I don't understand...

[Pookeyhead]

In 1965, the year of the abolition of the death penalty for homicide, the murder rate was approximately 6.8 per million population, by 2001/02 this figure had doubled to 16.6 per million. What does that tell you?

I can also point out that the countries in north eastern africa that retain the death penalty also have the highest rates of homicide. So where does that leave us?

While there has been a steady rise in homicide rates since 1965, there's also been a stead decline since 2002.. a 50% reduction actually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html

I don't recall us bringing the death penalty back, so clearly there's something else at play. Maybe we're just growing up as a society and becoming more educated, and most people are accepting that violence, for any reason is for dumbasses. As this takes a few generations to sink in usually, the last thing we want to do is be hurled back into the dark ages by bringing back capital and corporate punishments. The homicide rate also didn't sky rocket when we abolished capital punishment, it has been a steady, exponential rise for MUCH longer than that, and is exponentially linked to population density in cities, and poverty, NOT whether we have a death penalty or not... as certain African countries demonstrate.

Cleverer people than you or I have decreed it barbaric, unnecessary, and outdated. I agree... and thankfully those who have the power to wield such decisions agree with me. Rant all you want, we got rid f such behaviour for a good reason, and it seems that a generation or two later, the message is finally sinking in. Being a reactionary oaf that gets satisfaction from seeing people killed is just not going to help.

 

[gramps]

Being a reactionary oaf that gets satisfaction from seeing people killed is just not going to help.

If that was all it was ... however ask the relatives of Milly Dowler how they view the situation.

 

[BBR]

It tells me to read the rest of the document I cut and paste from.

The next paragraph states:
It is very difficult to say how much the abolition of capital punishment has been responsible for this increase. In 1952 the murder rate was higher than in the years immediately following the abolition of the death penalty.

I think that's a disengenuous comment given the graph, which shows a clear upward trend for the following 50 years!

 

[archangel]

I'm being ridiculous because I suggest we're not a barbaric society that deliberately and continually punishes people with cruel circumstances as a prison sentence? If the very laws that enshrine our constitution and judicial system supports actual physical punishment for crimes, then it legitimises violence. It's for this reason we got rid of capital and corporal punishment.

Making decisions on another's life should never be based on an emotional response, and that's what you're doing now. Thankfully, the people who actually make the decisions aren't as reactionary and emotionally driven as you are, and fortunately those people don't think I'm being ridiculous... and that's all that matters. Giving him a hard time will not bring Milly Dowler back, or ease the family;s grief and loss. It may provide a sense of revenge, but that's not really something we want to be promoting in a civilised society.

He's locked up where he can't hurt anyone else... and in all likelihood, is NOT having such a nice time in prison as others in here are suggesting he's having.



Or not so civilised if they're baying for blood perhaps, huh? You call yourself civilised, yet advocate murder and rape as punishments for murder and rape? How does that make you any better than the people you are punishing?




Fortunately, you'll never be in a position to make such decisions happen... for which I am grateful.

The problem with that [capital punishment] is that it never worked when we had it, and in US states where they still have it, doesn't work either. It's clearly not a deterrent, so what's the point?

You lock them up, and they die inside where they can't harm anyone else, job done. That's how it should be. How does officially sanctioned torture or murder help anyone? It makes us as bad as North Korea or China, or militantly Muslim countries. Why would you want to live in a society where murder is seen as fine so long as it is as a result of a judge's sentence? It legitimises violence, and ultimately makes us more violent as a society.


Far too much whiff of the Daily Mail in this thread, and it demonstrates the very worst of our society. The scary thing thing is the passionate belief that it's OK to to meter out brutal and violent punishments.

The priority is removing dangerous people from civilised society so we can be safe, not create a society that bays for blood. You all remind me of the paying crowds that used to gather to see the executions of the French aristocracy during the revolution.


You think you have the moral high ground? What separates YOU from the crowds in THIS video?

Just think about it. We're a civilised society. Violence has no place in it... anywhere.

There are lessons to be learned from history... it's a pity most are too stupid to learn any history or pay attention to it.

Yes I am civilised unlike the murderers, rapists and other low life....... and at no point have I advocated rape.


The normal actual implementation of the death penalty should be under direct operations of the judicial system.......wether you are in favor of the death penalty the matter still remains that criminals in our society get it too easy at HMP EASY STREET......

