I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,267

Quote: Jennie @ August 17 2013, 12:08 AM BST

Nope - one is unprovoked murder. The other is provoked murder. Still murder.

The death penalty is not about justice. It is about vengeance. It destroys any notion of rehabilitation.

The Woolwich murderers had no respect for the sanctity of human life. But we are not them. We should respect human life.

View original

I respect your view which is not, in truth, far from mine. In fact, it is exactly the same as mine was before this decade.

What concerns me in 2013 is that quite a lot of things are accommodated by society, albeit very uneasily, on the grounds that x, y or z occurred in the Middle Ages.

I would be prepared very reluctantly to forgo some of the gains made in the 20th Century if that meant the 21st could still look more like the 20th than anything more primitive.

Quote: Horseradish @ August 17 2013, 12:13 AM BST

What concerns me in 2013 is that quite a lot of things are accommodated by society, albeit very uneasily, on the grounds that x, y or z occurred in the Middle Ages.

View original

Can you give an example?

Quote: Jennie @ August 17 2013, 12:08 AM BST

Nope - one is unprovoked murder. The other is provoked murder. Still murder.

The death penalty is not about justice. It is about vengeance. It destroys any notion of rehabilitation.

The Woolwich murderers had no respect for the sanctity of human life. But we are not them. We should respect human life.

View original

Yes.
Being a nasty vindictive arse, I think LIFE Imprisonment is the way to go - guilty person has to suffer the misery for the rest of their life instead of quick exit by death but if a mistake has been made they can be released.

One of the problems is the police like any other orgnaization need quick results to keep the customer happy so the easiest way to do this is to arrest try convict and execute a potential criminal. Even if its the wrong guy, justice is seen to be done. Where this happens there's usually a spike in violent crime, because the criminal is more likely to dodge punishment

Quote: keewik @ August 17 2013, 12:19 AM BST

Yes.
Being a nasty vindictive arse, I think LIFE Imprisonment is the way to go - guilty person has to suffer the misery for the rest of their life instead of quick exit by death but if a mistake has been made they can be released.

View original

Yes. It's an interesting one. In most cases of murder, the sentence served by the defendant is a substantial portion, if not most, of his life.

The minimum term you hear about is just that - a minimum term. They generally are not released when those years are up.

In determinate sentences, prisoners are released after serving half the term.

The reasoning? Crowd control in prisons. How do you control someone if they have no incentive? If they are never getting out, there is not point in earning any Brownie points. That is the reasoning behind it.

However, there are whole life terms, for individuals like Levi Bellfield. Which is the right thing.

And then you come up against the whole life tariff thing plus, if someone is inside for the rest of their natural life, what if they murdered a prison guard? Ten other inmates?

What sanctions could be applied then?

(posted before reading Jennie's last post)

Quote: sootyj @ August 17 2013, 12:22 AM BST

One of the problems is the police like any other orgnaization need quick results to keep the customer happy so the easiest way to do this is to arrest try convict and execute a potential criminal. Even if its the wrong guy, justice is seen to be done. Where this happens there's usually a spike in violent crime, because the criminal is more likely to dodge punishment

View original

This happens a lot with burglary sweeps.

In most areas, 90% of dwelling burglaries are committed by up to 5 individuals. The police will often randomly pull them in and interview them about every burglary on their patch, to see if they can make any stick.

My sympathy for house burglars is severely limited, but it is not the right way to do things. It's all about numbers.

Quote: Jennie @ August 17 2013, 12:18 AM BST

Can you give an example?

View original

Well, beheading is one. I don't know how many beheadings occurred on British soil in the 20th Century. Very few, presumably, if any, although there would have been more in earlier times. To me, there is a line there. It's cultural and I don't mean religion. As a regular act to be heard in the news. Many wouldn't tolerate it.

Also, the idea that girls married at age 9 in centuries past. The 20th Century, for all of its limitations, is generally the civilised reference point on matters that could be described as ethical. There's been slippage.

But neither early marriage or beheading are accommodated in our society.

Read Jimmy Boyle's book 'A Sense of Freedom'. Unfortunately the Special Unit no longer exists.

It has been estimated to have cost £14 million to keep Ian Brady in prison. Just saying...

Quote: Jennie @ August 17 2013, 12:30 AM BST

But neither early marriage or beheading are accommodated in our society.

View original

Thank you for responding to my points. That's good of you. I don't wish to labour it. It's a comedy forum.

But there will be a different axis point if one beheading becomes two, three, four, and then it is as common as gun crime has become. The latter has changed very rapidly. People will inevitably start to say that it is being accommodated by society to the extent that it isn't a one-off but rather a cultural trend, however severe the penalty. The penalty will subsequently be seen as a mechanism that limits beheadings to only such a such a number rather than stamping them out completely. I doubt that the public will weather it.

The mainstream discussion on early marriage etc has changed significantly. To that extent society has accommodated it. I am not ancient but the main discussion was always around 16, 18 and 21, not 9. The point I am making is not a condemning one. It is, though, about new pre-20th century ethics in 2013.

My comment on your rucksack, by the way, was with reference to your photo. Hope it didn't trouble you!

Quote: sootyj @ August 16 2013, 11:37 PM BST

I work in care/social services and the limited experience I have of the criminal justice system scares me alot.

View original

Try doing Jury service - that is a real eye opener. I have done it twice and it scared the crap out of me.

Statistically there are far too few men working in children's services.
Because the fear of how the law just won't support you if you face a poorly substantiated accusation of abuse.
An accusation thsay maybe 15 years old and literally indefensible.
Whilst on the flip side burglary is statistically economics

Y viable.

Well then - thoughts on the latest Diana story?