What's wrong in the world

[subsonicnat]

The world has gone to **** hasn't it. I'm firmly of the belief that anyone who commits a crime this brutal should be disposed of. I don't care about rehab - quite frankly we are over populated as a planet so we could manage without them. They talk about costs but why does it have to cost? It's all down to the pen pushers and folk who need to create such a difficult process at the end.

 

Personally I'd have a door with a chute leading to an under ground incinerator next to the court room. Open the door and chuck them in. A unit like that could be run for less money than one prisoner costs per year. You'd only have to spark it up once a week and shovel out the ash to make space for the next lot. Anyone, and I mean anyone who gets more than ten years should get that treatment automatically. Just walk them out, open the door and give them a push. Done!

 

Of course we could try to fix them but why? Animals aren't given that level of care and it makes me sick that as humans we feel we matter more than every other species on the planet. Just put them down as cheaply as possible.

This does sound rather horrific,,

No the answer is a Holiday,The great Barrier Reef..

10,000ft, open the aircraft door,,Do it fairly so everyone has the same rights,,Kick them out one at a time,But,,always leave one to take back,so he can tell his mates how loud they scream when exiting the door to their holiday,,Great Whites will clear up in no time..

By the way the guy who didn't get shoved out the door with the first batch,has to take his turn on the next trip.. I would empty All Jails in a month,,with no one wanting to go inside for any reason..

So come on,,,,Send them on Holiday,Just the once..

[wymberley]

This does sound rather horrific,,

No the answer is a Holiday,The great Barrier Reef..

10,000ft, open the aircraft door,,Do it fairly so everyone has the same rights,,Kick them out one at a time,But,,always leave one to take back,so he can tell his mates how loud they scream when exiting the door to their holiday,,Great Whites will clear up in no time..

By the way the guy who didn't get shoved out the door with the first batch,has to take his turn on the next trip.. I would empty All Jails in a month,,with no one wanting to go inside for any reason..

So come on,,,,Send them on Holiday,Just the once..

Yep, that works although it was over the desert and not the sea.

[krugerandsmith]

An elderly couple in Bristol have had their front door kicked in they've been mugged the old gent was bashed on the head with a cleaver and had boiling water poured on him

What on gods green earth is wrong with these people

 

Could it be in- breeding.

[Dr D]

Can't disagree with that, which is why I said SOME of the hra, (which as we know is part of the echr) should be removed for PRISONERS, decent law abiding people should enjoy all the protections they can get.

Now you know that doesn't make any sense and is counterintuitive to the first principle of human rights law - universality. There are no deserving and undeserving, just 'humans' and once we move beyond that the slippery slope towards 'dehumanising' starts and we all know where that leads. So, as I said lets not talk about human rights, let's focus on sentencing guidelines.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Dr D

[guest1957]

There are some nutters on here. Society has in fact improved consistently over the years and there is plenty of evidence to back this up. People feel that this isn't the case because the media shoves bad news down people's throats day in and day out.

[12gauge82]

Now you know that doesn't make any sense and is counterintuitive to the first principle of human rights law - universality. There are no deserving and undeserving, just 'humans' and once we move beyond that the slippery slope towards 'dehumanising' starts and we all know where that leads. So, as I said lets not talk about human rights, let's focus on sentencing guidelines.

You make a good point however as I'm sure you know, we never signed up to the entire act in the first place so I see no reason we couldn't alter or do away with other articles anyway.

[Munzy]

No idea what the answer is, and it does seem from evidence that the death-penalty does not appear to be a deterrent.

 

However, one thing it would do is prevent reoffending.

 

For me this is what it boils down to.

 

Sentencing should not be for 'punishment' or 'deterrent' because I don't truly believe in the former (as much as I'd like to, morally I'm opposed to "an eye for an eye", I think we are better than that) and I don't believe in the latter because crazies, career criminals and disrespectful scumbags just don't care enough for it to have an effect.

 

For me I would be happy to see far more severe sentencing across the board, including the death penalty. I would support this simply because society does not need to carry the dead weight of these people who chose not to look after their fellow citizens when committing their crime.

 

Depending on the seriousness of the offence, sentencing should act in such a way that these people are removed from society for a relative period of time, some forever.

 

What good does a sadistic murderer or paedophile offer society? Is it likely a knife wielding burglar (career criminal with 10+ offences) will change his ways and give back to the community? Society does not need such people. This should form the basis for sentencing in my opinion.

 

To answer a couple of people in this thread, this stance does not put any more power in the hands of the "government" to take advantage of people and eradicate those whom pose a threat. It does not jeopardise our freedom. My family was torn about by the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in which every community in Spain saw neighbours turn against each other, brothers kill each other, a dictator determine who was a criminal and who wasn't for his own gain. I understand the importance of our legal system and of things like the Human Rights Act. I agree wholeheartedly that it is dangerous and naïve to do away with the HRA or to remove the protection this sort of law offers all of us.

