lpetersson | (no subject)

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Location: City of London

Entry tags:

(no subject)

So, some time ago I aired some views which were not universally well recieved.

When I then read about one of the alternatives and the consequenses I can't help but wonder if all the apologists who seem to think that prisoners shouldn't be punished too harshly (The poor wee mites, they only did it because society is soooo nasty and hard) would think the same if they were the victims of one of the people who were let out into the community early or not given a proper sentence at all...

Oh well, at least society can save 9 million pounds, because the suffering caused to innocent citizens must clearly have a price tag if that's an equation that works.
In my world it's not worth it, but hey, I'm a barbaric fascist...
Apparently ;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

FYI - your 'can save 9 mill' link doesn't want to work.

How odd, it works fine for me...

And just tried it this morning (albeit at a different site) and it works.
Poxy College network *mutter, mutter*

It also works fine from home...
It must be your browser... ;-)

I'd just like to reiterate my point in the other one.
Bring back public hangings and charge entrance.

Hard labour in the quarry digging rock by hand every day for many years :)

Bring back public hangings and charge entrance

As much as I like the idea, I feel that they would be better put to use as medical test subjects but yes, otherwise fab idea... :-)

I (personally) think being sent to prison is meant to be a 'punishment'...not a holiday camp...._or_ a crime training area, as many of them appear to be!

Whilst rehabilitation is somewhat idealistic to hope for; at the very least, the 'punishment' should be enough to either keep the f*ckers off the streets and / or send them back into society realising that there _are_ actually _unpleasant_ consequences to re-commiting.

It's like teaching an animal to not sh*t on the carpet.....I don't think killing it is really how I would solve the problem...but keeping it out of the room for a while and having a nice chat with it wouldn't work either !
If a brain is incapable of comprehending consequences through reason or being reasoned with, then what alternative is there in a 'civilised society' but to re-train by other means.
Just a thought...I wouldn't profess to be an expert on the topic...never been to prison...well, except for that incident in the zoo...but that another story *cough*

I read backwards and I especially liked Nibber's solution....
'Don't be a criminal...it's not difficult'

Now that ain't brain surgery?
I don't care what a person's circumstance...there is _no_ f*ckin excuse for breaking law....surely there is _always_ a choice?

I may change my mind...but that's what I reckon at the mo!

Now....time for my nap!
;o)

'Don't be a criminal...it's not difficult'

Exactly, which is why I kept coming back to the whole having a choice issue in my discussion with

failing_angel...

I may change my mind...but that's what I reckon at the mo!
I personally have a stand until I take a new one...
Which I may do at a moments notice with or without prior warning :)

STFU N00B! ;)

*grin*

RTFM!
;-)

Wow. Talk about strawmen.

Firstly, treating human beings like human beings is in no way equal to early release of violent criminals. Most people in prisons aren't violent criminals, and depriving someone of their human rights for carrying a kitchen knife, or possession of drugs is pretty unacceptable.

Secondly, um, I was the victim of a violent crime from which the perpetrator was released after a ridiculiously short period of time in gaol.

Do I think his sentence should have been longer? Yes.
Do I think he should have had his human rights observed while in gaol? ALSO yes.

Don't misrepresent me, please.

Wow. Talk about strawmen.

Where? I don't see any...

epriving someone of their human rights for carrying a kitchen knife
I'm not discussing or endorsing the laws that put people in jail but what happens when they're there.
I disagree with a great many laws and would certainly want to decriminalise things. I have been only been discussing the punishment side of things. And that's what criminals must learn. That those who cross the line get punished...

Secondly, um, I was the victim of a violent crime from which the perpetrator was released after a ridiculiously short period of time in gaol.

I'm sorry to hear that and wish it wasn't so. However, this particular piece was about re-offenders. And incidentally, if your assailant had been behind bars he wouldn't have been able to attack you...

Do I think he should have had his human rights observed while in gaol?
See, that's my big issue, I believe that these criminals by making the choice to commit crime they put themselves outside of human society and should be treated no better than rabid dogs...

