Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
08 Dec 09
22:52
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Jul 09
and seriously injured an elderly man with unprovoked attacks, have got 19 and 21 years.
Who restricts the sentences the judge can apply, if in fact the judge is restricted, which I think he is?
This like many others was a diabolical crime, and yet they'll be free before they're 40.
orioles once gave me a link to guidelines but I've lost it.
Who restricts the sentences the judge can apply, if in fact the judge is restricted, which I think he is?
This like many others was a diabolical crime, and yet they'll be free before they're 40.
orioles once gave me a link to guidelines but I've lost it.
Show More
Bix, i didn't want to be as extreme as you, but you are right. cheers.
What's with the "cheers" at the end of every post, FFS?
We can tell you are pi$$ed without it
We can tell you are pi$$ed without it
oh why not lets give it a try for a few years and if the overall level of crime falls we know it's working :D
The bairn
I dont want to be as extreme as that either and I'm not really suggesting it but what else is the answer? We have a terrifying situation in this country now where you can get kicked to death for not giving someone a light.
While we are taking things to extreme make poor parenting a crime as well, again with the death penalty.
Ridiculous?
I dont want to be as extreme as that either and I'm not really suggesting it but what else is the answer? We have a terrifying situation in this country now where you can get kicked to death for not giving someone a light.
While we are taking things to extreme make poor parenting a crime as well, again with the death penalty.
Ridiculous?
Look - how about some middle ground:
e.g. For pre meditated , planned murder- or murder whilst in process of robbing/ burglary- bring back the OPTION of the death penalty.
On conviction - give the nearest and dearest of the victim the option to choose the punishment:
1. Prison
2 Execution - with the option of the wronged relatives participating.
Lets be reasonable - give a fair time to consider what punishment to apply- a time for reflection to allow emotions to cool- 5 minutes should be enough.
And - state can give a nice generous tax free payment to the wronged family - calculated as (say) one years cost of the alternative incarceration - plus a further (say) £200 if the executioners fee is saved by the relatives co-operation.
Added benefit: OK magazine and the like would have something to report on- which going from the copy i browsed at the docs the other day- will be a pleaseant change.
Everyone of any consequence wins - simple innit ! :)
e.g. For pre meditated , planned murder- or murder whilst in process of robbing/ burglary- bring back the OPTION of the death penalty.
On conviction - give the nearest and dearest of the victim the option to choose the punishment:
1. Prison
2 Execution - with the option of the wronged relatives participating.
Lets be reasonable - give a fair time to consider what punishment to apply- a time for reflection to allow emotions to cool- 5 minutes should be enough.
And - state can give a nice generous tax free payment to the wronged family - calculated as (say) one years cost of the alternative incarceration - plus a further (say) £200 if the executioners fee is saved by the relatives co-operation.
Added benefit: OK magazine and the like would have something to report on- which going from the copy i browsed at the docs the other day- will be a pleaseant change.
Everyone of any consequence wins - simple innit ! :)
Empiral evidence demonstrates very clearly that rehabilitative schemes are not only considerably cheaper but also show a far lower rate of re-offending than incarceration only . Each new prison place costs £119, 000 and a further £40,000 per annum to keep each offender locked up . Are we really committed to throwing money away in such a wasteful way when the alternatives are proven to be cheaper and more effective ?
Prison will only ever act as an effective deterrent for those with something to lose , the people responsible for crimes such as those mentioned above have absolutely nothng to lose and couldnt give a **** about themselves or anybody else ... precisely the kind of people a deterrent will not work for .
Locking people up will only ever work if every sentence is a life long one , which is obviously completely impractical . Brutalising people who have very often been brutalised from an early age and then releasing them back into the community will only serve to perpetuate a cycle of violence . Integrating people back into society , occupying them , giving them some kind of purpose and sense of worth is the only way to curb re-offending and is far more conducive to the effective and true concept of justice .
Prison will only ever act as an effective deterrent for those with something to lose , the people responsible for crimes such as those mentioned above have absolutely nothng to lose and couldnt give a **** about themselves or anybody else ... precisely the kind of people a deterrent will not work for .
Locking people up will only ever work if every sentence is a life long one , which is obviously completely impractical . Brutalising people who have very often been brutalised from an early age and then releasing them back into the community will only serve to perpetuate a cycle of violence . Integrating people back into society , occupying them , giving them some kind of purpose and sense of worth is the only way to curb re-offending and is far more conducive to the effective and true concept of justice .
