FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tough on crime
Tough on crime
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ackal1 OP Couple 13 weeks ago
Manchester |
With the new appointment of Timpson as prisons minister I gave his comments about too many people in prison some thought and whilst I agree in theory that we need education and pre crime support to deflect young people away from crime, I have questions on where we are today.
Given the soft touch with shoplifters and the repeat joy riders etc should we be tougher on these low level crimes?
Also I personally believe anyone who assaults an emergency worker should have a mandatory 6 months in prison ( full 6 months) expanded to a year for a second offence then 5 years for another repeat.
The stroppy trouble causing d*unks who occupy police, ambulance and hospital time and cost a fortune need to be held to account.
If you’re a happy d*unk carry on.
 I’m not against drinking just the arseholes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple 12 weeks ago
Manchester |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality."
I agree totally and support any actions to redress that balance of opportunity.
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple 12 weeks ago
Manchester |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?"
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality.
I agree totally and support any actions to redress that balance of opportunity.
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night. "
That’s a huge cultural piece of work, and chances are you’d get people whining that the ‘nanny state’ is ruining their lives by trying to get people to drink less.
Binge drinking culture is deeply embedded in Britain, and it will take a long time to get rid of it. Looking at why people feel the need to go out and get hammered on a regular basis might be a start, something tells me it’s not because their lives are happy and fulfilled. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night. "
Getting d*unk is not a crime. Some drink as therapy to forget the day
On the knife crime, abuse, assaults, gangsters etc hand them over to someone competent to deal with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality.
I agree totally and support any actions to redress that balance of opportunity.
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night.
That’s a huge cultural piece of work, and chances are you’d get people whining that the ‘nanny state’ is ruining their lives by trying to get people to drink less.
Binge drinking culture is deeply embedded in Britain, and it will take a long time to get rid of it. Looking at why people feel the need to go out and get hammered on a regular basis might be a start, something tells me it’s not because their lives are happy and fulfilled."
'Binge drinking culture' I'd say is much less than it was 20 years ago. I don't have stats but I see anecdotally the difference between then and today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality.
I agree totally and support any actions to redress that balance of opportunity.
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night.
That’s a huge cultural piece of work, and chances are you’d get people whining that the ‘nanny state’ is ruining their lives by trying to get people to drink less.
Binge drinking culture is deeply embedded in Britain, and it will take a long time to get rid of it. Looking at why people feel the need to go out and get hammered on a regular basis might be a start, something tells me it’s not because their lives are happy and fulfilled.
'Binge drinking culture' I'd say is much less than it was 20 years ago. I don't have stats but I see anecdotally the difference between then and today. "
The younger generations are definitely not drinking as much, they’ve learned from his stupid we older people are. Sadly a lot of us older people have yet to learn from how stupid we are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants. "
Of course! But what prevents crime? Does social depravation turn people to drugs, alcohol, knife crime, gangs etc? Possibly to a degree, but sadly there will always be offenders from across the social spectrum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants.
Of course! But what prevents crime? Does social depravation turn people to drugs, alcohol, knife crime, gangs etc? Possibly to a degree, but sadly there will always be offenders from across the social spectrum."
I’m no criminologist but if the majority of crimes are committed by people who live in areas of higher deprivation then we can either look at it from the point of view that the poorer you are the fewer morals you have, or that poverty (and associated factors) drives people to crime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality.
I agree totally and support any actions to redress that balance of opportunity.
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night.
That’s a huge cultural piece of work, and chances are you’d get people whining that the ‘nanny state’ is ruining their lives by trying to get people to drink less.
Binge drinking culture is deeply embedded in Britain, and it will take a long time to get rid of it. Looking at why people feel the need to go out and get hammered on a regular basis might be a start, something tells me it’s not because their lives are happy and fulfilled.
'Binge drinking culture' I'd say is much less than it was 20 years ago. I don't have stats but I see anecdotally the difference between then and today.
The younger generations are definitely not drinking as much, they’ve learned from his stupid we older people are. Sadly a lot of us older people have yet to learn from how stupid we are."
Must be just the circles you socialise in. Barely anyone I know drinks as much as we all used to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Bring back death penalty sent prisoners who will be deported after they serve sentences here to serve them in there own country’s pay for ther keep which most likely cheaper then here and a life sentence is life this might help just a opinion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality."
It never ceases to amaze me how short-sighted and insular many of the extremely wealthy are, and oblivious to the problems they cause further down the food chain. Architects of their own misfortune (and many others too).
.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Amen to that!!
Shutting all the youth centres, cutting funding for youth activities and support along with rising inequality etc etc etc
It's almost like the Tory policies are having a long term knock on effect that's given us the current shit show. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Definitely. In my town staggering the closing times did a lot to reduce the violence as there wasn't an enormous queue at the taxi rank and people downing another couple of drinks as the bell was rung for last orders.
It's so much better than it was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal. "
There's lots of evidence to suggest that focus on rehabilitation (including while in prison) is a better solution than pure punishment.
Doing what's best for society Vs revenge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
If prisons worked then arguably the US would be much safer than us
(Admitting huge confounding factors)
Imo, prisosn aren't really a deterrent for the multiple offenders as it's not a million miles away from their outside life in terms of hardship etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that focus on rehabilitation (including while in prison) is a better solution than pure punishment.
Doing what's best for society Vs revenge. "
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime.
We see a lack of deterrent, less police and more crime pretty much in every town and city, this is a major cause of the breakdown in our society. Those that can afford to move away from this do, and then what is left for the people who can’t afford to move?
Rehabilitate after the crime is mostly closing the gate after the horse has bolted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants.
Of course! But what prevents crime? Does social depravation turn people to drugs, alcohol, knife crime, gangs etc? Possibly to a degree, but sadly there will always be offenders from across the social spectrum.
I’m no criminologist but if the majority of crimes are committed by people who live in areas of higher deprivation then we can either look at it from the point of view that the poorer you are the fewer morals you have, or that poverty (and associated factors) drives people to crime."
