FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Prisoners Marrying Ban
Prisoners Marrying Ban
Jump to: Newest in thread
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something. 
A | |||
| |||
"Notorious criminals do tend to have fans, and for some it does turn romantic. I'm not saying I understand. But it's a known phenomenon." Correct serial killers are known to receive hundreds of letters from adoring fans. I think Peter Sutcliffe actually got married in prison | |||
| |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A"Agree. It's disgusting that it was ever allowed. They shouldn't be allowed romantic visitors either. | |||
| |||
" I think Peter Sutcliffe actually got married in prison" Do you have any more details about this please ? | |||
"The Fruitloop prisoner Charles Bronson gets hundreds of letters every month from equally Fruitloop female admirers. It's very strange" Think he's been married twice during his time in prison too | |||
| |||
| |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A"I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk. I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc. I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges. If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full. | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full." | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full."I think that would just make the job of the prison service far more difficult. And would do nothing towards rehabilitation | |||
| |||
| |||
"Removing hope often means people have nothing left to lose. That's a dangerous position to put someone in." True. For non whole of life sentences I'd agree. But generally those people are never getting out. There's no hope for them and they know it. No amount of rehabilitation, psychotherapy, treatment or any other interventions matter to the same extent they do for those that are due for release at some point, whether at the end of a sentence, via early release or parole. I don't feel any compassion for someone serving a whole of life sentence. I don't feel they need to be able to form new relationships outside, get married or have access to the facilities normal inmates have. It takes a lot to recieve that sentence an dif they deserve that then in my mind they deserve nothing more. A | |||
| |||
"Removing hope often means people have nothing left to lose. That's a dangerous position to put someone in. True. For non whole of life sentences I'd agree. But generally those people are never getting out. There's no hope for them and they know it. No amount of rehabilitation, psychotherapy, treatment or any other interventions matter to the same extent they do for those that are due for release at some point, whether at the end of a sentence, via early release or parole. I don't feel any compassion for someone serving a whole of life sentence. I don't feel they need to be able to form new relationships outside, get married or have access to the facilities normal inmates have. It takes a lot to recieve that sentence an dif they deserve that then in my mind they deserve nothing more. A" I'm just glad I don't need to make these sorts of decision. | |||
| |||
"As they say, there is somebody out there for everyone.. We hear the horrific stories of couples that kill; The west's, Ian Brady and Myra Hindly.... Murder and criminal sexual acts are predominantly committed by men (a fact I'm ashamed of, although I'd rather it didn't happen at all), however a small number of women seem also to be involved or are the active protagonist in the relationship.. I believe the government are missing a trick here; being able to keep tabs on those women who are obsessed with locked up loons, should be actively conducted.. There is a high probability they will harbour desires to harm others and use the relationship with a criminal as an outlet for those feelings.. Denied that outlet, there is a possibility they could go and play out those fantasies and commit copycat crimes of the men they idolise.. This obviously is only a single person's point of view, but it seems plausible.. " Or they're lonely and for whatever reason unable to commit to a relationship that would involve them actually being with a man in reality and so marrying one in prison seems a safer way to provide them with a sense of belonging and feeling wanted | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full."Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them. This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing. I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us. | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them.
This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing.
I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us. "
A crime is not some objective thing.
The most authoritative recognised definition of a crime is (I'm paraphrasing) "an act or omission which can be followed in law by criminal procedures and penalties"
The government decides tomorrow that wearing a yellow hat is a crime? Well, shame on you. Don't commit crimes if you want rights. | |||
| |||
"The prisoners are already being punished by being locked up ..... What does not allowing L.B. to marry achieve ? For anyone ?" He murdered a child. He doesn't deserve any kind of happiness or pleasure. A | |||
| |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them.
This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing.
I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us. "Governments don't imprison people, judges and magistrates do. Law is created by statute that goes through Parliament, but that gets endless scrutiny and debate, goes up to the House of Lords, back to the morons in the commons and then up for royal assent. Only then does it become law. The police do the catching (mostly), the CPS prosecute, judges imprison. | |||
"Personally I don't think we as a society should confuse revenge with justice. As I said though I'm glad I don't need to make these sorts of decisions " In the theoretical literature, punishment serves four/five purposes. Incapacitation - stopping the person doing the thing again Deterrence (general) - "hey you random person. If you do X thing, Y bad thing will happen to you" Deterrence (specific) - "I won't do X thing again because I didn't like it when Y bad thing happened to me" Rehabilitation - learning the error of your ways, getting help, gaining skills, being able to function in society once you're out. This is not fashionable and it hasn't been for some time Retribution - vengeance etc | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them.