Empiral evidence demonstrates very clearly that rehabilitative schemes are not only considerably cheaper but also show a far lower rate of re-offending than incarceration only . Each new prison place costs £119, 000 and a further £40,000 per annum to keep each offender locked up . Are we really committed to throwing money away in such a wasteful way when the alternatives are proven to be cheaper and more effective ?
Empirical evidence demonstrates very clearly that...
Hanging :
Wood £400 - to be reused every half an hour
Rope £50 - to be reused every half an hour and replaced once per year.
Cardboard coffin - £10
So- which is cheaper?
Empirical evidence demonstrates very clearly that...
Hanging :
Wood £400 - to be reused every half an hour
Rope £50 - to be reused every half an hour and replaced once per year.
Cardboard coffin - £10
So- which is cheaper?
but if one person reoffends then the money spent on said person has been wasted plus the cost to the family that has to now suffer along with said offenders previous victim/s who dont get a second chance.
i am not for the death penalty but to put it in terms of cost is a joke imo
i am not for the death penalty but to put it in terms of cost is a joke imo
Including capital costs- £1k per week then - so how many prisoners do we keep ?
Shenanigans 09 Dec 00:26
If they are a problem after two decades, the problem is more likely to be in how we have treated them in that time.
The only thing I hate more than your smug arrogance is your snivelling cowardice shrouded in liberal clothing.
If they are a problem after two decades, the problem is more likely to be in how we have treated them in that time.
The only thing I hate more than your smug arrogance is your snivelling cowardice shrouded in liberal clothing.
There is only one solution to the problem which you know would work and that's the death penalty for all crimes. No re-offenders and very cheap if you want to look at this from a financial viewpoint.
Remember no-one has to commit a crime. It is the offender's choice. No-one makes them do it, and if they do it they suffer the consequencies ie death
Another problem solved.
Remember no-one has to commit a crime. It is the offender's choice. No-one makes them do it, and if they do it they suffer the consequencies ie death
Another problem solved.
the DO-GOODERS just don't get it, why would i be happy if c-unts like theses two never re-offend again, their is a completely innocent young guy, lying in his grave rotting away, just think about him and his family for once. as the guys above have said, not the moral issue, but the financial one, it would save the country a lot of money with the death penalty reintroduced. cheers.
And the money saved by not having to keep the offenders alive would pay for more police.
it would be a positive spiral - up- instead of the downward spin we are currently in
and more police would catch more offenders who would never offend again.
what you mean their might be bobbies on the beat instead of having to pay for our own private police force
Death penalty for all crimes. pmsl. He ain't fishing either.
20 murderers have absconded from Leyhill Open Prison, near Bristol, in the past five years.
Ghostdog.
Somewhat extreme I must admit but what else do you know would work.
Somewhat extreme I must admit but what else do you know would work.
Somewhat extreme I must admit
Not really, you're probably right.
Not really, you're probably right.
The bairn
I dont want to be as extreme as that either and I'm not really suggesting it...
is that why you've repeated it on numerous posts, you moron?
I dont want to be as extreme as that either and I'm not really suggesting it...
is that why you've repeated it on numerous posts, you moron?
The experiment with the abolition of capital punishment has failed. Early release murderers have gone on to kill 56 other innocent people when back in society... and that's since 1995. That blood is on the hands of the society members who support this idiotic stance. None of that 56 would have died if society had not set these murderers on them.
shenanigans,
people who commit violent offences are emotionally flawed.
these peretrators shouldn't be considered as members of society, they should be dispensed forthwith.
people who commit violent offences are emotionally flawed.
these peretrators shouldn't be considered as members of society, they should be dispensed forthwith.
Tevez
Of course I'm not suggesting it but just making the point that if you really wanted to stop the escalating level of mindless violence that would work whereas all the other "solutions" have merely increased the problem.
All you have to do now is tell us how you would do it.
Of course I'm not suggesting it but just making the point that if you really wanted to stop the escalating level of mindless violence that would work whereas all the other "solutions" have merely increased the problem.
All you have to do now is tell us how you would do it.
evingolis 09 Dec 18:42
shenanigans,
people who commit violent offences are emotionally flawed.
these peretrators shouldn't be considered as members of society, they should be dispensed forthwith.
---
and the point is, we are not. although judging by some of the responses on this thread, there are many among us that harbour violent thoughts.
shenanigans,
people who commit violent offences are emotionally flawed.
these peretrators shouldn't be considered as members of society, they should be dispensed forthwith.
---
and the point is, we are not. although judging by some of the responses on this thread, there are many among us that harbour violent thoughts.
One of the tragedies of all this is that we seem to be normalising these ever more violent incidents and are now on a downward spiral of ever increasing depravity; each one numbing us a little more against the shock of the next.