Or does it drive them to easy money rather than doing a hard day's work. Why do a 12 hour shift if you can deal in drugs or snide gear and make some easy cash. And no tax to pay on the income to boot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants.
Of course! But what prevents crime? Does social depravation turn people to drugs, alcohol, knife crime, gangs etc? Possibly to a degree, but sadly there will always be offenders from across the social spectrum.
I’m no criminologist but if the majority of crimes are committed by people who live in areas of higher deprivation then we can either look at it from the point of view that the poorer you are the fewer morals you have, or that poverty (and associated factors) drives people to crime.
Or does it drive them to easy money rather than doing a hard day's work. Why do a 12 hour shift if you can deal in drugs or snide gear and make some easy cash. And no tax to pay on the income to boot."
Classic chicken & egg paradox.
1. Are they feckless criminals through poverty and disadvantage
or ....
2. Poor and disadvantaged because they are feckless criminals.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants.
Of course! But what prevents crime? Does social depravation turn people to drugs, alcohol, knife crime, gangs etc? Possibly to a degree, but sadly there will always be offenders from across the social spectrum.
I’m no criminologist but if the majority of crimes are committed by people who live in areas of higher deprivation then we can either look at it from the point of view that the poorer you are the fewer morals you have, or that poverty (and associated factors) drives people to crime.
Or does it drive them to easy money rather than doing a hard day's work. Why do a 12 hour shift if you can deal in drugs or snide gear and make some easy cash. And no tax to pay on the income to boot.
Classic chicken & egg paradox.
1. Are they feckless criminals through poverty and disadvantage
or ....
2. Poor and disadvantaged because they are feckless criminals.."
I'll do with the first option.
Feckless criminals through poverty and disadvantage.
But if people are willing to cross a see for a better life surly if disadvantaged they could move.. And yess I get its not that easy but people do do it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants.
Of course! But what prevents crime? Does social depravation turn people to drugs, alcohol, knife crime, gangs etc? Possibly to a degree, but sadly there will always be offenders from across the social spectrum.
I’m no criminologist but if the majority of crimes are committed by people who live in areas of higher deprivation then we can either look at it from the point of view that the poorer you are the fewer morals you have, or that poverty (and associated factors) drives people to crime.
Or does it drive them to easy money rather than doing a hard day's work. Why do a 12 hour shift if you can deal in drugs or snide gear and make some easy cash. And no tax to pay on the income to boot.
Classic chicken & egg paradox.
1. Are they feckless criminals through poverty and disadvantage
or ....
2. Poor and disadvantaged because they are feckless criminals.."
I know this.
Rich lazy people find better ways to scam a living.
And can afford better lawyers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?
Which also exposes the greater need for prevention as mentioned by Debauched Deviants.
Of course! But what prevents crime? Does social depravation turn people to drugs, alcohol, knife crime, gangs etc? Possibly to a degree, but sadly there will always be offenders from across the social spectrum.
I’m no criminologist but if the majority of crimes are committed by people who live in areas of higher deprivation then we can either look at it from the point of view that the poorer you are the fewer morals you have, or that poverty (and associated factors) drives people to crime.
Or does it drive them to easy money rather than doing a hard day's work. Why do a 12 hour shift if you can deal in drugs or snide gear and make some easy cash. And no tax to pay on the income to boot.
Classic chicken & egg paradox.
1. Are they feckless criminals through poverty and disadvantage
or ....
2. Poor and disadvantaged because they are feckless criminals.."
My guess. Poor families tend to be broken families too. Kids don't get the attention they need from parents and go on to be make bigger and bigger mistakes in their lives. This becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Imagine you buy an undeveloped island. Doesn't matter where it is. Imagine it has a native population. Let's say, 1000.
They exist in a handful of villages. They fish and sell their catch to regular merchant traders from elsewhere.
.
There's a resource on the island. Perhaps coconuts. You set up a coconut factory and plantation. You need labour. Let's say you employ half the fisher folks. Regular wages, guaranteed work. Hopefully more than they earn fishing at least.
Then you appoint managers to oversee the production. They get paid more. So they can afford nicer houses and nicer things. The workers are still living in shanty town villages, but some of them live in nicer homes. Boom...you've sown the seeds for malcontent. Later on, you need Directors, so they come on board. They don't want to live in the shanty town or anywhere near it. They get a nice gated community down the road. More seeds of discontent. More problems for the future, guaranteed.
If you don't take care of the folks at the bottom of the food chain, then it's no use crying over split milk when the ills you created arise and bite you on the ass.
In 1900 George Cadbury founded the Bournville Village Trust, and understood the concept of community cohesion and improving the lives of all his workers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Imagine you buy an undeveloped island. Doesn't matter where it is. Imagine it has a native population. Let's say, 1000.
They exist in a handful of villages. They fish and sell their catch to regular merchant traders from elsewhere.
.
There's a resource on the island. Perhaps coconuts. You set up a coconut factory and plantation. You need labour. Let's say you employ half the fisher folks. Regular wages, guaranteed work. Hopefully more than they earn fishing at least.
Then you appoint managers to oversee the production. They get paid more. So they can afford nicer houses and nicer things. The workers are still living in shanty town villages, but some of them live in nicer homes. Boom...you've sown the seeds for malcontent. Later on, you need Directors, so they come on board. They don't want to live in the shanty town or anywhere near it. They get a nice gated community down the road. More seeds of discontent. More problems for the future, guaranteed.
If you don't take care of the folks at the bottom of the food chain, then it's no use crying over split milk when the ills you created arise and bite you on the ass.
In 1900 George Cadbury founded the Bournville Village Trust, and understood the concept of community cohesion and improving the lives of all his workers."
So, on your dream island what happens when 100 people don't want to work as they can just take coconuts from the plantation and sell them to the traders. And end up with more cash then the managers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
Poverty and deprived areas breed crime. More investment, access to better paying jobs, and giving a sense of community cohesion helps. Police and law enforcement can't really do that. How much has all the Pride event outreach really helped in reducing crime? Not at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that focus on rehabilitation (including while in prison) is a better solution than pure punishment.