 

[Pookeyhead]

If that was all it was ... however ask the relatives of Milly Dowler how they view the situation.

For that reason, they are the last people who should be making decisions on the fate of Levi Bellfield, don't you think? Well.. have you asked them how they feel? Have you asked them if they'd want to kill him? If they did want him dead, I wonder if they'd also be as sure if they had to actually kill him themselves, with their own hands.

Bellfield is clearly a complete asswipe and scumbag that doesn't deserve to be part of society, but I can't condone killing anyone, for anything. Plus.. death is the coward's way out. Dying is easy. Cowards top themselves when crap gets too much... make him live.. for a long time.. and make him reflect on his crimes. That, ultimately, long term will be the greater punishment.

I think that's a disengenuous comment given the graph, which shows a clear upward trend for the following 50 years!

Apart from the last 12, and the preceding 100... which you conveniently ignore.

Civilised!? A civilised society should be on the side of the civilised population not rewarding criminals on all levels with a break at an all inclusive prison........ crimes should be punished accordingly and if you take another humans life in malice you should be sentenced to death........ a rapist should be given to the family of his/her victim as a play thing........ the only people who pay the price are the victims and the normal law abiding citizen.........

 

[Pookeyhead]

Yes I am civilised unlike the murderers, rapists and other low life....... and at no point have I advocated rape.

So what did you mean by this...?

crimes should be punished accordingly and if you take another humans life in malice you should be sentenced to death........ a rapist should be given to the family of his/her victim as a play thing........ .

Can you explain what you meant by that? Furthermore, why are you fine with being accused of sanctioning murder, but not rape any way?


You have a weird way of looking at the world.... very basic.. black and white... eye for an eye etc. I thought we'd grown out of that when we stopped paying attention to the bible.. or was hoping we had. This is depressing.

 

[archangel]

Bellfield is clearly a complete asswipe and scumbag that doesn't deserve to be part of society, but I can't condone killing anyone, for anything. Plus.. death is the coward's way out. Dying is easy.

Death is only a cowards way out if the coward chooses to die...........and dying is not easy...........ask his victims

 

[gramps]

For that reason, they are the last people who should be making decisions on the fate of Levi Bellfield, don't you think?

No I think they should be the first, they are the ones affected most by their daughter being brutally murdered.

Well.. have you asked them how they feel? Have you asked them if they'd want to kill him? If they did want him dead, I wonder if they'd also be as sure if they had to actually kill him themselves, with their own hands.

Of course I haven't asked them and killing him themselves is irrelevant as it doesn't happen.

Bellfield is clearly a complete asswipe and scumbag that doesn't deserve to be part of society, but I can't condone killing anyone, for anything. Plus.. death is the coward's way out. Dying is easy. Cowards top themselves when crap gets too much... make him live.. for a long time.. and make him reflect on his crimes. That, ultimately, long term will be the greater punishment.

You clearly haven't dealt with many people like him ... yes some can 'repent' or 'feel sorry' for their actions but far more glory in their notoriety.
Whatever, for me, the taking of life warrants your own life to be forfeited and yes, if someone murdered one of my daughters I would be prepared to take their life myself if called upon to do so ... not barbarism, justice.

 

[archangel]

So what did you mean by this...?



Can you explain what you meant by that? Furthermore, why are you fine with being accused of sanctioning murder, but not rape any way?


You have a weird way of looking at the world.... very basic.. black and white... eye for an eye etc. I thought we'd grown out of that when we stopped paying attention to the bible.. or was hoping we had. This is depressing.

I truly believe an eye for an eye........would you not want retribution if someone raped/murdered or physically attacked your loved one? At no point have I sanctioned murder.....I just said to give him to the family.They alone can sanction his death.........I merely would hand him over........

I am not basing any of this on religious belief or teachings.

It is only depressing to you because I do not share your opinion.

 

[BBR]

Apart from the last 12, and the preceding 100... which you conveniently ignore.

I don't know about the previous 100 years and I'm not sure that's relevant anyway, but the last 12 years may have been affected by more effective policing with DNA testing etc together with CCTV plus the fact that we have doubled the prison population.

I really cannot see how anyone ever thought ' well I was going to kill him/her but as there is no death penalty I wont bother', however I can see how, for some, the reverse would be a deterrent.

