old - Fazer Owners Club - old
General => General => Topic started by: chaz on 23 November 2012, 12:06:06 am
-
well it looks like these people who due to no fault of their own have ended up in prison, are hoping that the government will not let them have the right to vote so they can then sue the government and get a few grand to spend when they get out.
The lawyers are hoping the same because they are as bad as the scumbags in jail, in Selby two law firms have been shut down and my solicitor was jailed, twice?
If it was up to me prisoners would have to repay the cost of being in jail, after all if you have to go into care due to ill health you have to hand over all what you have worked for.
-
If it was up to me prisoners would have to repay the cost of being in jail
Yeah! And why don't be bring back breaking rocks and Transporation too, since those worked so well in the past :rolleyes
-
they should have a 6 by 6 foot cell with nothing but straw on the floor -it would save the country billions keeping them in a cell for 23.5 hours a day like that and theres less chance of them re-offending if they know they are going back to them conditions
i read somewhere in the week it costs 6 times more keeping a young offender in prison than sending someone to eton for a year !!
if they will be able to sue for not being allowed to vote all these ambulance chasers will turn into prison chasers -bigger scum than the people they represent (if guilty of crime )
-
can't they get round it during sentencing from now on if the judge says something like:
"...and as a consequence of your crimes you have also forfeited all normal privileges reserved for decent society including but not limited to the right to vote..."
It wouldn't work for current criminals but we'd have to stomach it due to the oversight of our current sentencing guidelines.
or they could just put their polling station outside the prison grounds or "lose" the ballot box in a fire
-
i'm just speachless that the the human rights commision even entertained this!
sorry i was under the belief that if you were found guilty of commiting a crime and were sentenced to prison then you lost all rights!!
does this mean then in future they will be able to sue for loss of earnings whilst inside or loss of benefits?
I may seem sceptical but in military prisons you had to earn privillages and rights. the only thing they did allow was 3 cigerettes per day ( or 6 boiled sweets for non-smokers) and these were not allowed to be hoarded..
television was a privallage that had to be earnt by good behaviour allowed for 1 hour a day & programes were selected by inmates on week three of sentence.
-
they should have a 6 by 6 foot cell with nothing but straw on the floor -it would save the country billions keeping them in a cell for 23.5 hours a day like that and theres less chance of them re-offending if they know they are going back to them conditions
It's not all black and white.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html)
I'd like to see yellow cards. You make one offence twice, second yellow - board walking! ARRRR!
-
thats a good article about prisoners in Norway but could that really work in the uk?
-
sorry i was under the belief that if you were found guilty of commiting a crime and were sentenced to prison then you lost all rights!!
*ALL* Rights??
You mean they should lose the Right to life, the Right not to be tortured, the Right not to be forced into slavery...?
-
It's not all black and white.
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html[/url] ([url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html[/url])
" Live reports from Norway on the penal system that runs contrary to all our instincts"
Hmm, "All our instincts"? Well, the instincts of those who read the Daily Mail, perhaps who believe that "Prison Works!" and are probably in favour of bringing back the Birch too.
Except that "an extensive new study undertaken by researchers across all the Nordic countries reveals that the reoffending average across Europe is about 70-75 per cent. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, the average is 30 per cent. In Norway it is 20 per cent. Thus Bastoy, at just 16 per cent, has the lowest reoffending rate in Europe."
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good "Lock them up in horrible conditions and throw away the key!" rant...
-
sorry i was under the belief that if you were found guilty of commiting a crime and were sentenced to prison then you lost all rights!!
*ALL* Rights??
You mean they should lose the Right to life, the Right not to be tortured, the Right not to be forced into slavery...?
ok maybe i should have been more carefull with my choice of words however I do believe there are some crimes that should lose the right of life! as for right not to be tortured I agree with that , the right not to be forced into slavery.. what classes as slavery? doing a job for no pay
ie do you mean forced labour or chain gangs? or the conditions you are kept & live in?
not trying to be a smart ar$e with my comments or prevoke a flood of responses
if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?
I'm not saying all murderers should be given the death penalty but each case be reviewed on its own merit.
-
just like to point out this is only my opinion and not meant to cause offence to anyone
-
... if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?
Because it's barbaric.
Because it puts the State in the hypocritical position of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Because it doesn't work as a deterrent.
Because it's actually more expensive than keeping people in jail.
-
... if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?
Because it's barbaric.