This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing.
I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us.
Governments don't imprison people, judges and magistrates do.
Law is created by statute that goes through Parliament, but that gets endless scrutiny and debate, goes up to the House of Lords, back to the morons in the commons and then up for royal assent. Only then does it become law. The police do the catching (mostly), the CPS prosecute, judges imprison. "Do you trust the morons in the Commons to create laws that are genuinely fair? I sure as fuck don't. Retaining some rights for prisoners is a safeguard against that abuse of power | |||
"Personally I don't think we as a society should confuse revenge with justice. As I said though I'm glad I don't need to make these sorts of decisions In the theoretical literature, punishment serves four/five purposes. Incapacitation - stopping the person doing the thing again Deterrence (general) - "hey you random person. If you do X thing, Y bad thing will happen to you" Deterrence (specific) - "I won't do X thing again because I didn't like it when Y bad thing happened to me" Rehabilitation - learning the error of your ways, getting help, gaining skills, being able to function in society once you're out. This is not fashionable and it hasn't been for some time Retribution - vengeance etc " Who decides on the level and type of retribution? | |||
"Personally I don't think we as a society should confuse revenge with justice. As I said though I'm glad I don't need to make these sorts of decisions " Yep. To me there's a clear distinction between the two. Revenge is a personal act. Do harm to my family and that's something to expect from me, not the state or anyone else. It doesn't benefit anyone but the person performing it, although some may argue otherwise. It doesn't also exclude any pursuit off justice, its just something that dependant on the situation someone may feel necessary. Justice is the responsibility of the state, in conjunction with society as a whole. It's not personal. It's required to encourage people to behave decently. A | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
I think that would just make the job of the prison service far more difficult. And would do nothing towards rehabilitation "I don't disagree with this at all. But if the method of incarceration changes, the method of managing that has to change as well. It would just be part of the package. Rehabilitation is a sound idea, and clearly works for some, but I do wonder sometimes just how many prisoners are truly rehabilitated. If a prison sentence was a harsh 4 years with no visitation or any rights usually enjoyed in liberty, instead of an easy 2 years with full privileges, folk may be less inclined to risk committing crime. Clearly this is a sweeping statement and is just my musings, i'm not suggesting it's that easy or even the best way. Just a thought on paper. | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them.
This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing.
I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us.
Governments don't imprison people, judges and magistrates do.
Law is created by statute that goes through Parliament, but that gets endless scrutiny and debate, goes up to the House of Lords, back to the morons in the commons and then up for royal assent. Only then does it become law. The police do the catching (mostly), the CPS prosecute, judges imprison.
Do you trust the morons in the Commons to create laws that are genuinely fair? I sure as fuck don't.
Retaining some rights for prisoners is a safeguard against that abuse of power "I don't trust the monkey's tea party to do anything right or well, but it's lawyers that write law. That's why it's impossible for anyone else to understand! 
That's why there are so many checks and balances - not least the House of Lords. | |||
"Personally I don't think we as a society should confuse revenge with justice. As I said though I'm glad I don't need to make these sorts of decisions In the theoretical literature, punishment serves four/five purposes. Incapacitation - stopping the person doing the thing again Deterrence (general) - "hey you random person. If you do X thing, Y bad thing will happen to you" Deterrence (specific) - "I won't do X thing again because I didn't like it when Y bad thing happened to me" Rehabilitation - learning the error of your ways, getting help, gaining skills, being able to function in society once you're out. This is not fashionable and it hasn't been for some time Retribution - vengeance etc Who decides on the level and type of retribution? " Those who create criminal statutes and laws around prisons, and those who decide specific penalties. This is high level theory stuff that can be applied to any punishment given. (Including childhood discipline etc - so if your kid smacks their sibling, rehabilitation is probably high up on the agenda, and a parent whose aim is retribution... they exist but should probably see someone about that) | |||
"Personally I don't think we as a society should confuse revenge with justice. As I said though I'm glad I don't need to make these sorts of decisions In the theoretical literature, punishment serves four/five purposes. Incapacitation - stopping the person doing the thing again Deterrence (general) - "hey you random person. If you do X thing, Y bad thing will happen to you" Deterrence (specific) - "I won't do X thing again because I didn't like it when Y bad thing happened to me" Rehabilitation - learning the error of your ways, getting help, gaining skills, being able to function in society once you're out. This is not fashionable and it hasn't been for some time Retribution - vengeance etc Who decides on the level and type of retribution? Those who create criminal statutes and laws around prisons, and those who decide specific penalties. This is high level theory stuff that can be applied to any punishment given. (Including childhood discipline etc - so if your kid smacks their sibling, rehabilitation is probably high up on the agenda, and a parent whose aim is retribution... they exist but should probably see someone about that)" It's a fascinating subject. Again I'm very happy I don't have to be involved in decisions around this | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them.