Doing what's best for society Vs revenge.
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime.
"
I hear what you're saying. The reality is, doesn't work.
"
We see a lack of deterrent, less police and more crime pretty much in every town and city, this is a major cause of the breakdown in our society. Those that can afford to move away from this do, and then what is left for the people who can’t afford to move?
Rehabilitate after the crime is mostly closing the gate after the horse has bolted. "
Lack of deterrent and less police are two separate issues.
Rehabilitation reduces the number of people who reoffend. I'm not suggesting that the punishment element is removed completely, but that the shift to rehabilitation would have positive outcomes. Of course along with creating a fairer society with better opportunities for people in deprived areas, that you mentioned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
I haven't fact checked ... But read somewhere the cost per prisoner per year is something like the cost per asylum seeker per year.
Could we send them to Rwanda instead ?
(Jk, that scheme allowed Rwanda to send criminals our way)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that focus on rehabilitation (including while in prison) is a better solution than pure punishment.
Doing what's best for society Vs revenge.
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime.
I hear what you're saying. The reality is, doesn't work.
We see a lack of deterrent, less police and more crime pretty much in every town and city, this is a major cause of the breakdown in our society. Those that can afford to move away from this do, and then what is left for the people who can’t afford to move?
Rehabilitate after the crime is mostly closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
Lack of deterrent and less police are two separate issues.
Rehabilitation reduces the number of people who reoffend. I'm not suggesting that the punishment element is removed completely, but that the shift to rehabilitation would have positive outcomes. Of course along with creating a fairer society with better opportunities for people in deprived areas, that you mentioned. "
I think this is a perfect outcome, unfortunately I’m not seeing the how. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that focus on rehabilitation (including while in prison) is a better solution than pure punishment.
Doing what's best for society Vs revenge.
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime.
I hear what you're saying. The reality is, doesn't work.
We see a lack of deterrent, less police and more crime pretty much in every town and city, this is a major cause of the breakdown in our society. Those that can afford to move away from this do, and then what is left for the people who can’t afford to move?
Rehabilitate after the crime is mostly closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
Lack of deterrent and less police are two separate issues.
Rehabilitation reduces the number of people who reoffend. I'm not suggesting that the punishment element is removed completely, but that the shift to rehabilitation would have positive outcomes. Of course along with creating a fairer society with better opportunities for people in deprived areas, that you mentioned.
I think this is a perfect outcome, unfortunately I’m not seeing the how."
Reconviction and reoffender rates seem to be lower in Scandinavian countries where they focus more on rehabilitation. It's hard to measure as different countries might use different metrics to assess this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal. "
Two things about Timpson and what he said. The first is that there are a significfant number of people banged up in prison who shouldn’t be there - correct. We lack the resources the country needs to identify, securely house, and treat people with mental illness who make up a significant proportion of low level recidivist offenders on short sentences. The second is his family business has done a lot in terms of offender rehabilitation and so I’d give some of what he says some credence.
Other changes I would make is wholesale revision of sentencing rules. Life having a tarif of 25 years is woefully low when you consider the average starting point for parole is 18 years. Sentencing for life improsion ment was based on life expectency in the 1940’s and the average age of offenders being older leading to them spending most of their remaining natural life in prison. I would say the starting point for a tarif is 35 years, and that 35 years should be the time served, not reduced by 50%. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that focus on rehabilitation (including while in prison) is a better solution than pure punishment.
Doing what's best for society Vs revenge.
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime.
I hear what you're saying. The reality is, doesn't work.
We see a lack of deterrent, less police and more crime pretty much in every town and city, this is a major cause of the breakdown in our society. Those that can afford to move away from this do, and then what is left for the people who can’t afford to move?
Rehabilitate after the crime is mostly closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
Lack of deterrent and less police are two separate issues.
Rehabilitation reduces the number of people who reoffend. I'm not suggesting that the punishment element is removed completely, but that the shift to rehabilitation would have positive outcomes. Of course along with creating a fairer society with better opportunities for people in deprived areas, that you mentioned. "
The problem you face with this approach is that the vast majority of those in jails are addicts, drugs and/or alcohol. Success rates of rehabilitation are extremely low with relapse the 'norm'. Maybe focusing on drug or gene therapies for addiction is the best use of resources? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that focus on rehabilitation (including while in prison) is a better solution than pure punishment.
Doing what's best for society Vs revenge.
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime.
I hear what you're saying. The reality is, doesn't work.
We see a lack of deterrent, less police and more crime pretty much in every town and city, this is a major cause of the breakdown in our society. Those that can afford to move away from this do, and then what is left for the people who can’t afford to move?
Rehabilitate after the crime is mostly closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
Lack of deterrent and less police are two separate issues.
Rehabilitation reduces the number of people who reoffend. I'm not suggesting that the punishment element is removed completely, but that the shift to rehabilitation would have positive outcomes. Of course along with creating a fairer society with better opportunities for people in deprived areas, that you mentioned.
The problem you face with this approach is that the vast majority of those in jails are addicts, drugs and/or alcohol. Success rates of rehabilitation are extremely low with relapse the 'norm'. Maybe focusing on drug or gene therapies for addiction is the best use of resources?"
Sounds sensible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Letting prisoners out early is not the way to stop crime. If our prisons are overcrowded, then we should build more. Some for violent criminals and others for the non violent crimes. Leave the murderers, nonces and r@piste to rot in the old prisons
Not only build more prisons, but more hospitals that are fully equipped to look after those with mental issues. No matter which politicians are in control, there are too many mentally ill men and women being set to prison. Prison is not the right place for them, it’s no wonder there is so much violence, so many suicides. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea."
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them. "
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance."
So there is no such thing as being sentenced to do any amount of unpaid work? I believe they used to call it Comunity Service! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"We can't manage crime without a deterrent.