Because it puts the State in the hypocritical position of "Do as I say, not as I do".
Because it doesn't work as a deterrent.
Because it's actually more expensive than keeping people in jail.
fazerider, i have read this myself about a couple of weeks ago -ref to it is more expensive to execute someone than keep them in jail for life , im not questioning you.........but how the HELL is it more expensive for a six foot length of rope and a kick stool , rather than paying guards,cell maintenance keeping the cell full,care work,health ect ect of someone like peter sutcliffe ? like i said ,im not questioning you :evil
-
I think we should have two prison systems.
System 1 - For those on remand. Not yet convicted so get to keep the TV's, PlayStations, gyms etc and allowed to vote etc (just kept locked inside) because at this stage they have not been convicted. Pretty much like the single system we have now.
System 2 - cells with multiple inmates sharing. No TV, PlayStation, gym etc and kept locked in their cells for 23 hours a day apart from the ones given jobs to do. These jobs will be thing like delivery of meal trays to cells. Should help stop people reoffending as they wont want to go back in.
The current system gives the inmates a better life than many of them had on the outside. No wonder they are not bothered about going back!
-
i'm just speachless that the the human rights commision even entertained this!
I dunno I'm not really that bothered by this. But maybe it's been entertained becuase we are supposed to be a democracy and human rights are supposed to be universal.
Sure I can see how it upsets people, but on the other hand some people get locked up cos they haven't paid a fine, others might end up locked up on points of principle etc. So if you have a prison population, and you accept that prisons are supposed to be about reform, and even maybe some of those folks shouldn't really be in there, well who then decides who gets a vote and who doesn't.
Plus don't forget that governments set and amend laws (not quite as simple as that but you know what I mean), so if democracy and government have the power to lock people up, is it really a good thing that they can also deny them their democratic rights. You know how handy would it be to lock up your political opponents?
Further, there is nothing to stop a prisoner from standing for election, and I can think one MP who was voted in whilst behind bars. So if you can stand whilst locked up, surely those locked up should have the vote.
As for locking people up, I have in the past here mentioned several voluntary schemes by which with agreement of both prisoners and victims, the prisoner can substantially reduce their sentence, they have been piloted and shown beyond any doubt to dramatically reduce re-offending, but such schemes whilst effective in rehabilitation, making our country safer, giving victims the opportunity to confront the perpetrators and participate in their rehabilitation whilst saving vast sums of money just don't play well to Daily Mail readers and as a result ain't a vote winner.
Capital punishment, no no no. The UK used, has now been prevented from, but would again hang the innocent. Never again.
Give prisoners the vote? I mean why not?
-
*ALL* Rights??
You mean they should lose the Right to life, the Right not to be tortured, the Right not to be forced into slavery...?
ok maybe i should have been more carefull with my choice of words however I do believe there are some crimes that should lose the right of life!
I don't. This is simply legal murder. "You've killed someone? Ok, we'll kill you to balancee the books." Doesn't work, has never worked in the past, won't work in the future.
the right not to be forced into slavery.. what classes as slavery? doing a job for no pay
ie do you mean forced labour or chain gangs? or the conditions you are kept & live in?
One definition of slavery is if you are required to work and not permitted to withdraw your labour.
if someone is convicted beyond all doubt that they are guilty of crimes such as Sutcliffe, Brady, Hindley, West & Bronson then why should they not be given the death penalty. they should never be allowed to be released from prison! so why have the expense of keeping them?
What value do you put on a human life? *ANY* life? Does the value of one person's life diminish because they've done something others don't like?
Anyway, this is getting way off the topic, so I'm going to leave it here.
Getting back to the subject of votes for prisoners, the real question why should they not have the right to vote?
Is them having the vote going to have such a massive effect on society that they have to be denied that right to stop the election being skewed? Well, no.
What benefit is there to society of them losing their right to vote? Is someone who is about to commit a crime going to suddenly think "Wow, hang on, I'd better not do that otherwise I won't be able to vote"? I doubt it.
What about people who are doing Community Service or other such things? Should they still have the right to vote even though they're convicted criminals? Or is it only people who are locked up? If it's only people who are locked up, should it be *all* those who are locked up or only those in Class A prisons? Or perhaps those only serving a certain length of sentence (arbitrarily decided)?
This is really nothing more than Political Grandstanding designed to appeal to Middle England, rather than to actually do any real good.