This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing.
I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us.
Governments don't imprison people, judges and magistrates do.
Law is created by statute that goes through Parliament, but that gets endless scrutiny and debate, goes up to the House of Lords, back to the morons in the commons and then up for royal assent. Only then does it become law. The police do the catching (mostly), the CPS prosecute, judges imprison.
Do you trust the morons in the Commons to create laws that are genuinely fair? I sure as fuck don't.
Retaining some rights for prisoners is a safeguard against that abuse of power
I don't trust the monkey's tea party to do anything right or well, but it's lawyers that write law. That's why it's impossible for anyone else to understand!
That's why there are so many checks and balances - not least the House of Lords."Retaining rights for prisoners is also a check and balance. If the House of Lords had true veto I might agree, but as the only constitutional truth in UK law is parliamentary sovereignty (classically explained as the absolute right of the King in Parliament to decide to murder blue eyed babies) - I think we need layers and layers of safeguards. There, but for the grace of God, go I, sort of thing. | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them.
This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing.
I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us.
Governments don't imprison people, judges and magistrates do.
Law is created by statute that goes through Parliament, but that gets endless scrutiny and debate, goes up to the House of Lords, back to the morons in the commons and then up for royal assent. Only then does it become law. The police do the catching (mostly), the CPS prosecute, judges imprison.
Do you trust the morons in the Commons to create laws that are genuinely fair? I sure as fuck don't.
Retaining some rights for prisoners is a safeguard against that abuse of power
I don't trust the monkey's tea party to do anything right or well, but it's lawyers that write law. That's why it's impossible for anyone else to understand!
That's why there are so many checks and balances - not least the House of Lords.
Retaining rights for prisoners is also a check and balance.
If the House of Lords had true veto I might agree, but as the only constitutional truth in UK law is parliamentary sovereignty (classically explained as the absolute right of the King in Parliament to decide to murder blue eyed babies) - I think we need layers and layers of safeguards.
There, but for the grace of God, go I, sort of thing."An excellent point, well made!  | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
I think that would just make the job of the prison service far more difficult. And would do nothing towards rehabilitation
I don't disagree with this at all. But if the method of incarceration changes, the method of managing that has to change as well. It would just be part of the package.
Rehabilitation is a sound idea, and clearly works for some, but I do wonder sometimes just how many prisoners are truly rehabilitated. If a prison sentence was a harsh 4 years with no visitation or any rights usually enjoyed in liberty, instead of an easy 2 years with full privileges, folk may be less inclined to risk committing crime.
Clearly this is a sweeping statement and is just my musings, i'm not suggesting it's that easy or even the best way. Just a thought on paper."For many life is far easier doing crimes with occasional risk of lockup than working for 40 years, especially if you have a bad education and support, there is no way they can ever have the nice things in life without crime | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
I think that would just make the job of the prison service far more difficult. And would do nothing towards rehabilitation
I don't disagree with this at all. But if the method of incarceration changes, the method of managing that has to change as well. It would just be part of the package.
Rehabilitation is a sound idea, and clearly works for some, but I do wonder sometimes just how many prisoners are truly rehabilitated. If a prison sentence was a harsh 4 years with no visitation or any rights usually enjoyed in liberty, instead of an easy 2 years with full privileges, folk may be less inclined to risk committing crime.