Drastic measures are called for before society breaks down completely and the lenient tactics of recent years seem only to have fuelled the flames.
Drastic measures are called for before society breaks down completely and the lenient tactics of recent years seem only to have fuelled the flames.
Edward Scissorhands 09 Dec 17:38
Empiral evidence demonstrates very clearly that rehabilitative schemes are not only considerably cheaper but also show a far lower rate of re-offending than incarceration only
Where is this evidence? Is there a link? :|
Empiral evidence demonstrates very clearly that rehabilitative schemes are not only considerably cheaper but also show a far lower rate of re-offending than incarceration only
Where is this evidence? Is there a link? :|
Edward
Empiral evidence demonstrates very clearly that rehabilitative schemes are not only considerably cheaper but also show a far lower rate of re-offending than incarceration only
No offence but my experience of lefties is that they are habitual liars and so instead of taking your word for it perhaps you could furnish us with evidence.
Many thanks.
Empiral evidence demonstrates very clearly that rehabilitative schemes are not only considerably cheaper but also show a far lower rate of re-offending than incarceration only
No offence but my experience of lefties is that they are habitual liars and so instead of taking your word for it perhaps you could furnish us with evidence.
Many thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison c+p
Meta-analysis of previous studies shows that prison sentences do not reduce future offenses, when compared to non-residential sanctions.[5] This meta-analysis of one hundred separate studies found that post-release offenses were around 7% higher after imprisonment compared with non-residential sanctions, at statistically significant levels. Another meta-analysis of 101 separate tests of the impact of prison on crime found a 3% increase in offending after imprisonment.[6] Longer periods of time in prison make outcomes worse, not better; offending increases by around 3% as prison sentences increase in length.[5]
Effective rehabilitation programs reduce the likelihood of re-offense and recidivism.[6] Effective programs are characterised by three things: first, they provide more hours for people with known offense risk factors (the Risk Principle); secondly, they address problems and needs that have a proven causal link to offending (the Needs Principle); and thirdly, they use cognitive-behavioural approaches to behaviour modification (the Responsivity Principle). Providing rehabilitation to people at lower risk of reoffending results in a 3% reduction in reoffending, while providing rehabilitation to people with a high risk of reoffending is three times as effective, resulting in a 10% reduction in subsequent offending.[6] Risk factors for reoffending are: age at first offense, number of prior offenses, level of family and personal problems in childhood and other historical factors, along with level of current needs related to offending. Those individuals who had many personal and family problems in childhood (particularly 19 or more), started offending before puberty, and have committed multiple priors are more likely to reoffend in future, according to longitudinal studies internationally.[7]
In support of the Needs Principle, programs that specifically target criminogenic needs (causal needs and problems), see a 19% reduction in reoffending.[6] In support of the Responsivity Principle, there is a 23% reduction in reoffending after participating in programs that use cognitive-behavioural methods to bring about changes in behaviour, thinking, and relationships.[6] When all three principles are effectively applied, the impact on offending is a 2632% reduction,[6][8] compared to a 37% increase in offending found with imprisonment alone.
[b]Residential approaches
Meta-analysis of previous studies shows that prison sentences do not reduce future offenses, when compared to non-residential sanctions.[5] This meta-analysis of one hundred separate studies found that post-release offenses were around 7% higher after imprisonment compared with non-residential sanctions, at statistically significant levels. Another meta-analysis of 101 separate tests of the impact of prison on crime found a 3% increase in offending after imprisonment.[6] Longer periods of time in prison make outcomes worse, not better; offending increases by around 3% as prison sentences increase in length.[5]
Effective rehabilitation programs reduce the likelihood of re-offense and recidivism.[6] Effective programs are characterised by three things: first, they provide more hours for people with known offense risk factors (the Risk Principle); secondly, they address problems and needs that have a proven causal link to offending (the Needs Principle); and thirdly, they use cognitive-behavioural approaches to behaviour modification (the Responsivity Principle). Providing rehabilitation to people at lower risk of reoffending results in a 3% reduction in reoffending, while providing rehabilitation to people with a high risk of reoffending is three times as effective, resulting in a 10% reduction in subsequent offending.[6] Risk factors for reoffending are: age at first offense, number of prior offenses, level of family and personal problems in childhood and other historical factors, along with level of current needs related to offending. Those individuals who had many personal and family problems in childhood (particularly 19 or more), started offending before puberty, and have committed multiple priors are more likely to reoffend in future, according to longitudinal studies internationally.[7]
In support of the Needs Principle, programs that specifically target criminogenic needs (causal needs and problems), see a 19% reduction in reoffending.[6] In support of the Responsivity Principle, there is a 23% reduction in reoffending after participating in programs that use cognitive-behavioural methods to bring about changes in behaviour, thinking, and relationships.[6] When all three principles are effectively applied, the impact on offending is a 2632% reduction,[6][8] compared to a 37% increase in offending found with imprisonment alone.