Don't misrepresent me, please.
I'm not. You called my opinions barbaric and you are absolutely welcome to do so.
I'd much rather have a frank and robust exchange of ideas and opinions with people who can back up their arguments than talk to people who can only repeat the latest bleeding heart liberal soundbites in parrot like fashion and are empty and devoid of anything when they don't know what else to say because they haven't yet been told what else to say.

"Where? I don't see any..."
Well, first, equating proper treatment during incarceration with length of sentence. They're two different things.
Then, implying that I'd called you a fascist, when what I actually said that treating someone with less than human dignity while imprisoning them was something I found barbaric.

"I'm not discussing or endorsing the laws that put people in jail but what happens when they're there."
Which you claim they deserve because they have committed a crime. I happen to believe that different crimes deserve different sentences, and that the fact that people can be incarcerated for relatively mild crimes should be taken into account when dealing out that punishment. Covering all prisoners with blanket statements by necessity covers the drug users as well as the murderers.

"I'm sorry to hear that and wish it wasn't so."
Eh, I don't. I just object to the implication that anyone who believes in treating humans as humans can't possibly have ever been wronged.

"incidentally, if your assailant had been behind bars he wouldn't have been able to attack you."
Well, true. But my attack was his first in which the police were actually able to gather hard evidence. If he'd have been caught and charged for any of his other alleged victims, then it would have been a illegally biased trial. Which is a whole other controversy, but one in which I also don't think that saving me from an unpleasant experience justifies miscarraige of justice.

"I believe that these criminals by making the choice to commit crime they put themselves outside of human society and should be treated no better than rabid dogs."
And that's where we originally disagreed. Because I happen to think that humans are still humans, and especially given the range in moralities covering crimes with a prison sentence. And that passing such judgements and deciding that 'these people don't deserve to be treated as people' reduces the punisher to the level of the criminal.
A person who can look at any person as less than human is a danger to society.

"I'm not."(misrepresenting me)
1) you equated my belief that criminals have human rights with a support in reduced prison sentences.
2) You claimed I called you a fascist. A minor issue, but still untrue.

"I'd much rather have a frank and robust exchange of ideas and opinions with people who can back up their arguments than talk to people who can only repeat the latest bleeding heart liberal soundbites in parrot like fashion and are empty and devoid of anything when they don't know what else to say because they haven't yet been told what else to say."
This is either about me, in which case I'd like to see how you're backing up this accusation, or not about me, in which case it's irrelevant.

implying that I'd called you a fascist,

No I didn't, you called my views barbaric it's

nibber who calls me a fascist...

I happen to believe that different crimes deserve different sentences
My main argument isn't about the laws which are broken but the punishments criminals receive.
I personally would like to see the law changed in a number of ways so that certain actions which would currently send people to prison would be decriminalised...

A person who can look at any person as less than human is a danger to society.
Which is exactly what these criminals do. They are the dangers to society and society is best served by removing them.

This is either about me
Which it isn't, it's just rare to find people who can make an intelligent argument for something they believe in.

There's a very important thing about my opinion I think you might have misunderstood or not be aware of. This is probably due to being new to my LJ and my rather opinionated style...

I am here arguing purely about the punishment side of the whole law/justice/rehabilitation/punishment scenario.
I believe that many laws, particularly surrounding drugs needs to be changed as it is clearly ridiculous that people should be incarcerated having or distributing a plant you can grow in your back garden.
Drug addicts should be treated as ill people who are in need of help and care and should be provided with treatment.
But, in my not so humble opinion, woe betide those who commit violent crimes...
Obviously there are a plethora of other crimes which can be discussed, but my basic attitude towards the punishment side remains the same...

Okay, I havent read the links, but I am a firm believer that criminals get off too lightly these days.

but that is just my opinion.

actually, I have now read the links, and tbh I stil reckon this country needs to have some sort of deterrant (spelling?) to stop the likes of the youth and the crims ruining society.

but that's just me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only