have to jump to the extreme;
“When is the last time someone in Gsy was killed by a drunk driver? Give me one example. If a drunk driver killed someone they would go to prison which is fair enough, but its ridiculous to put someone in prison because of something they might do?”…
(I’ve quoted SS, but it’s not an isolated view)
How about we look at the offence, from the perspective of how many people have been injured, or had property damaged by a drink driver and what are the true costs?
About two months ago, I watched as a female motorist driving along The Quay, was hit head-on by a drunk driver. After a night out in Town, he had just got into his car on the Crown Pier, driven off and slewed into her vehicle. No, not a vast speed involved, but as they took this poor woman out of her car, on a back-board and neck brace, and the Police arrived to arrest the driver, manage the traffic and measure everything up, I wonder why that woman’s injuries, trauma should find no way into such a polarised debate. I think his punishment was two years and about £800.
Of course, read elsewhere on this forum, and you see the call for Police to be a fixture of the Weighbridge Taxi Rank after 11pm;
I guess there would be more chance of this, if Mr Rice’s finest weren’t running around the island dealing with the aftermath of non-fatal DIC accidents.
On the plus side, the GEP has reported two drunk drivers who have rolled their cars in the last month or so. The down side… I doubt the fines get anywhere near the Police / Court / HSSD costs involved in dealing with these cases.
So can we please get away from the Drunk Drivers haven’t killed anyone in recent history, therefore it’s a joke that the island’s Police and others take it so seriously?
This is not the 1970′s, “I have a few in L’auberge, nip around to the Tav for one, and then we drive out to the Longfrie for a couple, before heading into Town.” Anyone who is drink driving, is doing it in the full awareness that the Police enforce the law, and have done for a generation.
Personally, I’d ban for life.
Report abuse
very well said.
there is no such thing as a “simple” drink drive offence which currently attracts a prison sentence, just as there is no “simple” case of someone waving a loaded gun around in a schoolyard (nice Daily Mail-esque analogy, but no less valid). If no-one is injured it is merely down to good fortune, it is not because the person doing the drink driving or gun-waving is doing anything less dangerous than if someone was injured.
taking away someone’s driving licence is not much of a punishment for what is a seriously dangerous action. If someone justifies prison under the current rules then they are reckless enough to be a real danger and a repeat offender – in which case a proper punishment of some form is required.
Report abuse
PS Another apostrophe crime, one of the worst. It’s 1970s – without the offending punctuation mark.
Report abuse
Prison too full, eh? Easy answer? Go back in time to when they were places of discomfort, pain and dread. It would take a year or two but, eventually, very few would remember how to spell recidivist!
Report abuse
Right, just to clarify for all. The central premise of my argument in this and other current threads in this forum is that the prison is chock full, it’s bursting at the seams, and the reason this is the case is that we are filling it with minor sex, drug and motoring offenders who could otherwise be dealt with adequately through non custodial punishments, saving us millions in the process.
This thread has developed into a debate on what to do with drink drivers so let’s deal with that one. I know it’s not a legal term but when I say a ‘simple’ drink drive offence I mean one that is not aggravated by the driver causing death or serious injury to others. In those cases a prison sentence might be warranted, but even in the case highlighted by The Body (above) of a woman being badly injured by a drink driver, what on earth is the point of sending that person to prison? Just ban that driver for 10 years, life if you like (I don’t disagree with you there, The Body), but this is not the sort of case where the driver is going to do it again. He did not set out to cause death or injury and is not of a criminal mentality. Putting him inside is pointless and of no deterrent value whatsoever. Banning him for a very long time has much more of a deterrent value and is much more effective in terms of getting bad drivers off our roads.
Similarly, if someone who is convicted of a ‘simple’ (non aggravated) drink drive offence goes on to drive over the limit again, at the end of his/her 2/3 year ban, what on the earth is the point of putting him/her inside? Just ban that driver for 10 years second time round as Phil suggests and then make it three strikes and you’re out – for life.
Of course, there must be a legal sanction to prevent banned drivers from flouting their punishments and, sadly, in these cases (Comin At Ya) yes, I agree that a custodial sentence might be necessary. Preferably a short, sharp one.
I hope everyone is clear about that now!