Clearly this is a sweeping statement and is just my musings, i'm not suggesting it's that easy or even the best way. Just a thought on paper.
For many life is far easier doing crimes with occasional risk of lockup than working for 40 years, especially if you have a bad education and support, there is no way they can ever have the nice things in life without crime "You're not wrong, old cheese. And there people out there who have been dragged up by pond life in a vicious lifecycle that will never be broken, committing crime because it's all they know. Prison is just part of the merry-go-round. Sad really. Sorry, OP - I have totally derailed your thread. I apologies and my answer is "I agree"! | |||
| |||
"And just to add one more perspective which I don't think has been covered, is to consider how the families of the victims and the victims who are still alive feel. They are often forgotten but no-one can understand how they must feel when these things are discussed." This is - in the discussion of what punishment is for - the "better" side of retribution. Inflicting bad things on someone to restore a balance to those who have been wronged. It's a messy subject in the main, but it's where I find it most edifying. | |||
"According to the press, whole of life prisoners are to be banned from marrying under proposed new government laws. WTAF?
Sorry. But to be the recipient of such a sentence you're obviously, and without shadow of a doubt a grade A cunt and have done something horrific.
What kind of man or woman would wish to marry someone like that? What possible benefit could it be to them and why the fuck would you be attracted to such a person in the first place?
They're never getting out.
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this - but finally I actually agree with the government on something.
A
I’d go so far as to suggest all prisoners have more rights removed. Until it becomes a truly awful consequence to being caught, people will still take the risk.
I’m not spinning the usual stuff about PlayStations and pool tables, but disallow marriage, visitors, voting, correspondence, going out for funerals, early release etc etc.
I’m other words, if you commit a crime and are sentenced, you get locked and have NO social privileges.
If you can’t handle that, don’t commit crime. If you commit crime, take the punishment in full.
Stripping prisoners of the right to vote creates an incentive for governments to imprison the kinds of people who don't typically vote for them.
This, for entirely obvious reasons, is a very bad thing.
I understand the impulse to punish criminals. However, allowing them to continue voting protects the rest of us.
Governments don't imprison people, judges and magistrates do.
Law is created by statute that goes through Parliament, but that gets endless scrutiny and debate, goes up to the House of Lords, back to the morons in the commons and then up for royal assent. Only then does it become law. The police do the catching (mostly), the CPS prosecute, judges imprison. "Or as can happen at present, and actually has been happening for the last several years: the extremists of one party decide they would like to change the law, the cabinet and the prime minister go along with the idea because it suits them personally, a very badly written piece of legislation is pushed through the house of commons by the overwhelming majority party who refuse to allow any close scrutiny, it goes up to the house of lords who state that it is undesirable and unworkable and against human rights, it goes back to the commons where the majority party openly refuse all changes that have been asked for by the lords, then it goes to the king who has been told that if he doesn't sign it then the government will cut him out of the loop and cut funding for the royal family. The police are then instructed by the home secretary to start arresting peaceful protestors who have any position that disagrees with the government of the day, and to ignore violent mobs that perform actions liked by the extreme wing of the ruling party. CPS are told to fall in line with government or their funding will be cut. Judges sentence obeying the requirements of the law even though they recognise it is bad law. Anybody that criticises the bad policy is attacked by the media branches that are controlled by friends of the extreme wing of the government. Anybody that actually protests against the bad law finds that they are targeted by the bad law and their life can be destroyed by being fed through the no-longer-fair-and-balanced justice system. Eg. The recent criminal justice bill which contains clauses allowing the home secretary to place people under house arrest merely upon suspicion that they might wish to join a protest march, even if those people have never been charged with any crime still less having been convicted. | |||
| |||
"It is very messy. The punishment element to me is the denial of the freedoms and pleasures that everyone else can enjoy. The parents of a murderered child may think that denying the criminal the right to marry may fit into that category of denial of freedom." That is a really good point and well put. | |||
"It is very messy. The punishment element to me is the denial of the freedoms and pleasures that everyone else can enjoy. The parents of a murderered child may think that denying the criminal the right to marry may fit into that category of denial of freedom." Perhaps, yes. I'm not saying here or anywhere else what I think of this particular right. Mostly what I think is that this stuff is risky, because I don't trust the government to set reasonable bounds on criminal justice. | |||