-
System 2 - cells with multiple inmates sharing. No TV, PlayStation, gym etc and kept locked in their cells for 23 hours a day apart from the ones given jobs to do. These jobs will be thing like delivery of meal trays to cells. Should help stop people reoffending as they wont want to go back in.
Look at the history of the Victorian Prison system. They had that. It didn't stop reoffending.
-
It's so tough trying to make a crust these days.
Who can blame the poor criminals for their behavior?
What does it matter that ordinary folks lives get destroyed in the process?
Bless them, they can't help it.
They need all the help society can give.
I suggest we all contribute £50 per month to give them that well deserved 'leg up'
Criminals have rights and feelings too.
-
All prisoners should have rights, but only the rights that exist within the prison walls. When they are released, give them some time to prove that they are going to be a law abiding citizen and a value to society and only then should they be given the rights that every other law abiding citizen has.
Basically, you do the crime, you do the time, and you will not have the rights of a law abiding citizen whilst doing time - end of!!
-
All prisoners should have rights, but only the rights that exist within the prison walls. When they are released, give them some time to prove that they are going to be a law abiding citizen and a value to society and only then should they be given the rights that every other law abiding citizen has.
Basically, you do the crime, you do the time, and you will not have the rights of a law abiding citizen whilst doing time - end of!!
AMEN TO THAT!
Grahamm - do you also think that parents shouldn't be able to smack their kids? Just wonderin. :rolleyes
-
Grahamm - do you also think that parents shouldn't be able to smack their kids? Just wonderin. :rolleyes
Smack, yes. Beat? No.
-
you will not have the rights of a law abiding citizen
Law abiding? Or just *not been caught"? How many people in these forums are not "law abiding" when it comes to speed limits...?
It's easy to make gradiose pronouncements (politicians do it all the time!) but it's a bit more difficult when you actually start trying to define boundaries.
-
Prison should be prison. Your sentence should be your sentence. Simple.
Prison should be a locked room 24/7 except to shower/eat. Rest of the time, in the room, no tv, no playstation, no snooker table etc. A friend of mine did a few months in a low risk/open prison and said it was like Butlins. There was even an offy over the road they could go over to! He said when he was at Chelmsford there was less lenience, but it was still like a holiday for him.
If they want time out of their cell (Which, let's face it, isn't a cell, it's just somewhere to sleep) then make them work.
Prisoners should have basic human rights in prison. They should have no say in a community they have no part in for their duration.
If you are sentenced to 10 years, you should do 10 years. None of this parole crap. No early releases for 'good behaviour'!
I think if ^^ were the case, criminals may think a little harder about what it's like inside.
The MCTC have the right idea in Colchester. Make them sweep the roads and pick up fallen leaves. Every day. All day.
-
Transportation worked out really well for our southern hemisphere cousins.
Look at them now! Mostly working behind bars in London again after all this time.
-
The MCTC have the right idea in Colchester. Make them sweep the roads and pick up fallen leaves. Every day. All day.
I kind of agree with this sentiment but I doubt the old roadsweeping teams employed by the council won't
-
Rob, they're doing extra work. The council don't sweep leaves, only rubbish. That's the whole point. It's pointless! Lol
-
ah I see, maybe they should have to guard drying paint as well :lol
-
Prison should be prison. Your sentence should be your sentence. Simple.
Prison should be a locked room 24/7 except to shower/eat. Rest of the time, in the room, no tv, no playstation, no snooker table etc. A friend of mine did a few months in a low risk/open prison and said it was like Butlins. There was even an offy over the road they could go over to! He said when he was at Chelmsford there was less lenience, but it was still like a holiday for him.
If they want time out of their cell (Which, let's face it, isn't a cell, it's just somewhere to sleep) then make them work.
Prisoners should have basic human rights in prison. They should have no say in a community they have no part in for their duration.
If you are sentenced to 10 years, you should do 10 years. None of this parole crap. No early releases for 'good behaviour'!
I think if ^^ were the case, criminals may think a little harder about what it's like inside.
The MCTC have the right idea in Colchester. Make them sweep the roads and pick up fallen leaves. Every day. All day.
:thumbup totally agree with you tori couldn't have put it better myself
-
Prison should be prison. Your sentence should be your sentence. Simple.
Prison should be a locked room 24/7 except to shower/eat. Rest of the time, in the room, no tv, no playstation, no snooker table etc. A friend of mine did a few months in a low risk/open prison and said it was like Butlins. There was even an offy over the road they could go over to! He said when he was at Chelmsford there was less lenience, but it was still like a holiday for him.