Report abuse
Martino
There is no comparison between a prison sentence and license removal. I’m sure prison is a sobering deterrent whereas the problem of being forbidden from driving is not insurmountable.
I simply happen to believe that money is not the most important thing in life and we should not seek to cut corners with expenditure which can vastly improve safety and quality of life for the community as a whole.
Report abuse
I have followed your posts in this and other threads and conclude that you are a civil servant/petty bureaucrat/little empire builder who is quite happy to see our structural deficit build up to unsustainable levels. I am offering a way forward without compromising ‘the safety and quality of life for the community as a whole’. It’s called imaginative thinking – common sense if you like – and it is something that is sorely lacking in Guernsey’s public sector, which continues to see throwing taxpayers’ money at everything as the panacea to all ills. It’s time for you and others who think like you to get real.
Report abuse
Martino
I’m flattered that you are a “follower”! Your conclusions are all wrong though.
You have some interesting points of view and although I generally seem to disagree with you I value your contributions because I am here to debate issues and try to broaden my perspective. Any who resent opposing points of view are surely wasting their time on this forum.
Report abuse
What a strange statement. Everyone on here ‘resents’ the opposing point of view. You certainly do. You show it in every post you make. I do it too, of course, but what I do not do is resent other posters’ RIGHT to state their opposing points of view, and nor I hope do they resent my right to state mine.
Report abuse
Martino
I do not resent different points of view or well made arguments and especially appreciate when the subject has been researched or reflects a different perspective. I sometimes shift my views in light of new information debated on this forum and I see that as a positive not a weakness.
There is some behaviour such as false accusations which I do resent and I then feel free to be defensive.
With regard to your views on reducing imprisonment for financial benefit I respect your view however you are a very long way short of convincing me and therefore we must agree to disagree for now. Perhaps if you have kids one day you will shift your view.
Report abuse
You could argue that for certain people prison is the easy option (maybe not for you and me), but for others it is. I can think of better alternatives than prison for these people.
Report abuse
There are two basics which underpin prison as a solution to crime – firstly the removal of personal freedom as a punishment and deterrent and secondly the safeguarding of those at risk of harm from perpetrators. As a law abiding citizen with a family my primary concern is for protection, how those I pay my taxes to accomplish this is their area of expertise. I do however expect as a priority above all else to live in a community which is safe.
Report abuse
With regard to drink driving, personally I’d rather we went back to a competence test rather than a fixed breath / blood limit. I wouldn’t have got into a car with my dear old grandmother after she’d had half a cider, but on the other hand there are numerous mates that I’d quite happily get into a car with after they’d had 3 pints. To suggest that someone is unfit to drive simply because they are 1mg over the limit is ridiculous.
Report abuse
Absolutely how it should be. But thats too much like common sense for the self-righteous on here.
I noticed a 61 year old man went to prison yesterday for growing a couple of pot plants and owning a few pills. So that now means the prison is full. You’d think most people would realise an alternative to prison needs to be found for some offences, but sadly some people would rather froth at the mouth than see sense.
Report abuse
SS
That’ll be the man charged with intent to supply and it was hundreds of pills not a few. I wonder who he had in mind to supply them to. The island is a tad safer for the next few years.
Report abuse
I think the report said he had 589 tablets! There is not a court in the world that would say that was for personal use!!!
He was charged and convicted of being a drug dealer. As such, he deserves prison.
Report abuse
On an island the size of Guernsey there is absolutely no need to risk drink driving, whats wrong with walking, cycling, getting a lift from someone or paying for a taxi?
The longest return trip home is maybe eight miles at a push – if you can’t manage without a drink just leave the car at home, its not difficult!
Report abuse
Agree with you entirely on that Kevin but when I am cycling home from the pub I am not worried or threatened by drink drivers – I am far more endangered by sober young maniacs racing at crazy speeds in their kevved (sic) up cars.
Report abuse
Martino
I hope that you are on the soft stuff in the pub before you get on your cycle – there is a law prohibiting cycling whilst ‘under the influence’ ;)
Report abuse
@Breda drinker
Are you mad? Stating that you would happily get into a car, driven by one of your mate who have consumed 3 pints of beer. You are happy to be driven at whatever speed by someone who is over the limit? You completely NUTS ! Possibly as mad as Martino.