We need to invest in building more prisons, and be prepared to send people to them for the period of their sentence.
There is little worry for criminals or gangs of teenagers using weapons if the chance of being caught is less than 50% and if caught a custodial sentence is less than 50%.
Bleeding heart liberals with ideas of fixing everything other than the problem itself, accentuates the societal impact to the cost of everyone other than the criminal.
Two things about Timpson and what he said. The first is that there are a significfant number of people banged up in prison who shouldn’t be there - correct. We lack the resources the country needs to identify, securely house, and treat people with mental illness who make up a significant proportion of low level recidivist offenders on short sentences. The second is his family business has done a lot in terms of offender rehabilitation and so I’d give some of what he says some credence.
Other changes I would make is wholesale revision of sentencing rules. Life having a tarif of 25 years is woefully low when you consider the average starting point for parole is 18 years. Sentencing for life improsion ment was based on life expectency in the 1940’s and the average age of offenders being older leading to them spending most of their remaining natural life in prison. I would say the starting point for a tarif is 35 years, and that 35 years should be the time served, not reduced by 50%. "
Personally I think life should be life! You deliberately take another life (murder) then you forfeit your freedom for the rest of your own life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance."
The 1995 act doesn't cover prisoners who have committed crime. A criminal can be required to undertake work as part of their rehabilitation.
I have a feeling getting lots of prisoners out into the community isn't going to happen anytime soon, the amount of staff needed etc... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance."
Seeing as prisoners are expemted from the Act, you are the lefty who makes oriny redundant, aren’t you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them. "
You seem weirdly obsessed with using German military names. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance.
The 1995 act doesn't cover prisoners who have committed crime. A criminal can be required to undertake work as part of their rehabilitation.
I have a feeling getting lots of prisoners out into the community isn't going to happen anytime soon, the amount of staff needed etc..."
Hence the chains. Fewer staff needed then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The trouble with building prisons, is that then you have to find people to fill them."
That isn't a problem...
If they did invest in prisons it would provide an economic boost for many areas of the country. Building the prisons, staffing the prisons, supplies etc. Then you have the other side, more police to fill the prisons, more lawyers to prevent them filling the prisons, more solicitors working for the lawyers.
Less problems out in the towns and cities, more people out spending money in the shops and bars, it is an economic goldmine.
What is not to like? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"The trouble with building prisons, is that then you have to find people to fill them.
That isn't a problem...
If they did invest in prisons it would provide an economic boost for many areas of the country. Building the prisons, staffing the prisons, supplies etc. Then you have the other side, more police to fill the prisons, more lawyers to prevent them filling the prisons, more solicitors working for the lawyers.
Less problems out in the towns and cities, more people out spending money in the shops and bars, it is an economic goldmine.
What is not to like? "
sounds a bit too successful and a few too many jobs. Will need to recruit from outside of the UK ...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance.
So there is no such thing as being sentenced to do any amount of unpaid work? I believe they used to call it Comunity Service!"
Community service is an option. Go and read the details of the act but apparently you have to be a "leftwaffle" to be able to do that.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance.
Seeing as prisoners are expemted from the Act, you are the lefty who makes oriny redundant, aren’t you?"
This is inaccurate. Maybe you're thinking of the US?
I don't understand the second part of your question. I'm not "the lefty", I don't know what "oriny" is a typo of, and not sure what this has got to do with your beef with the Modern Sl4very act. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance.
So there is no such thing as being sentenced to do any amount of unpaid work? I believe they used to call it Comunity Service!
Community service is an option. Go and read the details of the act but apparently you have to be a "leftwaffle" to be able to do that. "
There is a difference between soft community service and a chain gang, where you are chained to other prisoners and made to do hard labour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1 OP Couple 12 weeks ago
Manchester |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them. "
I’m centre left leaning and I agree make them help clean up the community they live in. Watching fly tippers clean up rat infested rubbish would be very satisfying.
But I would also show them how their behaviour affects others and ruins the society they live in.
I amazed people throw rubbish away in their own neighbourhood. They end up living in a shit tip and then complain about it. Smokers being regular repeat offenders. Yes know not all.
Maybe community responsibility education in schools?
I watched a group of school kids outside the cafe I was eating in carefully fold up their food packaging and then place it neatly next to a wall. A council refuse bin was less than six paces away!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance.
Seeing as prisoners are expemted from the Act, you are the lefty who makes oriny redundant, aren’t you?
This is inaccurate. Maybe you're thinking of the US?
I don't understand the second part of your question. I'm not "the lefty", I don't know what "oriny" is a typo of, and not sure what this has got to do with your beef with the Modern Sl4very act."
I’ll hazard a guess and say that the word is irony. Yup! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
Why are you suggesting that only the "Leftwaffe" are able to read the Modern Sl4very act from 1995 that makes forced labour illegal?
Such a weird stance.
Seeing as prisoners are expemted from the Act, you are the lefty who makes oriny redundant, aren’t you?
This is inaccurate. Maybe you're thinking of the US?
I don't understand the second part of your question. I'm not "the lefty", I don't know what "oriny" is a typo of, and not sure what this has got to do with your beef with the Modern Sl4very act.
I’ll hazard a guess and say that the word is irony. Yup!"
Maybe. . That makes even less sense though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There is one case that happened this week, that to me needs the death penalty reinstating.
Daryl Anderson, d*unk, taking puctures of himself driving at 140 mph, before hitting a car and killing a woman and baby. Open and shut crimes like this, should be an easy option for removing him from the society for good. As I am sure the 21 year driving ban, will be adhered to when he gets out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
perhaps the example needs to be set by being tough on crime at the top. for too long now people have watched the rules not being applied to those in positions of power and when the rules are occaisionaly applied the punishment appears very light indeed. this may lead to people feeling undetered to flout the law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime."
.
Is punishment though a "deterrent?"
.
I think prisons worldwide are full of prisoners to whom the laws did not act as a deterrent.
.