If they want time out of their cell (Which, let's face it, isn't a cell, it's just somewhere to sleep) then make them work.
Prisoners should have basic human rights in prison. They should have no say in a community they have no part in for their duration.
If you are sentenced to 10 years, you should do 10 years. None of this parole crap. No early releases for 'good behaviour'!
I think if ^^ were the case, criminals may think a little harder about what it's like inside.
The MCTC have the right idea in Colchester. Make them sweep the roads and pick up fallen leaves. Every day. All day.
NOt sure about England, but in my country, if say a kid carelessly jumps in front of your car and you don't manage to avoid. You go to prison.
If you can't afford to pay bills, or fines, you go to prison.
If you are getting robbed, you overreact and brake a bone of your attacker, you go to prison.
Prisons are with harsh conditions and prisoners get out worse than they were when they got in. The worse the conditions, the more problematic people come out of prisons. I'd rather have a death sentence, than hard condition in prisons.
-
So what do you suggest? Make our prisons like the local Marriott? What tosh!! If you commit a crime, do your time, in the conditions the prison provides. If you don't like it, don't commit the crime! Tough love might work two ways, but I think the majority of those who offend again, would of done so anyway, because they're just of that mindset.
This country needs to toughen up!!
Tori for pm!!! :lol
-
Prison should be a locked room 24/7 except to shower/eat.
Sorry, but prison is about restriction of rights, and more importantly about reform. Prison is supposed to be a correction facility.
Prison as simply as a deterrent, never did work, never will work, and cannot ever work.
-
So what do you suggest? Make our prisons like the local Marriott? What tosh!! If you commit a crime, do your time, in the conditions the prison provides. If you don't like it, don't commit the crime! Tough love might work two ways, but I think the majority of those who offend again, would of done so anyway, because they're just of that mindset.
This country needs to toughen up!!
Tori for pm!!! :lol
You did not read and comprehend the post you replied to. You CAN end up in prison without DELIBERATELY trying to break the law. Do you understand that (I'm not being sarcastic, no offence meant - I've seen good honest men in prison for accidents or mistakes, or for bad judges)? It does happen to real, nice, ordinary people.
The Danish prison, like paradise island, does have the least rate of prisoners continuing to do crime. They get aprenticeship in learning how to make living leagally, socialization etc. Those are the results of that ongoing experiment. You could also call it facts.
-
I did read your post. I'm well aware decent people can end up in jail. Truth is, they broke the law.
I do however, agree with rehab in jail. Just lock them in their cells the rest of the time!
-
I love that there's a discussion like this going on here and everyone can make their point and civil to each other! So many threads on da interwebz these days just end up with insults, flame wars and a massively off topic thread!
What about the argument that if prison is not just a punishment but also an attempt to rehabilitate, to make them more integrated into society and therefore less likely to re-offend, would giving them the vote not help this? Give people the information they need to make an opinion on an election must surely make them involved in a society?
-
:lol :rollin :lol
-
I did read your post. I'm well aware decent people can end up in jail. Truth is, they broke the law.
It is also truth that the worse conditions in a prison are, the worse people come out of that prison. Less likely to integrate into society.
I'd love to see a system of yellow and red cards. You can make any kind of idiocy once. Get a booking. Serve short time with all the possible benefits. Free training in certain trades, opportunity to work for money, education, psychologists, etc. Serve the same for any crime commited once. Do a certain thing twice, get a second booking, serve in harsher conditions, for a short time. Do the same thing three times - bullet in the head.
The biggest crime I see is that washing streets of garbage gets you a wage to hardly survive, while selling Coca Cola to kids makes you rich.
Vote is overrated - if it could really change anything, it would be prohibited. All the politicians play for the same group of rich people.
-
I love that there's a discussion like this going on here and everyone can make their point and civil to each other! So many threads on da interwebz these days just end up with insults, flame wars and a massively off topic thread!
What about the argument that if prison is not just a punishment but also an attempt to rehabilitate, to make them more integrated into society and therefore less likely to re-offend, would giving them the vote not help this? Give people the information they need to make an opinion on an election must surely make them involved in a society?
why would you want to get them involved in society ?- look what they done when they was LAST involved in society !
why should they have an opinion to get some vote ?they should lose all rights when they over step the mark in the first place
this country needs to grow some balls and tear up the human rights bill and the eec court of appeal and send all these terrorists back to the countries wanting to try them for convictions and start building some 6ft by 6ft cells for prisoners with nothing in them exept straw for bedding and lock em up for 23.5 hours a day,it would save the country billions a year to build hospitals and lets face it -if you done a year or two locked up like that ,would you want to re offend as soon as you were released ?