And with regards to prisoners getting 'compo' for getting attacked, that is just wrong. Personally I don't care what happens to violent criminals in prison but if we agree (hypothetically) that prison wardens do and should have a duty of care towards the prisoners, then when they fail in that duty I can see an argument for disciplinary action. However I can see no reason to respect the 'rights' of someone who clearly does not respect the rights of others.

 

[MartynK]

Technical point:

.22 is a rifle not a shotgun

Well, double barrelled rifles chambered for .22 LR are rare, but they do exist.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Of course I haven't asked them and killing him themselves is irrelevant as it doesn't happen.

I wonder how many would want the death penalty if they had to do the killing.

You clearly haven't dealt with many people like him

Have you?

Whatever, for me, the taking of life warrants your own life to be forfeited and yes, if someone murdered one of my daughters I would be prepared to take their life myself if called upon to do so ... not barbarism, justice.

I have a daughter too, and I'd not. Does that mean I love my daughter less than you love yours or something?

I truly believe an eye for an eye........would you not want retribution if someone raped/murdered or physically attacked your loved one?

I'd want them locked up for life. I'd not want to take their life, no. If I'm not prepared to take their life with y own hands, then I wouldn't want to sanction it by the hand of another, as that would make me a hypocrite and a coward.

At no point have I sanctioned murder.....I just said to give him to the family.They alone can sanction his death.........I merely would hand him over........

I wasn't on about murder.. and neither were you. We were discussing rape, and you seemed to think that the punishment should fit the crime... eye for an eye right? So you said murders should be put to death, and rapists should be given to the family as a plaything. Would you care to explain that? What exactly did you mean by a "plaything"?

It is only depressing to you because I do not share your opinion.

No. It depresses me because I realise we have a long way to go before we grow up.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't know about the previous 100 years and I'm not sure that's relevant anyway, but the last 12 years may have been affected by more effective policing with DNA testing etc together with CCTV plus the fact that we have doubled the prison population.

So in other words, there are ways to control the population other than killing them? I see... interesting idea. So you don't have to kill murderers to stop them murdering then.

I really cannot see how anyone ever thought ' well I was going to kill him/her but as there is no death penalty I wont bother', however I can see how, for some, the reverse would be a deterrent.

There's been a 50% reduction in homicides in the past 12 years and the death penalty has nothing to do with it. Senegal has an appalling homicide rate, and has the death penalty. The figures of growing murder rates you quote are nothing to do with the banning of the death penalty. Those figures have been rising exponentially with population DENSITY.. not numbers, for over a century.

And with regards to prisoners getting 'compo' for getting attacked, that is just wrong.

I never said it wasn't. It's the blood thirsty revenge mentality that worries me. IMO, he can whistle for his compensation.

 

[ghoti]

Handing even minor sentencing powers to victims or the families of victims would be a terrifying development in the justice system.

And yes, if someone killed my kids I'd probably want them dead or worse; but I wouldn't be giving it rational or dispassionate consideration. So I'm glad, in my sober mind, that if such a terrible thing were to happen nobody but the least scrupulous journalists would approach me for an opinion on sentencing.
That's the way it should be. The way it has to be.

 

[gramps]

I wonder how many would want the death penalty if they had to do the killing.

Being prepared to exact the penalty and wanting the full penalty of death are not necessarily at odds - if your wife was raped, the fact that you wouldn't want the rapist incarcerated in your house does not mean that you wouldn't want him imprisoned ... would it?

Have you?

Yes

I have a daughter too, and I'd not. Does that mean I love my daughter less than you love yours or something?

I don't know, maybe if it happened your view on justice might be challenged, who knows?

If I'm not prepared to take their life with y own hands, then I wouldn't want to sanction it by the hand of another, as that would make me a hypocrite and a coward.

No it wouldn't, it might make you just unable to carry out the punishment.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Handing even minor sentencing powers to victims or the families of victims would be a terrifying development in the justice system.

I agree. Society would descend into anarchy as the great unwashed would be killing people for as much as scratching their cars or vandalising their property.

And yes, if someone killed my kids I'd probably want them dead or worse; but I wouldn't be giving it rational or dispassionate consideration. So I'm glad, in my sober mind, that if such a terrible thing were to happen nobody but the least scrupulous journalists would approach me for an opinion on sentencing.
That's the way it should be. The way it has to be.

At last... a voice of reason apart from me in this thread.

No one who has lost a child is in a fit state of mind to decide the fate of the one who took that life. Fact.