[b]Residential approaches
So best figure us that 65% re -offend. Locked up its 0 percent
i pay taxes- i dont want my money spent on convicted felons- simple.
Prisons
If we cant hang em and its £50k to keep each one p.a. - lets export the problem- I reckon plenty of African prisons / countries would welcome sponsored prisoners at a fraction of the cost.
The pc softy approach makes me sick:
Currently prisioners even have the right to vote ffs- this because the previous system of disenfranchising them as part of their punishment was deemed to infringe their human rights. Bless em.
Prisons
If we cant hang em and its £50k to keep each one p.a. - lets export the problem- I reckon plenty of African prisons / countries would welcome sponsored prisoners at a fraction of the cost.
The pc softy approach makes me sick:
Currently prisioners even have the right to vote ffs- this because the previous system of disenfranchising them as part of their punishment was deemed to infringe their human rights. Bless em.
ES
if the current system of being soft works so well- why are there more criminals year on year???
Hang them.
if the current system of being soft works so well- why are there more criminals year on year???
Hang them.
That is the main point which they will never answer Dobbo.
Put 100 Burglars on a non custodial scheme for 6 months and maybe 35 of them will be reformed , but the other 65 will carry on burgling, probably robbing hundreds of houses during that period.
Put them all in jail and they will commit 0 burglaries in 6 months . And who is to say that the those 'reformed' were actually just relieved to have avoided jail , and thankful to have another chance?
Another point is that those that go to prison are usually going there for their 6th or 7th crime rather than their 1st (the first few having been 'punished' by precisely the sort of schemes lauded by the left) . So prison mostly only used for those for whom rehabilitation has been tried and failed.
Put 100 Burglars on a non custodial scheme for 6 months and maybe 35 of them will be reformed , but the other 65 will carry on burgling, probably robbing hundreds of houses during that period.
Put them all in jail and they will commit 0 burglaries in 6 months . And who is to say that the those 'reformed' were actually just relieved to have avoided jail , and thankful to have another chance?
Another point is that those that go to prison are usually going there for their 6th or 7th crime rather than their 1st (the first few having been 'punished' by precisely the sort of schemes lauded by the left) . So prison mostly only used for those for whom rehabilitation has been tried and failed.
Unlike some of the nutters on here I don't relish the idea of punishment but the solution seems fairly simple.The schemes dont work.Locking people up does. It may not rehabilitate them but it sure as hell stops them.
ok so we`ll introduce legislation to ensure that every crime carries a mandatory life sentence ?
lol
lol
Dont be ridiculous. But a custodial sentence for a first offence GBH or affray might help
erm even though if you`d read my previous post you`d have seen that re-offending rates are higher amongst those given a custodial sentence ?
i like your logic dobbo ... off to bed now
i like your logic dobbo ... off to bed now
No one has said that Edward
As things are though, someone who starts commiting muggings, burglaries, acts of pointless violence aged 15 or so , and continues to do so whenever at liberty to,up til he is over 25 (when most criminals seem to become less prolific anyway) , will probably be on the streets for 80% of that time , despite regular convictions ,because of comunity service ,early release etc . If he was jailed for every one of those offences, and served the whole of it, he would more likely only be on the streets for 15% of that time, so would have far less oppurtunity (and maybe he would decide the risk/reward ratio was not worthwhile anymore).
As things are though, someone who starts commiting muggings, burglaries, acts of pointless violence aged 15 or so , and continues to do so whenever at liberty to,up til he is over 25 (when most criminals seem to become less prolific anyway) , will probably be on the streets for 80% of that time , despite regular convictions ,because of comunity service ,early release etc . If he was jailed for every one of those offences, and served the whole of it, he would more likely only be on the streets for 15% of that time, so would have far less oppurtunity (and maybe he would decide the risk/reward ratio was not worthwhile anymore).
Edward ignoring the points re those who are not rehabiltated but left at liberty while a futile attempt is made to reform them.
The logic of your argument is thaere should be no prisons at all.
The logic of your argument is thaere should be no prisons at all.
Fck re-offending rates.You dont offend from a prison cell
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/144728/Gang-kicked-man-to-death-for-a-ci...