-
/me smiles politely, steps backwards out of room, closes door quietly :rolleyes
:rollin
-
this country needs to grow some balls and tear up the human rights bill and the eec court of appeal and send all these terrorists back to the countries wanting to try them for convictions and start building some 6ft by 6ft cells for prisoners with nothing in them exept straw for bedding and lock em up for 23.5 hours a day,it would save the country billions a year to build hospitals and lets face it -if you done a year or two locked up like that ,would you want to re offend as soon as you were released ?
What a load of bollocks. The human rights act is a simple and fantastic piece of legislation, however interpretation and implementation of that act has not always been perfect. I think those who rant about human rights legislation seem to forget our recent history and our long struggle for a just society.
As for certain cases relating to alleged terrorists living in the UK, whom we are told are apparently a threat to the UK, I agree the UK needs to grow balls. If these people have committed crimes in our country, if they are indeed a threat to this country, then they should be tried in this country. It's about time the UK stopped trying to export justice to dodgy dictator lead states with no or barely functioning legal systems. Yes there are people taking the piss out of the UK becuase the UK does not have the balls to do what it should be doing. It's shameful.
it would save the country billions a year to build hospitals and lets face it -if you done a year or two locked up like that ,would you want to re offend as soon as you were released ?
Look don't kid yourself. This story is of little consequence, but I'm sure certain politicans and newspapers will try and use it to draw out attention from the real issues that are effecting our economy and effecting us all. If you wanna start building homes, schools, hospitals, invest in infrastructure and get this country working again, then we need to go after the tax dodgers, tighten up the tax laws on buisiness and make sure everybody is paying their share as well as replacing the minimum wage with a living wage. That's why we are getting shafted, that's where the real money is, but hey as long as people are dumb enougth to get distracted by rants about votes for prisoners and benefits cheats etc etc, well nothing will change and we'll just get shafted more and more.
Doh!
-
It is also truth that the worse conditions in a prison are, the worse people come out of that prison. Less likely to integrate into society..
simples init dont let the cnuts out
-
Prison should be a locked room 24/7 except to shower/eat. Rest of the time, in the room, no tv, no playstation, no snooker table etc.
Yes, because that worked *so* well back in Victorian times when they tried it.
Hell, why don't be bring back breaking rocks or turning a crank or the treadmill too? They worked well in the past, didn't they? After all, that's why we still use them now...
If you are sentenced to 10 years, you should do 10 years. None of this parole crap. No early releases for 'good behaviour'!
Right, so how much extra in taxes would you pay to cover the cost of building the extra prisons needed, employing more guards, feeding prisoners for all that extra time and so on which that would involve??
I think if ^^ were the case, criminals may think a little harder about what it's like inside.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - George Satayana.
-
I think those who rant about human rights legislation seem to forget our recent history and our long struggle for a just society.
Very true. They also haven't looked back at history and seen *WHY* we have the European Convention on Human Rights.
Maybe they just aren't familiar with terms like "Untermensch"...
It's about time the UK stopped trying to export justice to dodgy dictator lead states with no or barely functioning legal systems.
Or, indeed, *supporting* dodgy dictator lead states (Pinochet, Mubarak, Al Saud...)
-
Indeed we are world leaders in supporting despots, dictators and terrorists. Good to see DC back touring the middle east touting and trying to sell em yet more 'defence' equipment.
If you are sentenced to 10 years, you should do 10 years. None of this parole crap. No early releases for 'good behaviour'!
Yeah, and what you gonna do when all the prison guards walk in protest at any such proposal. Straight sentences means no incentive to behave. A nightmare for prisons guards.
-
Clearly I'm a bitch for having an opinion. So much for polite debate!
-
If they were locked in a cell they could misbehave all they like. There's always a do gooder bleating on about human rights and how we're 'too harsh'. Fine. You pay for it then! I pay tax towards things I'm never going to use, let them have a different tax code when they come out too and pay some of it back!
Incentive to behave my arse.
-
If you are sentenced to 10 years, you should do 10 years. None of this parole crap. No early releases for 'good behaviour'!