 

[gramps]

I agree. Society would descend into anarchy as the great unwashed would be killing people for as much as scratching their cars or vandalising their property.

Sorry, that's complete nonsense and nothing in any way relating to the subject under discussion.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Being prepared to exact the penalty and wanting the full penalty of death are not necessarily at odds - if your wife was raped, the fact that you wouldn't want the rapist incarcerated in your house does not mean that you wouldn't want him imprisoned ... would it?

No... because that obviously has serious safety implications for my family.. duh!!!

Yes

And this qualifies you as an expert because you've met a murder or child killer? Not that it matters one way or the other. The taking of a human life is wrong, and doing so as punishment is no less wrong.

I don't know, maybe if it happened your view on justice might be challenged, who knows?

It might, yes... but if I had to kill them myself, I'm fairly sure I wouldn't. As said above... I'd be in no fit state of mind to pass judgement, so in our wisdom, we assign that role to 12 of my peers and a judge in a court of law based on evidence, not gut reaction.

 

[gramps]

No... because that obviously has serious safety implications for my family.. duh!!!

Why if he was "incarcerated"? - The principle is exactly the same.

And this qualifies you as an expert because you've met a murder or child killer?

Then why ask the question? Maybe it makes me more of an expert than you?

It might, yes... but if I had to kill them myself, I'm fairly sure I wouldn't. As said above... I'd be in no fit state of mind to pass judgement, so in our wisdom, we assign that role to 12 of my peers in a court of law based on evidence, not gut reaction.

12 of your peers decide of guilt or otherwise, not the penalty.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Why if he was "incarcerated"? - The principle is exactly the same.

OK... I'll keep him in the spare bedroom. I'm sure that's nice and secure, and he'd never get out.

Just admit it was a stupid analogy and move on.

Then why ask the question? Maybe it makes me more of an expert than you?

You asked it of me first, so I assumed it was leading to something pertinent. Obviously not.

12 of your peers decide of guilt or otherwise, not the penalty.

No.. the judge does that... I said 12 of my peers and a judge.

 

[ghoti]

I worry about the mental health of people who want to see others suffer. Even if those others have done terrible things.

What satisfaction is there to be had in seeing a murderer, rapist or paedophile suffer? Honestly?
Remove them from circumstances where they might harm others, sure. Aside from that, surely the humane thing is to try to rehabilitate or, at least understand, them.

I just can't get into the mindset of the frothing string-em-up brigade. They're sick in the head.

 

[gramps]

OK... I'll keep him in the spare bedroom. I'm sure that's nice and secure, and he'd never get out.

Just admit it was a stupid analogy and move on.

Ok so you would be happy for someone else to incarcerate him, just not you.

You asked it of me first, so I assumed it was leading to something pertinent. Obviously not.

You are evading the question.

No.. the judge does that... I said 12 of my peers and a judge.

No, you said "I'd be in no fit state of mind to pass judgement, so in our wisdom, we assign that role to 12 of my peers in a court of law based on evidence, not gut reaction." but then edited it to fit your subsequent response!

 

[gramps]

I worry about the mental health of people who want to see others suffer. Even if those others have done terrible things.

What satisfaction is there to be had in seeing a murderer, rapist or paedophile suffer? Honestly?
Remove them from circumstances where they might harm others, sure. Aside from that, surely the humane thing is to try to rehabilitate or, at least understand, them.

I just can't get into the mindset of the frothing string-em-up brigade. They're sick in the head.

I worry about those who support the rights of murderers, rapists and paedophiles ... seems sick to me

 

[Pookeyhead]

I worry about the mental health of people who want to see others suffer. Even if those others have done terrible things.

What satisfaction is there to be had in seeing a murderer, rapist or paedophile suffer? Honestly?
Remove them from circumstances where they might harm others, sure. Aside from that, surely the humane thing is to try to rehabilitate or, at least understand, them.

I just can't get into the mindset of the frothing string-em-up brigade. They're sick in the head.

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's just mob mentality through fear. We feel powerless, so we want to lash out and hurt those that would hurt us. The villagers with pitch forks... nothing more... whipped to a frenzy by red top tabloids and sensationalist media reporting.

If I was in a positin of power, my responsibility would be to remove dangerous offenders from society, and at least make an attempt to help them in some way... or if that wasn't possible (which is likely IMO) at least LEARN from them. There's a reason peopel like this exist, and as a rational and scientific person I'd want asnwers that can prevent them from becoming in the first place. Whether the reason they exist is nurture, or nature, or both... I think learning from them is more important.