A MIDDLE-aged man kicked to death by a gang of yobs may have been targeted because he refused to give them a cigarette, it emerged yesterday.
The group are believed to have attacked the 57-year-old victim with bottles from a nearby bottle bank given to them by two girls.
Police in Birmingham were allowed extra time yesterday to question six males, two aged 19, two aged 18, a 22-year-old and a 16-year-old, who were arrested on suspicion of murder.
Three girls aged 17 and one aged 19 were also held over the murder and officers have been given more time to interview them.
The victim had not been identified last night but shocked residents in Northfield, Birmingham, said the attack in the early hours of Saturday was witnessed by his wife or girlfriend.
Geraldine Furey, 43, who works in a butchers shop near the scene, said:
The group are believed to have attacked the 57-year-old victim with bottles from a nearby bottle bank given to them by two girls.
Police in Birmingham were allowed extra time yesterday to question six males, two aged 19, two aged 18, a 22-year-old and a 16-year-old, who were arrested on suspicion of murder.
Three girls aged 17 and one aged 19 were also held over the murder and officers have been given more time to interview them.
The victim had not been identified last night but shocked residents in Northfield, Birmingham, said the attack in the early hours of Saturday was witnessed by his wife or girlfriend.
Geraldine Furey, 43, who works in a butchers shop near the scene, said:
Edward
Those are interesting statistics but you can't just sweep the questions under the carpet. As we often find with such studies the people doing the study are drawn to study the issue because they have a bias one way or another.
Questions like are the ones ending up in prison typically your hardened career criminals as opposed to those just entering a life of crime because that will obviously impact on the findings.
Similarly you cannot sweep under the carpet that the majority who don't stop offending on community based schemes are at liberty to commit further crimes. In the case of people like burglars this can result in hundreds of crimes per annum. When you set this against the fact that their reoffending whilst in prison is exactly zero this swings the argument back in favour of imprisonment with stiffer sentencing.
Those are interesting statistics but you can't just sweep the questions under the carpet. As we often find with such studies the people doing the study are drawn to study the issue because they have a bias one way or another.
Questions like are the ones ending up in prison typically your hardened career criminals as opposed to those just entering a life of crime because that will obviously impact on the findings.
Similarly you cannot sweep under the carpet that the majority who don't stop offending on community based schemes are at liberty to commit further crimes. In the case of people like burglars this can result in hundreds of crimes per annum. When you set this against the fact that their reoffending whilst in prison is exactly zero this swings the argument back in favour of imprisonment with stiffer sentencing.
Not sweeping anything under the carpet , of course people can`t re-offend if theyre locked up .
Most prisoners do tend to be released though and without intervention independent studies show that the cycle is more likely to continue . I`m no expert but im more likely to give more
credence to independent , properly submitted studies than the rantings of the Daily Mail brigade .
I`m not for one moment suggesting that we should do away with prisons , if people are a danger
to society then they need to be kept locked up until such a time that it can be demonstrated they are no longer a risk.
other points :
That is the main point which they will never answer Dobbo.
Put 100 Burglars on a non custodial scheme for 6 months and maybe 35 of them will be reformed , but the other 65 will carry on burgling, probably robbing hundreds of houses during that period.
you have a link ?
Put them all in jail and they will commit 0 burglaries in 6 months . And who is to say that the those 'reformed' were actually just relieved to have avoided jail , and thankful to have another chance?
So are you saying that a non custodial sentence might actually work ?
Another point is that those that go to prison are usually going there for their 6th or 7th crime rather than their 1st (the first few having been 'punished' by precisely the sort of schemes lauded by the left) . So prison mostly only used for those for whom rehabilitation has been tried and failed.
you have a link ?
Agree with your other point tobermory that most criminals become less prolific with age , unfortunately unless we intend doing away with all spending on health care , education etc then
locking all criminals up until they are 30 would probably send the country bankrupt . Might also be considered a little harsh in some instances ... perhaps ?
Most prisoners do tend to be released though and without intervention independent studies show that the cycle is more likely to continue . I`m no expert but im more likely to give more
credence to independent , properly submitted studies than the rantings of the Daily Mail brigade .
I`m not for one moment suggesting that we should do away with prisons , if people are a danger
to society then they need to be kept locked up until such a time that it can be demonstrated they are no longer a risk.
other points :
That is the main point which they will never answer Dobbo.
Put 100 Burglars on a non custodial scheme for 6 months and maybe 35 of them will be reformed , but the other 65 will carry on burgling, probably robbing hundreds of houses during that period.
you have a link ?
