“Repeat the crime, get hit with more time” captured the mood as Yes won by a wide margin. The proposition asked for mandatory minimums for any repeat offence; much of the argument went further, towards stacking sentences, limiting parole and expanding the prison estate.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case proposed to “stack their previous offence on top of the repeat offense” and concluded simply: “Build more prisons.” Another highly rated voice put the moral priority plainly: “victims and potential victims have to come first”, while others treated repeated offending as proof that previous chances had been exhausted.
The No side did not deny the damage caused by repeat crime, but argued that punishment alone would not change it. Its strongest case said, “They keep reoffending because they feel better off in prison”; another warned that a blanket rule would “ignore mental health or addiction, destroy judicial discretion, and explode our prison population”. That was the central argument the two sides talked past: one saw repetition as a reason to remove discretion, the other as evidence that the system had failed to rehabilitate.
There was also a revealing qualification inside the Yes majority. One voter insisted the minimum should be “specific to the actual crime and proportional”, while a No voice warned that mandatory sentences “always lead to poor sentencing decisions tying Judges hands”. In a national debate already shaped by prison capacity, early release and pressure on courts, the vote endorsed toughness more decisively than it settled how broad or workable that toughness should be.
The chamber delivered a hard-edged mandate, but its own arguments left the boundary of “any crime” contested.
25 Opinions
I'd go one further and say we should stack their previous offence on top of the repeat offense and each time they reoffend it stacks again. Build more prisons.
If you repeatedly commit a crime then there absolutely should be a mandatory minimum sentence, this should act as a real deterrent. Prison overpopulation is an issue to be considered but the law is about preventing crime especially repeatedly and that outweighs anything else
Obviously this should be law! If the minimum for being a pdf was 15yrs then this would help. So first offence 15yrs no time off. Second offence is the 15yrs plus another 15. Thrid offence is 15 plus 30. This would stop repeating of the same crimes.
How about doubled the last sentence for each repetition? Also each crime should be sentenced individually and final output would be the summary of all sentences. But we need much more prison space. The UK has an operational prison capacity of around 89,120 places, with roughly 86,000 to 87,000 spaces currently occupied. Police in England and Wales record over 5 to 6 million crimes annually (74,727 rapes for example). Crime detection below 10%. Big, big problem.
There are many criminals who have had multiple convictions and multiple jail terns, leaving a string of victims. At what point do you look at someone's offending and say "you've had your chances" and then throw away the key. Whether that's a two strikes or three strikes and you're out rule, plus it depends on the severity of the crimes, but victims and potential victims have to come first.
Being honest, given their impact on society, repeat offenders against property and individuals need removing from society for as long as possible.
Repeat the crime, get hit with more time.
And if it's illegals, deport them immediately. They cost the UK billions as it is.
If someone keeps offending, they should get a serious prison sentence. We shouldn’t let habitual offenders commit dozens of offences only to finally receive a short custodial sentence. Repeat offenders should face much tougher punishment. Obviously we need to expand prison capacity to make this possible, but that’s another question altogether.
We need to set the bar higher than the blanket "Three Strikes" thing the US uses. That has led to some perverse outcomes. We need something more akin to speeding points. I know someone who changed as soon as they got close to a mandatory ban at 12 points.