Yeah, and what you gonna do when all the prison guards walk in protest at any such proposal. Straight sentences means no incentive to behave. A nightmare for prisons guards.
How about instead of a reduced sentence for good behaviour, you get an extended one for bad behaviour?
-
:lol Works for me ;-)
-
Clearly I'm a bitch for having an opinion. So much for polite debate!
Oh come on Tori - It was humour! And it was the prisoner who called you that, not me :lol
I'm with you all the way!
-
We don't need to build extra prisons, have you ever stayed in a Butlins holiday camp? The threat of being sent to one of them would fix this problem overnight.
Seriously though, this is a complex problem and the solutions usually touted by wannabe governments are far too simple to be effective. The alternative of propper prisoner reform costs money and isn't a vote winner so the problem will continue.
-
The alternative of proper prisoner reform costs money and isn't a vote winner so the problem will continue.
Which is a shame, because it's been shown to be a lot more effective than the "Get tough, Prison Works!" nonsense touted by politicians who want to pander to the media and to public ignorance rather than actually do something about the problem...
http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/ (http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/)
-
How about this?
All lifers are put into an old navy aircraft carrier and taken out to the mid Atlantic where the ship can be used for target practice by anyone with a cannon?
All long term prisoners are locked in their cells 23.5 hours a day and only allowed out to empty their crap buckets?
All short term prisoners (under 5 years??) are put on chain gangs and put to work in the community wearing bright pink jumpsuits.
It might prevent re-offending.
Oh and Graham, the reason we moved away from the strict Victorian system wasn't because it didn't work, it did, it was because of soft MP's.
-
How about this?
[...]
It might prevent re-offending.
Oh and Graham, the reason we moved away from the strict Victorian system wasn't because it didn't work, it did, it was because of soft MP's.
Clueless.
Try reading some history of prisons and you'll see just how "succesful" the Victorian system and others like it were at preventing reoffending...
-
bbbrown - the whole world has gone soft :'( :'( it is a given fact isnt it that if you knew you would be put on an aircraft carrier and used for target practise ,you would be deterred from doing armed robbery or whatever else these scum bags do :D
make all them sow mailbags for 20 hours a day for 10 pence and then when they leave prison after spending 20 years in a 6ft by 6ft cell with straw for the bed TATTOO on their forehead the crime they done so they have a reminder for rest of their lives what a past they have !!!
give me a tattoo gun -i,ll do it
if the country has gone this soft in the last 40 years ,then what the hell will it be like in 40 years time ?
-
bbbrown - the whole world has gone soft :'( :'( it is a given fact isnt it that if you knew you would be put on an aircraft carrier and used for target practise ,you would be deterred from doing armed robbery or whatever else these scum bags do :D
You somehow take it for granted that criminals are being rational. They do fear the punishment, but it's not like they all make calculated career choices when breaking the law. It doesn't work that way.
-
then what the hell will it be like in 40 years time ?
Since we are an island nation we could exploit that and be turned into a European super prison island. Just build a massive wall around the coast, remove all technology, airdrop in new prisoners and supplies in and let them sort it out between themselves. The money would allow us to purchase an island in the south pacific called Betterer Great Britain.
I jest, it should be called Great Brian.
Prison systems around the world vary in terms of prisoner quality of life and crime is still committed when prison conditions are terrible. The severity of punishment is not a deterrent if you don't think there is anything wrong with breaking the law or that you will not be caught.
-
it is a given fact isnt it that if you knew you would be put on an aircraft carrier and used for target practise ,you would be deterred from doing armed robbery or whatever else these scum bags do
No, it's complete bullshit.
"The Bloody Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Code) is a term used to refer to the system of laws and punishments in England between 1688 and 1815. It was not referred to as such in its own time, but the name was given later owing to the sharply increased number of crimes that attracted the death penalty such as capital crimes."
So, what happened? Crime stopped because you could be hanged for "Grand larceny, defined as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence"? Well, no, it didn't.
So what did happen? Answer Juries would deliberately (and often massively) underestimate the value of goods so people would not be sentenced to death because, incredibly enough, most people are not complete sociopaths and whilst they may talk big (especially on internet forums!) when it actually comes to passing a guilty verdict which would take someone's life, they are not willing to do so.
And, frankly, anyone who *could* do such a thing is the one who *REALLY* should be locked up for the protection of society!!