So what can be done ? Nothing. You could have have the most harshest of sentences, or the lightest of sentences, but it won't prevent the crime from happening.
.
As a friend said to me once, when we discussed a very similar belief, "The law of the land does not trump my personal autonomy. It may describe what to do with me after the event, but that is a moot point. If I want to commit a crime, then I will. Because I can." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
there is a correlation between low crime rates and good wages .... the academic papers i've read on the subject broadly mention the same thing, which is that most crime is motivated by the pursuit of money. if money is plentiful by legal means then crime tends to fall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
I’m centre left leaning and I agree make them help clean up the community they live in. Watching fly tippers clean up rat infested rubbish would be very satisfying.
But I would also show them how their behaviour affects others and ruins the society they live in.
I amazed people throw rubbish away in their own neighbourhood. They end up living in a shit tip and then complain about it. Smokers being regular repeat offenders. Yes know not all.
Maybe community responsibility education in schools?
I watched a group of school kids outside the cafe I was eating in carefully fold up their food packaging and then place it neatly next to a wall. A council refuse bin was less than six paces away!!"
Kids do have this education - regularly. Schools have bins for different types of waste. Go into a school and you won't see rubbish everywhere. If dropped kids are made to pick it up. Adults need to take much more responsibility too. Being stuck in school traffic on the way to work this morning at one set of lights I saw the car in front of me throw a cigarette butt out of the window. And another chuck some kind of small packaging out of theirs. Where fly typing is bad and environments are looking untidy how are children going to respect their surroundings when adults clearly don't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
Punishment is a deterrent, to prevent a crime from happening in the first place, no deterrent more crime.
.
Is punishment though a "deterrent?"
.
I think prisons worldwide are full of prisoners to whom the laws did not act as a deterrent.
.
So what can be done ? Nothing. You could have have the most harshest of sentences, or the lightest of sentences, but it won't prevent the crime from happening.
.
As a friend said to me once, when we discussed a very similar belief, "The law of the land does not trump my personal autonomy. It may describe what to do with me after the event, but that is a moot point. If I want to commit a crime, then I will. Because I can.""
Punishment is only a deterrent when the odds of being caught and convicted are higher than the odds of either not being caught, not being convicted or the reward is worth the risk.
We have allowed people to routinely walk free, receive slaps on the wrist and nobody can control the risk v reward as your friend says, it is their choice.
We either invest in our police, courts, prisons etc or watch the painfully slow recession of general law and order. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Punishment is only a deterrent when the odds of being caught and convicted are higher than the odds of either not being caught, not being convicted or the reward is worth the risk."
I do appreciate what you are saying.
.
But can you insert in to your worldview a whole tranche of people who do not fear the deterrent, no matter how harsh or severe it is ?.
.
Like my friend, for example ?
.
It is for neither risk, nor reward, or indeed personal challenge of any sort.
.
It is simply because "He can".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
‘Keir Starmer’s government will release thousands of prisoners after they have served 40% of their sentences and recruit 1,000 probation officers to solve an overcrowding crisis that threatens “a total breakdown of law and order”, the justice secretary has announced’
1000 new jobs - how and when . There are already security staff facing clearance delays, while on full pay
https://stevelawsreport.co.uk/taxpayer-money-wasted-on-manston-security-guards-who-recieve-full-pay-for-not-working/
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
Punishment is only a deterrent when the odds of being caught and convicted are higher than the odds of either not being caught, not being convicted or the reward is worth the risk.
I do appreciate what you are saying.
.
But can you insert in to your worldview a whole tranche of people who do not fear the deterrent, no matter how harsh or severe it is ?.
.
Like my friend, for example ?
.
It is for neither risk, nor reward, or indeed personal challenge of any sort.
.
It is simply because "He can".
"
Yes I can, I see it every day. Some people will run red lights but they won’t shoplift, some people will shoplift but won’t attack someone and so on. The chances of being caught jumping red lights is low, making the crime an acceptable risk, the deterrent of points on a license or even losing a license becomes meaningless.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"‘Keir Starmer’s government will release thousands of prisoners after they have served 40% of their sentences and recruit 1,000 probation officers to solve an overcrowding crisis that threatens “a total breakdown of law and order”, the justice secretary has announced’
1000 new jobs - how and when . There are already security staff facing clearance delays, while on full pay
https://stevelawsreport.co.uk/taxpayer-money-wasted-on-manston-security-guards-who-recieve-full-pay-for-not-working/
"
If they plan to get millions of homes built in the next 5 years, 15 new prisons should take no time at all.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Donna Jones the conservative chair of the Association of Police and crime Commissioners absolutely lambasted her own party's handling of the prison service in the last government..
So yes, idiots like Braverman will gob off about today's decision but she was part of the state of that area of the criminal justice system.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The four reasons for incarceration are punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. How can those all be ticked by non-custodial sentences?"
Change the incapacitation to protecting the public (incapacitation is part of punishment). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality.
I agree totally and support any actions to redress that balance of opportunity.
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night.
That’s a huge cultural piece of work, and chances are you’d get people whining that the ‘nanny state’ is ruining their lives by trying to get people to drink less.
Binge drinking culture is deeply embedded in Britain, and it will take a long time to get rid of it. Looking at why people feel the need to go out and get hammered on a regular basis might be a start, something tells me it’s not because their lives are happy and fulfilled.
'Binge drinking culture' I'd say is much less than it was 20 years ago. I don't have stats but I see anecdotally the difference between then and today. "
Is that cos you're not part of that scene anymore?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Chain gamgs to clean up and fix the environment would be the best idea.
The Leftwaffe go nuts at the suggestion as they are more concerned with molly-coddling violent offenders than giving 2 shits about their victims beause in their world view of intersectionality the criminals are more victimised by nebulous concepts than the actiual victims of crime.
Otherwise, that’s a damn good way of ensuring community service is done, rather than endlessly chasing the no-shows and telling them they will be a very naughty boy and told off severly and have their icre cream tajken off them.