Ok so you would be happy for someone else to incarcerate him, just not you.

If my house has a suitable prison cell on the premises, and I personally didn't have to pay for his upkeep I couldn't care less, but in reality Gramps, suggesting that he is incarcerated in my house is really rather silly, because he'd just escape through the cat flap.

You are evading the question.

No I'#m not. I just don't see how you having met someone who has committed such crimes gives you any special insight.... unless you've met many of them. Who, and how, and why you have not volunteered yet, so I've still no idea why this is relevant. I'm waiting for you to explain some more.

No, you said "I'd be in no fit state of mind to pass judgement, so in our wisdom, we assign that role to 12 of my peers in a court of law based on evidence, not gut reaction." but then edited it to fit your subsequent response!

I edited it about 4 seconds after posting it yes... and some time before you responded to it, so I had no idea if you'd seen the edit or not.


Killing murderers doesn't prevent people murdering other people, and legitimises barbarism and violence in society. We need to grow out of this behaviour. We need less violence in society, not more. We should be studying these people, not killing them. We need to find a solution to them coming into being in the first place, not ways of disposing of them, as that teaches us nothing.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I worry about those who support the rights of murderers, rapists and paedophiles ... seems sick to me

No one's supporting the rights of murders, rapists and paedophiles Gramps... we're just saying we shouldn't kill them. That was a cheap shot. You're trying to say we're in some way supporting them right?... nice... accuse anyone of having even a SLIGHT amount of empathy as also being a murderer or p***... you have missed your calling Gramps... you should have been a tabloid journalist.

Even suggest such a thing again and a complaint goes in against you.. got it old man?

Argue using logic and reason, not stupid playground tactics.... if you have the intellect for it that is.

 

[gramps]

If my house has a suitable prison cell on the premises, and I personally didn't have to pay for his upkeep I couldn't care less, but in reality Gramps, suggesting that he is incarcerated in my house is really rather silly, because he'd just escape through the cat flap.

So you would be happy to have him incarcerated in your house securely and not at your expense then?

No I'#m not. I just don't see how you having met someone who has committed such crimes gives you any special insight.... unless you've met many of them. Who, and how, and why you have not volunteered yet, so I've still no idea why this is relevant. I'm waiting for you to explain some more.

I don't have to explain, I've met and dealt with a number in a judicial capacity.

I edited it about 4 seconds after posting it yes... and some time before you responded to it, so I had no idea if you'd seen the edit or not.

Odd, the forum timeline shows 5 minutes after, in fact in the same time-frame as my responding post.

Killing murderers doesn't prevent people murdering other people, and legitimises barbarism and violence in society. We need to grow out of this behaviour. We need less violence in society, not more. We should be studying these people, not killing them. We need to find a solution to them coming into being in the first place, not ways of disposing of them, as that teaches us nothing.

Killing murderers prevent them killing others (there have been a significant number of murderers who have murdered again more than once after being released from prison).
Disposing of them teaches us that dead people can't kill, whereas studying them, in many instances, just adds to their sense of notoriety oh and makes work for academics.

 

[gramps]

No one's supporting the rights of murders, rapists and paedophiles Gramps... we're just saying we shouldn't kill them. That was a cheap shot. You're trying to say we're in some way supporting them right?... nice... accuse anyone of having even a SLIGHT amount of empathy as also being a murderer or p***... you have missed your calling Gramps... you should have been a tabloid journalist.

Even suggest such a thing again and a complaint goes in against you.. got it old man?

Argue using logic and reason, not stupid playground tactics.... if you have the intellect for it that is.

Sorry David I thought you were engaging in a reasoned debate based on personal views and beliefs, but "old man" ... "complaint goes in against you" ... you seem to be losing it so I'll move on.

 

[archangel]

Instead of the death penalty why don't we use them for medical experiments........then we can let the poor innocent monkey, rats and mice go..... and then nobody can be accused of murdering murderers and rapists

 

[ghoti]

I worry about those who support the rights of murderers, rapists and paedophiles ... seems sick to me

What personal satisfaction or comfort do you get out of seeing another human murdered or made to suffer?

 

[Pookeyhead]

So you would be happy to have him incarcerated in your house securely and not at your expense then?