Put them all in jail and they will commit 0 burglaries in 6 months . And who is to say that the those 'reformed' were actually just relieved to have avoided jail , and thankful to have another chance?
So are you saying that a non custodial sentence might actually work ?
Another point is that those that go to prison are usually going there for their 6th or 7th crime rather than their 1st (the first few having been 'punished' by precisely the sort of schemes lauded by the left) . So prison mostly only used for those for whom rehabilitation has been tried and failed.
you have a link ?
Agree with your other point tobermory that most criminals become less prolific with age , unfortunately unless we intend doing away with all spending on health care , education etc then
locking all criminals up until they are 30 would probably send the country bankrupt . Might also be considered a little harsh in some instances ... perhaps ?
Although it's unpleasant it's an unavoidable fact that imprisonment or death penalty stops these people re-offending either because they cant offend while they're locked up or if they are dead.
If people like Edward cant accept this remedy all they have to do is tell us how they would protect the public from the sort of characters who feel it is acceptable to kick someone to death.
If people like Edward cant accept this remedy all they have to do is tell us how they would protect the public from the sort of characters who feel it is acceptable to kick someone to death.
I was speaking generally bix , in some instances life should mean life .
they're just idiot kids .. not mass murderers
19/21 years are Hefty sentences .
19/21 years are Hefty sentences .
Mc Moonbeam 10 Dec 12:14
they're just idiot kids .. not mass murderers
Oh, that ok then.
they're just idiot kids .. not mass murderers
Oh, that ok then.
If you don't understand your own argument, then don't post, you m0r0n.
Mc Moonbeam 10 Dec 12:14
they're just idiot kids .. not mass murderers
19/21 years are Hefty sentences .
Bless them
they're just idiot kids .. not mass murderers
19/21 years are Hefty sentences .
Bless them
I understand mine .. now what's yours .. c0cksucker ?
my argument ?
sounds like you're fighting your own .. with the odd insult to boot
whatta guy :)
sounds like you're fighting your own .. with the odd insult to boot
whatta guy :)
wockey jilson, Moonie obviously believes that if you kill one person you should get a couple of years "habilitation", if you kill two, then a few years more, and so on. how many people do you have to kill in order to do 30 years????. Oh and that all depends upon how old the killers are!!!
Unfu** believable
Unfu** believable
maybe you could've asked 'moonie' in person
you unbelievably Ignorant , arrogant ,, FCUK
you unbelievably Ignorant , arrogant ,, FCUK
The use of smileys mark you as a juvenile. hence your sympathy for these ""kids" are you keeping your own defence options open should you go wrong??
Anyway, I have used up my talking to juvenile morons for this week, I will leave it to others to keep you entertained.
Anyway, I have used up my talking to juvenile morons for this week, I will leave it to others to keep you entertained.
larry grayson 09 Dec 18:55
One of the tragedies of all this is that we seem to be normalising these ever more violent incidents and are now on a downward spiral of ever increasing depravity; each one numbing us a little more against the shock of the next.
Drastic measures are called for before society breaks down completely and the lenient tactics of recent years seem only to have fuelled the flames.
exactly. its time to keep dangerous people locked up for life. its not hard is it, just put them in their cell and...shut that door.
One of the tragedies of all this is that we seem to be normalising these ever more violent incidents and are now on a downward spiral of ever increasing depravity; each one numbing us a little more against the shock of the next.
Drastic measures are called for before society breaks down completely and the lenient tactics of recent years seem only to have fuelled the flames.
exactly. its time to keep dangerous people locked up for life. its not hard is it, just put them in their cell and...shut that door.
boxingthefox 09 Dec 17:52
Shenanigans 09 Dec 00:26
If they are a problem after two decades, the problem is more likely to be in how we have treated them in that time.
The only thing I hate more than your smug arrogance is your snivelling cowardice shrouded in liberal clothing.
I see your bully boy pattern ....
RINSE
REPEAT
Shenanigans 09 Dec 00:26
If they are a problem after two decades, the problem is more likely to be in how we have treated them in that time.
The only thing I hate more than your smug arrogance is your snivelling cowardice shrouded in liberal clothing.
I see your bully boy pattern ....
RINSE
REPEAT
Mc Moonbeam 10 Dec 12:14
they're just idiot kids .. not mass murderers
Unbelievable
they're just idiot kids .. not mass murderers
Unbelievable
bix 09 Dec 16:55
As I said above. Instant death penalty for any crime.Therefore no re-offenders and no need for prisons. With the money saved on prisons triple police force and then zero tolerance.
I dont think we would be reading about quite so many cases of thugs kicking defenceless people to death.