I’m centre left leaning and I agree make them help clean up the community they live in. Watching fly tippers clean up rat infested rubbish would be very satisfying.
But I would also show them how their behaviour affects others and ruins the society they live in.
I amazed people throw rubbish away in their own neighbourhood. They end up living in a shit tip and then complain about it. Smokers being regular repeat offenders. Yes know not all.
Maybe community responsibility education in schools?
I watched a group of school kids outside the cafe I was eating in carefully fold up their food packaging and then place it neatly next to a wall. A council refuse bin was less than six paces away!!
Kids do have this education - regularly. Schools have bins for different types of waste. Go into a school and you won't see rubbish everywhere. If dropped kids are made to pick it up. Adults need to take much more responsibility too. Being stuck in school traffic on the way to work this morning at one set of lights I saw the car in front of me throw a cigarette butt out of the window. And another chuck some kind of small packaging out of theirs. Where fly typing is bad and environments are looking untidy how are children going to respect their surroundings when adults clearly don't?"
I'm happy to tell people to put rubbish in the bin. Did that to a group of teens in McDonald's once.
Less fruitful was me yelling at drivers chucking out empty drink cups as they and i are driving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"‘Keir Starmer’s government will release thousands of prisoners after they have served 40% of their sentences and recruit 1,000 probation officers to solve an overcrowding crisis that threatens “a total breakdown of law and order”, the justice secretary has announced’
1000 new jobs - how and when . There are already security staff facing clearance delays, while on full pay
https://stevelawsreport.co.uk/taxpayer-money-wasted-on-manston-security-guards-who-recieve-full-pay-for-not-working/
If they plan to get millions of homes built in the next 5 years, 15 new prisons should take no time at all.
"
Day release minor crimes prisoners to build prisons |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"‘Keir Starmer’s government will release thousands of prisoners after they have served 40% of their sentences and recruit 1,000 probation officers to solve an overcrowding crisis that threatens “a total breakdown of law and order”, the justice secretary has announced’
1000 new jobs - how and when . There are already security staff facing clearance delays, while on full pay
https://stevelawsreport.co.uk/taxpayer-money-wasted-on-manston-security-guards-who-recieve-full-pay-for-not-working/
If they plan to get millions of homes built in the next 5 years, 15 new prisons should take no time at all.
Day release minor crimes prisoners to build prisons "
Gets my vote |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In 2023 40% more crimes were recorded in London’s most income-deprived areas than its more affluent.
If we want to reduce crime we need to reduce inequality.
I agree totally and support any actions to redress that balance of opportunity.
My thinking was how do we stop certain crimes happening today being part of our culture such as getting d*unk and thumping a policemen or nurse. It seems to now be a normal Saturday night.
That’s a huge cultural piece of work, and chances are you’d get people whining that the ‘nanny state’ is ruining their lives by trying to get people to drink less.
Binge drinking culture is deeply embedded in Britain, and it will take a long time to get rid of it. Looking at why people feel the need to go out and get hammered on a regular basis might be a start, something tells me it’s not because their lives are happy and fulfilled.
'Binge drinking culture' I'd say is much less than it was 20 years ago. I don't have stats but I see anecdotally the difference between then and today.
Is that cos you're not part of that scene anymore? "
Possibly. I do get to judge from friends and my kids and friends too though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Since we abolished. The. Death sentence we have gone soft on all crime and we always will be it’s never they faults
"
Have we? How has the removal of the death sentence made us go soft on all crime? Including teenagers shoplifting.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let people who have been the victims of crime have a say in their punishment!"
This reminds me of the thread last year where the chap wanted the law changed to he could assault and stab people who he suspected of shoplifting.
Good times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?"
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life."
I agree. And would add that occasionally someone appeals when new evidence arises and is acquitted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life."
Agree with the latter point, also looking at the examples quoted doesn't tell the full story because there are many who were convicted of murder then cleared upon appeal for many reasons since the death penalty was rightly abolished.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life."
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Agree with the latter point, also looking at the examples quoted doesn't tell the full story because there are many who were convicted of murder then cleared upon appeal for many reasons since the death penalty was rightly abolished.."
Copious forensic evidence for serial killers, not eye witnesses as people can be threatened/manipulated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime."
thankfully |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime."
I'm not trying persuade you one way or the other, it makes no sense for me to do that as it solves nothing.
Going back to your point on not 100% would be executed, that is correct and if you take the US as an example only a small % are executed.
last year 2241 on death row and 24 executed a touch over 1%. What is the point? 2241 people constantly appealing and costing tax payers more money for them to sit in jail anyway, which is pretty much your argument.
But if you like the idea of someone having the thought that their lives are going to be taken at anytime as a punishment, then the death penalty is going to be the answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let people who have been the victims of crime have a say in their punishment!
This reminds me of the thread last year where the chap wanted the law changed to he could assault and stab people who he suspected of shoplifting.
Good times. "
****************************************************
Rubbish. I well remember that particular thread.
The 'chap' was saying if he confronted a person who he had suspected of or seen to actually steal any item from his shop and, upon challenging, this suspect pulled a knife and threatened the said 'chap', he ought to have been able to legally respond with a similar weapon, as the law would not allow him to do so.
As it happens, I do not myself agree that shopkeepers should be free to respond in such a way, but, (as usual), this poster had twisted and exaggerated a situation to an extreme. This so-called 'chap' did NOT infer he....., "wanted the law changed so he could assault and stab people who he suspected of shoplifting"
Ridiculous accusation and another fact twisting exersise from mr. "J.T.N." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime."
Hopefully not.
Not only is it barbaric, expensive, and unethical for a state to execute it's citizens, it would also give us problems if we need to extradite anyone. The US had this problem during the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The only problem with death penalty is that the judiciary can get it wrong and in fact it does quite a few times with wrong decisions. If it's life sentence, we could reasonably fix the mistakes when new facts come to light. But not if the person is dead.
I don't believe in any other argument about the morality of it or that "death penalty is not a deterrent". If you believe it's not a deterrent, try getting in Singapore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime.