Like I said... if there was a dungeon in my massive mansion, I absolutely couldn't care less. I;'d never see him or hear from him. NO skin off my nose. If you mean would I be happy to have him share my 3 bedroom house? No of course not. It's clearly a massive safety concern, and even if I did agree to it, I'm sure my neighbours would have something to say about it. As I said. It was a poorly thought out analogy, and beating on it is not really doing you any favours.

I don't have to explain, I've met and dealt with a number in a judicial capacity.

And your qualifications for using this as a basis for your findings is what exactly? Some people can be helped, some can't. I accept that fully. However, one thing we should, as a civilisation, always do is take every opportunity to learn, and to learn from these people will ultimately be of more value than killing them.

Odd, the forum timeline shows 5 minutes after, in fact in the same time-frame as my responding post.

The forum timeline shows the time of posting, not editing... and your obsession of such detail is rather desperate as well. Does it actually matter that I edited a post? My point still stands: The best way to judge someone's fate is coldly, dispassionately in a court of law, noty by handing the responsibiilty to the parents of a murdered child... which is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.

Killing murderers prevent them killing others (there have been a significant number of murderers who have murdered again more than once after being released from prison).
Disposing of them teaches us that dead people can't kill, whereas studying them, in many instances, just adds to their sense of notoriety oh and makes work for academics.

Brilliant. Kill 'em.. all of them... everywhere... LOL

One day, we'll isolate a gene that is responsible for this, and be able to actually cure any number of endemic psychotic behaviour. However.. killing them will achieve nothing, because they will, by default needed to have killed at least once in order for us to do that... so someone has to die before we can implement your solution Gramps, and that's a pretty fatal flaw.

Sorry David I thought you were engaging in a reasoned debate based on personal views and beliefs, but "old man" ... "complaint goes in against you" ... you seem to be losing it so I'll move on.

You were trying to suggest that anyone who argues against you in this is in some way sympathetic to paedophiles, rapists and murderers, which is preposterous and quite desperate.. not to mention extremely distasteful.

 

[Bernie174]

It seems the premise you're putting forward Gramps is that the 'punishment' should include anything that the big men inside prison decide it should be, in addition to a life sentence?

But that isn't the case, we have a system, like it or not where a judge decides the sentence not you, me or the tobacco daddy on landing 3 at the scrubs.

Again, like it or not the Crown, in the shape of a Court put him in prison, and that makes him in effect 'property' of the state, and that means the state is responsible for his welfare and health. The State failed in that, very possibly by turning a Nelsons eye to what was likely to happen, and that makes him entitled to seek redress. Millie's parents could do the same, but as he hasn't (or didn't) got anything to his name, they'd be wasting their time and money. The Dept of Justice has got money, and clearly did fail in the duty of care, so it's no great surprise he went for some cash. You'll note that the DofJ didn't fight this, simply because it would have been more expense, there wasn't a defence they could put forward.

Should he be able to sue? I would look at the consequences if that right was withdrawn from prisoners, before you decide that he shouldn't. A good example, someone gets banged up for a minorish offence (albeit that would have to be after being convicted 7,000 times previously for similar offences), and word goes round he's a nonce, although he isn't. So the inevitable happens, and he gets a naughts and crosses board carved into his face. Is that right he should have no comeback? Take it a step further, someone is convicted on false witness evidence, which happens a fair amount, and as a result gets a free facelift, are you going to deny them any for of recompense for that assault?

Prisons may not be to the standard the Victorians designed them to be, but they are also not the holiday camps the Mail claims they are. Ok, the odd exceptions, Ford open for example used to be a reasonably good place to be if you had to serve a sentence, but then you also asked the immates which Police force they used to be in, or call them QC, or m'lud, or my former Right Honorable Friend. But thats an exception, having visited a few (for professional reasons!)I'd not call the Wandswoth, the Srcubs, or Brixton a holiday camp!

 

[Cobra]

Guy's personal comments are starting to creep in here.
By all means have a reasoned argument,
but attack the comments, not the person.
Thanks

 

[archangel]

It seems the premise you're putting forward Gramps is that the 'punishment' should include anything that the big men inside prison decide it should be, in addition to a life sentence?

But that isn't the case, we have a system, like it or not where a judge decides the sentence not you, me or the tobacco daddy on landing 3 at the scrubs.