You're obviously a well educated plank of wood .
As I said above. Instant death penalty for any crime.Therefore no re-offenders and no need for prisons. With the money saved on prisons triple police force and then zero tolerance.
I dont think we would be reading about quite so many cases of thugs kicking defenceless people to death.
You're obviously a well educated plank of wood .
Mc Moonbeam
I am not suggesting that the death penalty for any crime is morally correct or justifiable, but it would protect the public from the criminals which the current methods clearly do not.
Note I am not talking retribution or punishment but merely how to protect the rest of the population.
To solve a problem it is sometimes useful to look at the two extremes of the issue and here these are
1. Do nothing and completely ignore the crimes and let the offenders do whatever they wish or
2. The death penalty for all crimes
Obviously some middle ground is called for but when deciding which road to take unfortunately option 2 completely solves the problem but option 1 does not.
You are also welcome to give us your proposed solutions to what is a massive problem.
I am not suggesting that the death penalty for any crime is morally correct or justifiable, but it would protect the public from the criminals which the current methods clearly do not.
Note I am not talking retribution or punishment but merely how to protect the rest of the population.
To solve a problem it is sometimes useful to look at the two extremes of the issue and here these are
1. Do nothing and completely ignore the crimes and let the offenders do whatever they wish or
2. The death penalty for all crimes
Obviously some middle ground is called for but when deciding which road to take unfortunately option 2 completely solves the problem but option 1 does not.
You are also welcome to give us your proposed solutions to what is a massive problem.
A good read this thread, apart form the**ging matches. I don't feel that 20 odd years is enough for these scuum, they'll be out by the time they're 40, that poor man and all his friends / family have had their lives ruined. I wouldn't lose any sleep if I read tomorrow tyhat these cuunts were to be executed, in fact I'd vote for any party which would be in favour of the death penalty. These people don't deserve to live, in relative comfort with their 3 meals a day and creature comforts.
I am not suggesting that the death penalty for any crime is morally correct or justifiable, but it would protect the public from the criminals which the current methods clearly do not.
It wouldnt protect the polulace anymore or less than life imprisonment , surely?
Evidence from America demonstrates very clearly that States with the Death Penalty actually have a higher murder rate than those that don`t :
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
Additionally the cost of a Capital punishment case varies between $1 and $7 million , the total cost of a case resulting in life imprisonment $500, 000 .
but is that because of appeals, if you had no appeal then would the cost be a lot less ?
Edward ,the only conclusion I can draw from your statements is that the death penalty increases the murder rate.
Unfortunately appeals are intrinsic to the judicial system in most civilised countries .
Evidence would suggest that to be the case Epicurean .
Amazing statement to suggest no would be murderers will be deterred by the thought of losing their own life shortly after .Self preservation is the strongest instinct we are all born with .
Epicurean
I`ve no idea why you think that . The majority of murders are committed in the heat of the moment when all rational thought has been suspended . When the red mist comes down life imprisonment or the death sentence is an irrelevance . Besides , the evidence speaks for itself .
I`ve no idea why you think that . The majority of murders are committed in the heat of the moment when all rational thought has been suspended . When the red mist comes down life imprisonment or the death sentence is an irrelevance . Besides , the evidence speaks for itself .
I'm thinking of committing a murder .What happens if I get caught ,well I lose my life in afew months O K lets do it. What happens if I get caught 18 years max with 3 meals a day TV cigs etc no won't do it.
wit ham
in the states 2 out of 3 are overturned on appeal
in the states 2 out of 3 are overturned on appeal
epi
as ive just said , most murders have no premeditation
as ive just said , most murders have no premeditation
but is that because they dont appeal against life imprisonment, as they would appeal a death sentence because they could be given the death penalty on review ?
bix 10 Dec 14:13
To solve a problem it is sometimes useful to look at the two extremes of the issue and here these are
1. Do nothing and completely ignore the crimes and let the offenders do whatever they wish or
2. The death penalty for all crimes
Obviously some middle ground is called for but when deciding which road to take unfortunately option 2 completely solves the problem but option 1 does not.
---
Option 2 would actually mean we were all sadistic freaks, and obviously would create many more problems than it solves, if you cannot see that then I would suggest your ability to reason is lacking somewhat.
The comment about self preservation above is correct for you and I, but we've already established that those who commit the worst atrocities are fundamentally lacking similar ethics. Surely if this was right, every country with capital punishment would have empty death rows?