-
bbbrown - the whole world has gone soft :'( :'( it is a given fact isnt it that if you knew you would be put on an aircraft carrier and used for target practise ,you would be deterred from doing armed robbery or whatever else these scum bags do :D
You somehow take it for granted that criminals are being rational. They do fear the punishment, but it's not like they all make calculated career choices when breaking the law. It doesn't work that way.
Precisely!!
The single largest group of prisoners these days (~50%) are druggies that are mugging/shoplifting/burgling in order to score their next fix, throw in the fact that most violent crime is comitted by people that have been drinking. It shows how little understanding of the situation that the Daily Mail readers have that they think either of these groups take time to consider the possible outcome of their actions.
As does the suggestion to extend sentences for bad behaviour rather than reduce it for good. In order to make someone spend time behind bars it's neccessary to follow the legal process of charging them with an offence, trying & convicting them in a court & finally sentencing them. Therefore if someone is serving a sentence & commits an offence that's not an imprisonable one, you can't extend their sentence. If they do then you have to go through the judicial process & follow the laws of the land to do it, allowing time off for good behaviour sidesteps all this time, effort & expense as they've already been sentenced. It also helps the prison staff too, as it reduces general low level disruptive behaviour which in itself may not be a criminal offence, but can currently be punished by loss of remission.
-
The single largest group of prisoners these days (~50%) are druggies that are mugging/shoplifting/burgling in order to score their next fix,
In my country, 90% of violent crime (robberies, brake and enter etc) could be stopped if addicts were allowed to plow fields and raise crops to make heroin for their own use. It would be free, society would be a lot less dangerous. However, government agencies and mafia (who pay politicians) would be out of business. They use drug money for financing and legalizing would make them loose a lot of money. Some people profit from high crime rate.
-
then what the hell will it be like in 40 years time ?
Since we are an island nation we could exploit that and be turned into a European super prison island. Just build a massive wall around the coast, remove all technology, airdrop in new prisoners and supplies in and let them sort it out between themselves. The money would allow us to purchase an island in the south pacific called Betterer Great Britain.
I jest, it should be called Great Brian.
:eek And just how are the illegal drug dealing benifit scrounging immigrants suppose to get in then. :\
:b :b :b
-
then what the hell will it be like in 40 years time ?
Since we are an island nation we could exploit that and be turned into a European super prison island. Just build a massive wall around the coast, remove all technology, airdrop in new prisoners and supplies in and let them sort it out between themselves. The money would allow us to purchase an island in the south pacific called Betterer Great Britain.
I jest, it should be called Great Brian.
:eek And just how are the illegal drug dealing benifit scrounging immigrants suppose to get in then. :\
:b :b :b
by the good old fashioned "HUMAN RIGHTS " asylum -"you give me benefits,house , free medical treatment ,schooling ,more benefits ,then when i get old free pensions,and old peoples home ,without me paying a penny into the society asylum human rights :rolleyes ;)
-
by the good old fashioned "HUMAN RIGHTS " asylum -"you give me benefits,house , free medical treatment ,schooling ,more benefits ,then when i get old free pensions,and old peoples home ,without me paying a penny into the society asylum human rights :rolleyes ;)
I get up at 6, go to work, come home about 17. Eat, walk the dog, and it's already dark. From 16 hours I'm awake, work takes 10, more than half!
A good friend of mine can't afford a motorcycle. He lives off welfare. Refuses to do minimum wage job, since it's almost like welfare but takes more than half of your day. He has all the day for himself. Walking by the river, reading etc. I respect that. Wouldn't force to work anyone who doesn't want to.
I understand if you blame immigrants for taking jobs for lower wages, making you too work for lower wage. But if you blame them for not working - are all the natives hard working, or do you not have "lazy" Englishmen as well. These last few posts are on the edge of racism/schauvinism.
Fingers say it all:
Stiff Little Fingers - Welcome To The Whole Week (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xW-RGbL5kA#ws)
-
by the good old fashioned "HUMAN RIGHTS " asylum -"you give me benefits,house , free medical treatment ,schooling ,more benefits ,then when i get old free pensions,and old peoples home ,without me paying a penny into the society asylum human rights :rolleyes ;)
I get up at 6, go to work, come home about 17. Eat, walk the dog, and it's already dark. From 16 hours I'm awake, work takes 10, more than half!