 

Making sentencing tougher does not remove this protection, it does not change the emphasis on who the criminals are. It simply deals with the criminals in a way that, it would seem, most people would support, a way in which we would lose a large number of parasites from our communities.

[12gauge82]

There are some nutters on here. Society has in fact improved consistently over the years and there is plenty of evidence to back this up. People feel that this isn't the case because the media shoves bad news down people's throats day in and day out.

Some things have improved others have got considerably worse, I would agree it's probably safer on the whole now

[12gauge82]

For me this is what it boils down to.

 

Sentencing should not be for 'punishment' or 'deterrent' because I don't truly believe in the former (as much as I'd like to, morally I'm opposed to "an eye for an eye", I think we are better than that) and I don't believe in the latter because crazies, career criminals and disrespectful scumbags just don't care enough for it to have an effect.

 

For me I would be happy to see far more severe sentencing across the board, including the death penalty. I would support this simply because society does not need to carry the dead weight of these people who chose not to look after their fellow citizens when committing their crime.

 

Depending on the seriousness of the offence, sentencing should act in such a way that these people are removed from society for a relative period of time, some forever.

 

What good does a sadistic murderer or paedophile offer society? Is it likely a knife wielding burglar (career criminal with 10+ offences) will change his ways and give back to the community? Society does not need such people. This should form the basis for sentencing in my opinion.

 

To answer a couple of people in this thread, this stance does not put any more power in the hands of the "government" to take advantage of people and eradicate those whom pose a threat. It does not jeopardise our freedom. My family was torn about by the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in which every community in Spain saw neighbours turn against each other, brothers kill each other, a dictator determine who was a criminal and who wasn't for his own gain. I understand the importance of our legal system and of things like the Human Rights Act. I agree wholeheartedly that it is dangerous and naïve to do away with the HRA or to remove the protection this sort of law offers all of us.

 

Making sentencing tougher does not remove this protection, it does not change the emphasis on who the criminals are. It simply deals with the criminals in a way that, it would seem, most people would support, a way in which we would lose a large number of parasites from our communities.

+1 perhaps a better way to describe my own view, before a posted my first throw away comment on this thread

[subsonicnat]

You have to look at the Origanal thread.

What would you say,if it was your mother and father they did this to..

You will NEVER Change this scums thinking EVER..

[Lloyd90]

+1 perhaps a better way to describe my own view, before a posted my first throw away comment on this thread

Proper rehabilitation for lesser crimes and proper rough sentencing for serious crimes we can agree on!!

[UKPoacher]

Has anyone actually considered that punishment is only effective it is enforced and a likely result of a criminal action? Doesn't matter whether you bring in the death penalty for litter dropping if the criminal justice system is so weak that offenders aren't likely to get caught let alone found guilty.

 

The biggest reason for the deterioration in society is that people are now far less likely to get caught for antisocial behaviour and minor crimes. Not being afraid of the law leads to offenders becoming brazen and to escalate their behaviour.

[12gauge82]

Has anyone actually considered that punishment is only effective it is enforced and a likely result of a criminal action? Doesn't matter whether you bring in the death penalty for litter dropping if the criminal justice system is so weak that offenders aren't likely to get caught let alone found guilty.

 

The biggest reason for the deterioration in society is that people are now far less likely to get caught for antisocial behaviour and minor crimes. Not being afraid of the law leads to offenders becoming brazen and to escalate their behaviour.

+1

Proper rehabilitation for lesser crimes and proper rough sentencing for serious crimes we can agree on!!

Agreed :-)

[Thunderbird]

Has anyone actually considered that punishment is only effective it is enforced and a likely result of a criminal action? Doesn't matter whether you bring in the death penalty for litter dropping if the criminal justice system is so weak that offenders aren't likely to get caught let alone found guilty.

 

The biggest reason for the deterioration in society is that people are now far less likely to get caught for antisocial behaviour and minor crimes. Not being afraid of the law leads to offenders becoming brazen and to escalate their behaviour.

 

 

You've hit on something there.

 

I for one don't really subscribe to the "I was beaten senseless as a child and it didn't do me any harm" type of thinking, for one, if as a parent you have to resort to smacking the hell out of your kids you need to go and have a long look in the mirror and have a word with yourself. Good parenting doesn't have to include violence. If it does it's you who have failed and not your kids, you've naused up parenting already and perhaps it's yourself that needs a smack.

 

Having said that, antisocial-behavioir type crimes can and do make people's lives an absolute daily misery, and one of these days someone is going to take the law into their own hands and go all Harry Brown on them.