I'm not trying persuade you one way or the other, it makes no sense for me to do that as it solves nothing.
Going back to your point on not 100% would be executed, that is correct and if you take the US as an example only a small % are executed.
last year 2241 on death row and 24 executed a touch over 1%. What is the point? 2241 people constantly appealing and costing tax payers more money for them to sit in jail anyway, which is pretty much your argument.
But if you like the idea of someone having the thought that their lives are going to be taken at anytime as a punishment, then the death penalty is going to be the answer. "
Less than 70 on full life tariffs. Some of these are "political". In other words the context outweighed the crime, such as killing a member of the police force or MP. So if we just execute serial killers, these murderers wouldn't be included. And as we need copious forensic evidence, most, if not all the murders who were convicted say before 2000, would also not be on the list. We could actually say that, as we want it as a deterrent, that no one convicted before the legislation passed, would also be on the list.
So we start at zero. We have the most strict criteria to rule out any potential of a miscarriage of justice. I'm not the type of person who wants people murdered for murdering, but I think we need the deterrent. It's less crazy and less shit than Rwanda  .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I believe in the death penalty, but only for extreme cases, and only where there is no room for error. People like Russel Bishop, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Fred West (who saved us the job), Hindly and Brady, the Cray twins. There are others I could mention, whose names don’t spring to mind. People who are/were 100% guilty of horrific crimes, yet got to live out their life's, and we had to pay for them to do so. That imo has got to change… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime.
I'm not trying persuade you one way or the other, it makes no sense for me to do that as it solves nothing.
Going back to your point on not 100% would be executed, that is correct and if you take the US as an example only a small % are executed.
last year 2241 on death row and 24 executed a touch over 1%. What is the point? 2241 people constantly appealing and costing tax payers more money for them to sit in jail anyway, which is pretty much your argument.
But if you like the idea of someone having the thought that their lives are going to be taken at anytime as a punishment, then the death penalty is going to be the answer.
Less than 70 on full life tariffs. Some of these are "political". In other words the context outweighed the crime, such as killing a member of the police force or MP. So if we just execute serial killers, these murderers wouldn't be included. And as we need copious forensic evidence, most, if not all the murders who were convicted say before 2000, would also not be on the list. We could actually say that, as we want it as a deterrent, that no one convicted before the legislation passed, would also be on the list.
So we start at zero. We have the most strict criteria to rule out any potential of a miscarriage of justice. I'm not the type of person who wants people murdered for murdering, but I think we need the deterrent. It's less crazy and less shit than Rwanda .
"
Ah, I see it is the law of Amelie that would apply rules
What is your definition of serial killer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime.
I'm not trying persuade you one way or the other, it makes no sense for me to do that as it solves nothing.
Going back to your point on not 100% would be executed, that is correct and if you take the US as an example only a small % are executed.
last year 2241 on death row and 24 executed a touch over 1%. What is the point? 2241 people constantly appealing and costing tax payers more money for them to sit in jail anyway, which is pretty much your argument.
But if you like the idea of someone having the thought that their lives are going to be taken at anytime as a punishment, then the death penalty is going to be the answer.
Less than 70 on full life tariffs. Some of these are "political". In other words the context outweighed the crime, such as killing a member of the police force or MP. So if we just execute serial killers, these murderers wouldn't be included. And as we need copious forensic evidence, most, if not all the murders who were convicted say before 2000, would also not be on the list. We could actually say that, as we want it as a deterrent, that no one convicted before the legislation passed, would also be on the list.
So we start at zero. We have the most strict criteria to rule out any potential of a miscarriage of justice. I'm not the type of person who wants people murdered for murdering, but I think we need the deterrent. It's less crazy and less shit than Rwanda .
Ah, I see it is the law of Amelie that would apply rules
What is your definition of serial killer? "
Someone who plans to kill people over a set period of time (so that excludes the person who goes on a spree as that could be mental health issues).
Harold shipman, Fred West and Sutcliffe are prime examples. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime.
I'm not trying persuade you one way or the other, it makes no sense for me to do that as it solves nothing.
Going back to your point on not 100% would be executed, that is correct and if you take the US as an example only a small % are executed.
last year 2241 on death row and 24 executed a touch over 1%. What is the point? 2241 people constantly appealing and costing tax payers more money for them to sit in jail anyway, which is pretty much your argument.
But if you like the idea of someone having the thought that their lives are going to be taken at anytime as a punishment, then the death penalty is going to be the answer.
Less than 70 on full life tariffs. Some of these are "political". In other words the context outweighed the crime, such as killing a member of the police force or MP. So if we just execute serial killers, these murderers wouldn't be included. And as we need copious forensic evidence, most, if not all the murders who were convicted say before 2000, would also not be on the list. We could actually say that, as we want it as a deterrent, that no one convicted before the legislation passed, would also be on the list.
So we start at zero. We have the most strict criteria to rule out any potential of a miscarriage of justice. I'm not the type of person who wants people murdered for murdering, but I think we need the deterrent. It's less crazy and less shit than Rwanda .
Ah, I see it is the law of Amelie that would apply rules
What is your definition of serial killer?
Someone who plans to kill people over a set period of time (so that excludes the person who goes on a spree as that could be mental health issues).
Harold shipman, Fred West and Sutcliffe are prime examples."
Interesting..
Is there a set time between killings and how many becomes serial?
Are you also saying that a serial killer is mentally sound? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe in the death penalty, but only for extreme cases, and only where there is no room for error. People like Russel Bishop, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Fred West (who saved us the job), Hindly and Brady, the Cray twins. There are others I could mention, whose names don’t spring to mind. People who are/were 100% guilty of horrific crimes, yet got to live out their life's, and we had to pay for them to do so. That imo has got to change…"
Whilst most of those appalling murderers may have lived out the rest of their lives behind bars, an immense amount of employment for others has arisen because of their actions.
.