Crime was FAR worse in this country when we had a death penalty. That will automatically sound strange, as everyone loves to hark back to the good old days, but Victorian London, when prisons and punishment were similar to what is being called for here, was a much more violent place. When you brutalise and demean humans, they take to the role, it exacerbates the problem. Our compassion and ability to pass good moral judgement is supposedly how we are different from the worst criminals.
I can hear the right-wingers seething, do not get me wrong, I don't think they should be treated with kindness and kid gloves - but we want so badly to ostracise criminals, make out they are 'monsters' ie, not human, not like us; sadly some of the 'suggestions' in this thread show we are closer than we think.
To solve a problem it is sometimes useful to look at the two extremes of the issue and here these are
1. Do nothing and completely ignore the crimes and let the offenders do whatever they wish or
2. The death penalty for all crimes
Obviously some middle ground is called for but when deciding which road to take unfortunately option 2 completely solves the problem but option 1 does not.
---
Option 2 would actually mean we were all sadistic freaks, and obviously would create many more problems than it solves, if you cannot see that then I would suggest your ability to reason is lacking somewhat.
The comment about self preservation above is correct for you and I, but we've already established that those who commit the worst atrocities are fundamentally lacking similar ethics. Surely if this was right, every country with capital punishment would have empty death rows?
Crime was FAR worse in this country when we had a death penalty. That will automatically sound strange, as everyone loves to hark back to the good old days, but Victorian London, when prisons and punishment were similar to what is being called for here, was a much more violent place. When you brutalise and demean humans, they take to the role, it exacerbates the problem. Our compassion and ability to pass good moral judgement is supposedly how we are different from the worst criminals.
I can hear the right-wingers seething, do not get me wrong, I don't think they should be treated with kindness and kid gloves - but we want so badly to ostracise criminals, make out they are 'monsters' ie, not human, not like us; sadly some of the 'suggestions' in this thread show we are closer than we think.
we want so badly to ostracise criminals, make out they are 'monsters' ie, not human, not like us;
Monsters sounds like a very good description of the 9 young persons arrested in Birmingham for kicking a man to death who refused to give them a cigarette.
Monsters sounds like a very good description of the 9 young persons arrested in Birmingham for kicking a man to death who refused to give them a cigarette.
Put 100 Burglars on a non custodial scheme for 6 months and maybe 35 of them will be reformed , but the other 65 will carry on burgling, probably robbing hundreds of houses during that period.
you have a link ?
Hardly necessary as you admit yourself that Criminals in jail do not commit burglaries , so in this scenario you have hundreds of crimes if they are all given non custodial sentences during the 6 months and 0 if they all go to jail
Put them all in jail and they will commit 0 burglaries in 6 months . And who is to say that the those 'reformed' were actually just relieved to have avoided jail , and thankful to have another chance?
So are you saying that a non custodial sentence might actually work ?
Only that the prospect of going to jail - brought home to them by narrowly avoiding it might shock some into 'going straight' , but if prison is not a realistic prospect for a 1st or 2nd offence then those that would be dettered by prison will have nothing to fear.
Another point is that those that go to prison are usually going there for their 6th or 7th crime rather than their 1st (the first few having been 'punished' by precisely the sort of schemes lauded by the left) . So prison mostly only used for those for whom rehabilitation has been tried and failed.
you have a link ?
Can't be bothered right now but could easily find plenty: examples of people senteced for very serious crimes whose records have been read out in court at sentencing , and those records often consist of years of relentless muggings, violence and robberies without their ever having spent much time in jail.
you have a link ?
Hardly necessary as you admit yourself that Criminals in jail do not commit burglaries , so in this scenario you have hundreds of crimes if they are all given non custodial sentences during the 6 months and 0 if they all go to jail
Put them all in jail and they will commit 0 burglaries in 6 months . And who is to say that the those 'reformed' were actually just relieved to have avoided jail , and thankful to have another chance?
So are you saying that a non custodial sentence might actually work ?
Only that the prospect of going to jail - brought home to them by narrowly avoiding it might shock some into 'going straight' , but if prison is not a realistic prospect for a 1st or 2nd offence then those that would be dettered by prison will have nothing to fear.
Another point is that those that go to prison are usually going there for their 6th or 7th crime rather than their 1st (the first few having been 'punished' by precisely the sort of schemes lauded by the left) . So prison mostly only used for those for whom rehabilitation has been tried and failed.
you have a link ?
Can't be bothered right now but could easily find plenty: examples of people senteced for very serious crimes whose records have been read out in court at sentencing , and those records often consist of years of relentless muggings, violence and robberies without their ever having spent much time in jail.
This threads longer than the jail sentence.
Should lock them up and throw away the key.
Should lock them up and throw away the key.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539