Report abuse
Breda drinker sounds sane and sober to me paule. Here’s a question for you. Would you rather get into a car with Breda’s mate driving WITHIN the speed limit but just outside the alcohol limit (Breda didn;t mention speed, you did because you didn’t read his post correctly)?
OR would you like to get into a car driven by one of those young sober nutters at speeds up to twice Guernsey’s 35mph limit and beyond?
I know which car I’d rather get in and I know which sort of driver causes more deaths and more serious accidents (which is not to condone drink driving).
And to AM of course I drink alcohol and ride my bike. How else am I going to get home apart from walk (which I also do). There are no buses after 9pm and taxi fares are too extortionately dear for me.
Report abuse
Perhaps if the drunk driver who almost killed me years ago, had been imprisoned on his FIRST offence, he would have thought twice before he got behind the wheel again when he had been drinking. On a sunny Saturday afternoon, driving on the wrong side of the road he mowed me down – and I am lucky to be alive……. And for this he received one year off the roads and a 25 pound fine. I received 40 years of various treatments resulting from the “accident” – and not a day goes by when I don’t look into the mirror and see the scars on my face and body.
Report abuse
Personally I’d say dump the Human Rights laws and bring back stocks.
On another thread, someone said they’d like to go back to ‘the good old days’ when unruly children were thrashed and Spartacus likened this to child abuse BUT as I recall from the schools I attended where The Dreaded Slipper was used…there was only ever about one thrashing a year. The fear was enough to keep us in check.
The crime rate might plummet if the punishment was 12 hours of being pelted with rubbish.
Report abuse
Mrs Meat
I didn’t “liken” corporal punishment to abuse – my view is that it actually IS abuse. 22 European countries who have outlawed it agree with me.
Striking an adult is illegal but striking a child is legal – it just doesn’t make sense. Threatening behaviour is psychological abuse and again this is not acceptable towards an adult but permitted against a child.
My favourite country Finland have outlawed corporal punishment in the home since 1983. Their education results are the best in the world and their teenagers are not rioting and looting in the streets.
To bring this matter in line with the topic of this thread – perhaps prisoners should be surveyed to find out what level of corporate punishment they endured as children.
Report abuse
Totally agree with Spartacus here.
I had corporal punishment at school, I have had the ruler, table tennis bat, slipper and hand for the big crime of smoking.
I got on with school work, did not bully anyone and had a good sense of humour.
Others who were bullies, slacked off and caused problems rarely saw any punishment.
Ok smoking is bad and the table tennis bat is just to flat to hurt but if I saw the person who carried out these punishments today and I had any of these implements to hand, they would get it.
You get more respect if you use your brain, not your fist. It just causes resentment.
Report abuse
@Martino
So you are telling me i did not read the post correctly? I said whatever speed meaning whether it is under or over the limit, you can cause harm or fatal injuries at less than 35mph . Also i did not mention any other drivers, including the young sober nutters as you mention. I know from personal experience how your young sober nutters cause mayhem on the roads and have seen the misery they cause every day in my job. That said, in answer to your question , which car would i get into? Well neither of course if i knew someone would be reckless regardless of their age, or indeed having been drinking in excess of three pints of beer, yes they may seem completely in control of their vehicle, but their reaction is impaired and slower than that of someone with no alcohol consumed. As i said it would not be my personal choice to get in a car with anyone, friend or not who has had alcohol. If anyone else wishes to do so then that is their decision.Working in a large hospital i see the damage and the carnage caused by drink drivers and the young sobers nutters pretty much every night, the victims and their families are what we have to deal with, it is not pleasant.
Report abuse
A fair enough answer paule and thanks for acknowledging the damage caused by sober speedsters. The point I am trying to make is that excessive speed is a greater factor than alcohol in death, injury and destruction on our roads and that far more of a focus needs to be put on clamping down on the speedsters. Of course, when excessive speed and alcohol are combined it is the worst situation of all but local drivers who transgress tend to do one or the other.
Report abuse
take away the tvs, games consoles in their cells, daily access to gym plus other luxuries we not in prison have to pay for keep them in cells as they should be and when put in cells at night lights should be out. They are in prison because they have committed crimes why should they have these privilidges without them they maybe wouldnt be so keen to return to prison.Also if neccesary double up in the cells its a prison not a hotel
Report abuse
Nico
Yawn.
Report abuse