|
By:
But not so sick that you wouldn't want to go out and do exactly the same to them. Fair enough.
|
|
By:
wait a minute, i forgot, we should let them go free and "educate them" we should do that with all murders, terrorists, rapists, paedos and p-oofs. i think that will work, no need for prisons now. cheers.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
As I said above. Instant death penalty for any crime.
post of the entire history of betfair imo :^0 |
|
By:
Bix, i didn't want to be as extreme as you, but you are right. cheers.
|
|
By:
What's with the "cheers" at the end of every post, FFS?
We can tell you are pi$$ed without it |
|
By:
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
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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 ! :) |
|
By:
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 . |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Including capital costs- £1k per week then - so how many prisoners do we keep ?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
well said bix
|
|
By:
death penalty for all crimes
lol |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
And the money saved by not having to keep the offenders alive would pay for more police.
|
|
By:
it would be a positive spiral - up- instead of the downward spin we are currently in
|
|
By:
and more police would catch more offenders who would never offend again.
|
|
By:
what you mean their might be bobbies on the beat instead of having to pay for our own private police force
|
|
By:
Death penalty for all crimes. pmsl. He ain't fishing either.
|
|
By:
20 murderers have absconded from Leyhill Open Prison, near Bristol, in the past five years.
|
|
By:
Ghostdog.
Somewhat extreme I must admit but what else do you know would work. |
|
By:
Somewhat extreme I must admit
Not really, you're probably right. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
TheGoldenVision... name says it all imo
|
|
By:
shenanigans,
people who commit violent offences are emotionally flawed. these peretrators shouldn't be considered as members of society, they should be dispensed forthwith. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
.
|
|
By:
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? :| |
|
By:
Bix has it right.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Bring back the Colloseum.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
So best figure us that 65% re -offend. Locked up its 0 percent
|