 

It's going to happen.

[Dr D]

You make a good point however as I'm sure you know, we never signed up to the entire act in the first place so I see no reason we couldn't alter or do away with other articles anyway.

I certainly never said we 'couldnt' do as you suggest. I just posed the opinion that we 'shouldnt'. Not least because I don't think human rights are to blame, and therefore doing away with some of them isn't the answer.

 

Also changing the HRA, would be pointless unless we also withdrew from the echr. The judges would continue to look to Strasbourg jurisprudence knowing that such cases would probably end up there.

 

Of course, this would mean leaving the council of europe. But I suppose we are already leaving the EU. In for a penny, in for pound!

 

Oh, but there's also that pesky UN, covenant on civil and political rights which mirrors the echr articles. The UK has ratified the treaty and the courts look to it for guidance. Perhaps we should leave the UN. Why not.

 

Isolationism versus universal human rights norms. I'm not sure that's the answer?!?!?

[Westley]

 

Could it be in- breeding.

 

Closer than you may think with that one, I see the names of the current offenders and think, well, I was locking up his Grandparents and Parents before he was even born !

[vinny123]

what actually should we do if they were caught,lot of opinions on what we can't. we need people to be scared of commiting such crimes.

[12gauge82]

I certainly never said we 'couldnt' do as you suggest. I just posed the opinion that we 'shouldnt'. Not least because I don't think human rights are to blame, and therefore doing away with some of them isn't the answer.

 

Also changing the HRA, would be pointless unless we also withdrew from the echr. The judges would continue to look to Strasbourg jurisprudence knowing that such cases would probably end up there.

 

Of course, this would mean leaving the council of europe. But I suppose we are already leaving the EU. In for a penny, in for pound!

 

Oh, but there's also that pesky UN, covenant on civil and political rights which mirrors the echr articles. The UK has ratified the treaty and the courts look to it for guidance. Perhaps we should leave the UN. Why not.

 

Isolationism versus universal human rights norms. I'm not sure that's the answer?!?!?

Fair one, I can't see any holes in that statement, and of course I'm not for a second advocating leaving the UN, what I will say is the criminal justice system needs sorting in this country and the first place to start is by protecting the victims, if that means upsetting the care bears and curtailing offenders rights, I couldn't care less, decent people should come first.

[subsonicnat]

Think on the early years then,The Cane,never killed anyone.So start is school..

Getting farther down the line, The Cat,,That must have hurt..

They say hanging doesn't solve anything,,SMOKING GUN Does..

Most of the people in prison are innocent,Did you know that..

Let them live with the Do Gooders,,Attitudes would change very quickly..

[vinny123]

true true .subsonicnat

[UKPoacher]

 

Closer than you may think with that one, I see the names of the current offenders and think, well, I was locking up his Grandparents and Parents before he was even born !

 

I noticed the same thing. Generation after generation of low life breeding.

 

People claim that criminals aren't afraid of prison. That is not my experience. They will do anything to avoid being convicted and locked up purely because it disrupts their lives. And they are scared of the unknown. Once inside they do the sentence stood on their heads - no sweat. But the thought of it is scary and it plays on their insecurities.

 

My own view is that to reduce the prison population and reduce crime the thing to do is build a load of new prisons. Then fill them by beefing up the Criminal Justice System and allowing the police to police and not do social work and let the Magistrate's jail those who need it rather than only filling the meagre quota they are allowed. Once the criminals realise that there are consequences to their actions they will be less likely to re-offend. Then we can reduce prison capacity by getting rid of all the old out of date prisons.

[Dr D]

Chain gangs under armed guards, doing all public works plus full tariff sentencing. If you work hard your tariff may be reduced. If you don't you do the full stretch!?!?

[UKPoacher]

Chain gangs under armed guards, doing all public works plus full tariff sentencing. If you work hard your tariff may be reduced. If you don't you do the full stretch!?!?

 

No. But they could earn reduced tariffs by engaging in work or education within the prison. If they choose not to then they stay the full term.

 

The system at the moment isn't working. There are too many schemes and projects ostensibly set up to keep people out of prison yet actually only seem to direct public money into private pockets with little positive end result. The best argument for putting criminals in prison is that they don't re-offend while they are inside so Joe Public gets a break from them.

[subsonicnat]

Chain gangs under armed guards, doing all public works plus full tariff sentencing. If you work hard your tariff may be reduced. If you don't you do the full stretch!?!?

Chain gangs under armed guards, doing all public works plus full tariff sentencing. If you work hard your tariff may be reduced. If you don't you do the full stretch!?!?

And from this thread quoted,it may give them a trade eh.??.

[craftycarper]

Everything