1. High security Prison (so all the allied trades and livelihoods needed to make that happen)
2. Employment - Internal (all the staff needed, from warders, medical staff (nurse/doctor/psychiatrist), clerical, admin, maintenance, kitchen, the list goes on)
3. Employment - External (all the ancillary employment needed to support a prison)
4. Services - Power / Water / Sewerage
.
I accept that there is a cost to society, and to the tax payer.
.
But what is my contribution to keeping such individuals ? 0.0005 pence a month ? 1 pence a month ? More ? Does it really matter ? Because that personal contribution also keeps all those other folk employed too doesn't it ?
.
Putting a bullet in the back of that felon's head harms more than the felon doesn't it ? They are dead so they don't care, but all those associated support structures suffer harm and are impacted.
.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Your argument didn't dissuade me the last time. What makes you think you can now?
If we had the death penalty, how many of those on full tariff would actually be executed? It would not be 100%. There would have to be strict criteria (copious evidence) and limited appeals time (say five years).
But hey, it won't happen in my lifetime.
I'm not trying persuade you one way or the other, it makes no sense for me to do that as it solves nothing.
Going back to your point on not 100% would be executed, that is correct and if you take the US as an example only a small % are executed.
last year 2241 on death row and 24 executed a touch over 1%. What is the point? 2241 people constantly appealing and costing tax payers more money for them to sit in jail anyway, which is pretty much your argument.
But if you like the idea of someone having the thought that their lives are going to be taken at anytime as a punishment, then the death penalty is going to be the answer.
Less than 70 on full life tariffs. Some of these are "political". In other words the context outweighed the crime, such as killing a member of the police force or MP. So if we just execute serial killers, these murderers wouldn't be included. And as we need copious forensic evidence, most, if not all the murders who were convicted say before 2000, would also not be on the list. We could actually say that, as we want it as a deterrent, that no one convicted before the legislation passed, would also be on the list.
So we start at zero. We have the most strict criteria to rule out any potential of a miscarriage of justice. I'm not the type of person who wants people murdered for murdering, but I think we need the deterrent. It's less crazy and less shit than Rwanda .
Ah, I see it is the law of Amelie that would apply rules
What is your definition of serial killer?
Someone who plans to kill people over a set period of time (so that excludes the person who goes on a spree as that could be mental health issues).
Harold shipman, Fred West and Sutcliffe are prime examples.
Interesting..
Is there a set time between killings and how many becomes serial?
Are you also saying that a serial killer is mentally sound?"
In that they plan, process info. It's not a reaction, it's premeditated.
There will be schools of thought saying sociopathy and psychopathy, and the absence of empathy are mental health issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe in the death penalty, but only for extreme cases, and only where there is no room for error. People like Russel Bishop, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Fred West (who saved us the job), Hindly and Brady, the Cray twins. There are others I could mention, whose names don’t spring to mind. People who are/were 100% guilty of horrific crimes, yet got to live out their life's, and we had to pay for them to do so. That imo has got to change…
Whilst most of those appalling murderers may have lived out the rest of their lives behind bars, an immense amount of employment for others has arisen because of their actions.
.
1. High security Prison (so all the allied trades and livelihoods needed to make that happen)
2. Employment - Internal (all the staff needed, from warders, medical staff (nurse/doctor/psychiatrist), clerical, admin, maintenance, kitchen, the list goes on)
3. Employment - External (all the ancillary employment needed to support a prison)
4. Services - Power / Water / Sewerage
.
I accept that there is a cost to society, and to the tax payer.
.
But what is my contribution to keeping such individuals ? 0.0005 pence a month ? 1 pence a month ? More ? Does it really matter ? Because that personal contribution also keeps all those other folk employed too doesn't it ?
.
Putting a bullet in the back of that felon's head harms more than the felon doesn't it ? They are dead so they don't care, but all those associated support structures suffer harm and are impacted.
.
"
Let's hear it for murderers supplying job opportunities |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Agree with the latter point, also looking at the examples quoted doesn't tell the full story because there are many who were convicted of murder then cleared upon appeal for many reasons since the death penalty was rightly abolished..
Copious forensic evidence for serial killers, not eye witnesses as people can be threatened/manipulated. "
'lost' evidence, ignored forensics, corruption and a they'll do attitude because of many factors then years of ruined lives and the real perpetrators not caught..
Can't bring dead people back and say yeah sorry we got the wrong person.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
Interesting article on the times on the Dutch system.
They have got to the stage where they rent out prison spaces to other countries.
And crime rates have fallen too !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let's hear it for murderers supplying job opportunities
Indeed ! Good can come from bad !"
I think we have enough criminals without murderers, to warrant all those job opportunities  . In fact a surplus number, hence early release |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If there is concrete evidence ie DNA then public hanging should be implemented.its the victims family that get the life sentence.its not a deterrent but it would make me feel better if I was a victim |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Agree with the latter point, also looking at the examples quoted doesn't tell the full story because there are many who were convicted of murder then cleared upon appeal for many reasons since the death penalty was rightly abolished..
Copious forensic evidence for serial killers, not eye witnesses as people can be threatened/manipulated. "
Forensic evidence is not as safe as everyone thinks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Drugs, alcohol and greed are to blame for most crime. Not sure of a solution unfortunately."
Most?
Even if that was the case, people often escape from their lives with addictive substances. Trauma and poverty amongst the causes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yesterday I looked at the list of prisoners who have full life tariffs, ie no parole ever. The likes of Lucy Letby & Ian Hindley (dead). 60+ people.
Ideal for death penalty?
No, the death penalty steps over the line of punishment to revenge.
As mentioned before it also adds much more cost, cheaper to leave them in jail for life.
Agree with the latter point, also looking at the examples quoted doesn't tell the full story because there are many who were convicted of murder then cleared upon appeal for many reasons since the death penalty was rightly abolished..
Copious forensic evidence for serial killers, not eye witnesses as people can be threatened/manipulated.
Forensic evidence is not as safe as everyone thinks."
Hence the "copious". And with that I mean different types. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