Again, like it or not the Crown, in the shape of a Court put him in prison, and that makes him in effect 'property' of the state, and that means the state is responsible for his welfare and health. The State failed in that, very possibly by turning a Nelsons eye to what was likely to happen, and that makes him entitled to seek redress. Millie's parents could do the same, but as he hasn't (or didn't) got anything to his name, they'd be wasting their time and money. The Dept of Justice has got money, and clearly did fail in the duty of care, so it's no great surprise he went for some cash. You'll note that the DofJ didn't fight this, simply because it would have been more expense, there wasn't a defence they could put forward.

Should he be able to sue? I would look at the consequences if that right was withdrawn from prisoners, before you decide that he shouldn't. A good example, someone gets banged up for a minorish offence (albeit that would have to be after being convicted 7,000 times previously for similar offences), and word goes round he's a nonce, although he isn't. So the inevitable happens, and he gets a naughts and crosses board carved into his face. Is that right he should have no comeback? Take it a step further, someone is convicted on false witness evidence, which happens a fair amount, and as a result gets a free facelift, are you going to deny them any for of recompense for that assault?

Prisons may not be to the standard the Victorians designed them to be, but they are also not the holiday camps the Mail claims they are. Ok, the odd exceptions, Ford open for example used to be a reasonably good place to be if you had to serve a sentence, but then you also asked the immates which Police force they used to be in, or call them QC, or m'lud, or my former Right Honorable Friend. But thats an exception, having visited a few (for professional reasons!)I'd not call the Wandswoth, the Srcubs, or Brixton a holiday camp!

With reference to the holiday camp statement......I know a prison officer who will back up the holiday camp myth.......the first thing a prisoner is offered is benefits for good behaviour.......then if they misbehave then it is taken away.....WTF......don't give it to them in the first place...... he tells me that it is a really soft place to pay back a debt to society....they also have a sex offenders wing......he says that it is an open planned Thomas Cook all inclusive.....


The other advantageous benefits these sum bag of society have is medical care....they will see a medic or doctor/dentist within 24 hours of request.....not to mention a library when the good folk on the outside are having their libraries closed........

 

[Steve Smith]

I thought we'd grown out of that when we stopped paying attention to the bible...

Unfortunately, many people now look to the Daily Mail as a Bible replacement.


Steve.

 

[ghoti]

With reference to the holiday camp statement......I know a prison officer who will back up the holiday camp myth.......the first thing a prisoner is offered is benefits for good behaviour.......then if they misbehave then it is taken away.....WTF......don't give it to them in the first place...... he tells me that it is a really soft place to pay back a debt to society....they also have a sex offenders wing......he says that it is an open planned Thomas Cook all inclusive.....


The other advantageous benefits these sum bag of society have is medical care....they will see a medic or doctor/dentist within 24 hours of request.....not to mention a library when the good folk on the outside are having their libraries closed........

Let's draw up a list of countries with compassionate justice systems that focus on rehabilitation, and a list of countries that have punitive justice systems focused on retribution.
Then let's decide from which list we'd like to be randomly assigned a country of residence.

 

[simon ess]

Let's draw up a list of countries with compassionate justice systems that focus on rehabilitation, and a list of countries that have punitive justice systems focused on retribution.
Then let's decide from which list we'd like to be randomly assigned a country of residence.

You're forgetting we're British dammit.

We would slaughter the scum in a civilised fashion.

Sorry, can't take these threads seriously. It's like trying to discuss evolution with a religious fundamentalist - surreal and pointless.

 

[viv1969]

You're forgetting we're British dammit.

We would slaughter the scum in a civilised fashion.

Sorry, can't take these threads seriously. It's like trying to discuss evolution with a religious fundamentalist - surreal and pointless.

And I'm sure those on both sides of the argument feel similarly

 

[simon ess]

Of course Ruth. That's the nature of these things.

That's why they're pointless.

 

[ghoti]

And I'm sure those on both sides of the argument feel similarly

Like debates with religious fundamentalists, one side is arguing from a position of visceral instinct and the other side is trying to appeal to our uniquely human (and humane) capability for reasoning ourselves away from our irrational animal impulses.

 

[viv1969]

Like debates with religious fundamentalists, one side is arguing from a position of visceral instinct and the other side is trying to appeal to our uniquely human (and humane) capability for reasoning ourselves away from our irrational animal impulses.

And of course neither point of view can ultimately be judged to correct or incorrect.