A good friend of mine can't afford a motorcycle. He lives off welfare. Refuses to do minimum wage job, since it's almost like welfare but takes more than half of your day. He has all the day for himself. Walking by the river, reading etc. I respect that. Wouldn't force to work anyone who doesn't want to.
I understand if you blame immigrants for taking jobs for lower wages, making you too work for lower wage. But if you blame them for not working - are all the natives hard working, or do you not have "lazy" Englishmen as well. These last few posts are on the edge of racism/schauvinism.
Fingers say it all:
Stiff Little Fingers - Welcome To The Whole Week ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xW-RGbL5kA#ws[/url])
slaninar ,- my post is not about being racist at all,far from it ,BUT i do have a chip on my shoulder about "human rights" :z
ever since that word has abused by all illegal immigrants,prisoners , ect ect all it has ever achieved is to give the people who want to sponge in my country a lawful right to sponge and the government has to fall over backwards to them ...so my friend no,its not about racism
-
by the good old fashioned "HUMAN RIGHTS " asylum -"you give me benefits,house , free medical treatment ,schooling ,more benefits ,then when i get old free pensions,and old peoples home ,without me paying a penny into the society asylum human rights ([url]http://foc-u.co.uk/Smileys/efocicon/rolleyes.gif[/url]) ([url]http://foc-u.co.uk/Smileys/efocicon/wink.gif[/url])
Can you back any of that up with facts? Cos me thinks you are full of foccin shite.
As for drug addicts, when are we going to realise the drug war has been lost. You know about 90% plus of break ins and other 'minor' crimes in the town I live in are committed by drug addicts. I say 'minor' because it ain't very minor if it happens to you. Of course we insist in keeping drugs illegal and filling our prisons with drug addicts, instead of investing in programmes that will help and stabilise addicts and put the organised ciminals and drug dealers out of business .
Refuses to do minimum wage job, since it's almost like welfare but takes more than half of your day.
Can't blame him really. But when are people going to wake up to the con of the minimum wage. You can't live on the minimum wage, yet big national and multi-national companies use the minimum wage as if it were a living wage. Why are we subsidising these fat cat directors and their rich shareholders, why have we got David Cameron and a cabinet of multimillionaires in power who protect the bankers, the fat cat directors, all their tax dodging friends instead of tackling the real issues that effect the rest of us. Millions of people on the minimum wage get subsidies from other only slightly more wealthy tax payers. The rich in this country are robbing the poor, and they are doing it broad daylight but people appear to be too stupid and blind to see it. So instead they rant and rave about votes for prisoners (you know with soup kitchens and food banks opening up all over the country as a result of Tory policy you can bet that in turn the prison population is about to swell), benefits cheats, oh yes immigrants, can't be long before somebody starts ranting about Muslims too!
-
didnt think it would be long before some cnut played the racist card.....ok we give up
-
The single largest group of prisoners these days (~50%) are druggies that are mugging/shoplifting/burgling in order to score their next fix, throw in the fact that most violent crime is comitted by people that have been drinking. It shows how little understanding of the situation that the Daily Mail readers have that they think either of these groups take time to consider the possible outcome of their actions.
I'm glad to see that at least *someone* understands the situation! :thumbup
-
If we are going to have a go at immigrants, where I work we employ eastern European agency workers, minimum wage for a low skilled job. Why well we could not get any British national to do the work. These workers share lodgings and don’t expect luxuries, they work hard 12 hours a day and are glad for the opportunity. I have and I would work for minimum wage as for me its self-respect to say I am working. We can moan all we like about foreign workers but we as a nation have become spoilt and lazy. We pay the agency minimum wage as we would be out of business if we paid anymore.
-
ok lets say prisoners are given the right to vote, whether you agree or disagree with this, which ward would they vote in? The one where the prison is situated or would they have a postal vote for the ward in which they lived in before been imprisoned?
-
The latter - they'd get a vote at the address at which they resided immediately before they became a prisoner.
-
And seeing as facts are being introduced into the argument :pokefun let me just point out that:
Not all prisoners will get the vote. There are three options: ban for prisoners sentenced to 4 years or more; ban for prisoners sentenced to 6 months or more; ban for all prisoners (i.e. no change).
The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union except the word European.
Almost all other European countries allow some or all their prisoners to vote.
-
ok lets say prisoners are given the right to vote, whether you agree or disagree with this, which ward would they vote in? The one where the prison is situated or would they have a postal vote for the ward in which they lived in before been imprisoned?
The one which they lived in.