[John The Grudge]

No death penalty, just stronger sentences for violent crime and anti-social behavior.

-Care to expand on this please?-

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Wednesday, Aug 15 2012, 15:30

[General Goose]

What do you mean? Mandatory minimums?

[Melchior]

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Thursday, Aug 16 2012, 00:55)

No death penalty, just stronger sentences for violent crime and anti-social behavior.

I strongly disagree. People commit crimes because they're either too emotional to consider the consequences, they think they'll get away with it or they just don't care. Nobody commits a crime while thinking "haha those bleeding hearts will give me a slap on the wrist, then it's right back to killing, raping and flag burning". The criminal justice system doesn't, hasn't and won't ever provide a deterrent to criminals.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Saturday, Aug 18 2012, 09:56)

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Thursday, Aug 16 2012, 00:55) No death penalty, just stronger sentences for violent crime and anti-social behavior. I strongly disagree. People commit crimes because they're either too emotional to consider the consequences, they think they'll get away with it or they just don't care. Nobody commits a crime while thinking "haha those bleeding hearts will give me a slap on the wrist, then it's right back to killing, raping and flag burning". The criminal justice system doesn't, hasn't and won't ever provide a deterrent to criminals.

I agree for the most part. I think it's extreme to say there is no deterrent at all though. Why follow the speed limit (or within 10-15 of it)? Because there could be a cop sitting on the side of the road.

[John The Grudge]

The death penalty will not deter a madman from turning a gun on innocent people, so why bother?

[finn4life]

QUOTE (John The Grudge @ Friday, Aug 31 2012, 23:09)

The death penalty will not deter a madman from turning a gun on innocent people, so why bother?

And there it is in one simple sentence exactly why the death penalty should not exist ignoring other moral implications, basically it comes down to this.

lil weasel, it is not the others here who are the "brick walls" in the debate, it is in fact you!

QUOTE

A Death Penalty serves only one true purpose the removal of a 'repeat' offender.

Incarceration does the exact same thing except it leaves some room for error in the cases of innocents, i would like to see how you would feel being convicted of raping someone (falsely) and being sentenced to death despite the fact you are innocent and that there is no possibility now that you can be proved innocent further down the track (At least it won't affect you,)

This post has been edited by finn4life on Sunday, Sep 2 2012, 02:35

[ajbns87]

I'd love to see the death penalty come back, but I guess I'm immoral and completely devoid of modern society's complete acceptance of violent crime, and it's supposed link to poverty and social deprivation.

Risk of the miscarriage of justice? If the case is not clear cut, put them in a cold cell, and make them generate their own electricity for heating / tv, by attaching them to a device which is power by themselves, like a hamster in a wheel.

Give the victims of their crimes the choice for their justice. It should be a human right, to be feel protected by the laws of the country, if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

Maybe it's wrong to be, brutal and have no sympathy for murders, rapists and paedophiles, but I'm unashamed of my views, no matter how wrong better educated and supposedly morally superior people might consider them.

As for the idea that nothing will deter a madman from wielding a gun and shooting a crowd of people for no logical reason, I completely agree, but at the same time that's a different kettle of fish compared to a family who has found out their child has raped and murdered by a paedophile, if he does that and shows no remorse, should he really be cared for, potentially by the victims families, who probably pay tax to look after him... which again leads to another argument, it costs more to execute than to imprison, just give me an axe, preferably sharp, and it won't cost you much, maybe just a dinner. I'd happily remove these sick people from society, like a dangerous dog that mauls a child to death, they should be put down, removed from society.

It will never happen though, not here in the UK.

[Straznicy]

QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Thursday, Sep 6 2012, 21:37)

I'd love to see the death penalty come back, but I guess I'm immoral and completely devoid of modern society's complete acceptance of violent crime, and it's supposed link to poverty and social deprivation.

Frankly, that is an utterly ridiculous statement, and I think you probably know it. If anything our tolerance for violence is diminishing more and more with time. There are more people convicted and imprisoned for violent offences than there has ever been before; as of 8th March 2012 the prison populations of England & Wales and Scotland had both reached their record highs. More than a quarter of these prisoners are incarcerated for violent offences.

I do not know what you are implying with your 'supposed' comment on the poverty-criminality link, but the latter connection is definitely real and correct. You just have to look at the evidence from last years riots (extreme example of criminality it may be) to have that picture painted for you. Fifty eight percent of those appearing in court following the riots claimed residence within the 20% 'most deprived' areas in England. The logic for this poverty-crime link has always appeared rather conspicuous to me, but it seems to pass by a large margin of the population. People living in a state of poverty naturally want to escape that situation, but do not always possess the necessary skills, background or whatever other factor to facilitate upward mobility. In that scenario, crime becomes far more tempting and/or likely than it normally would. Eventually some individuals see no reason why they should play by the rules of the society that they have been left on the bottom rung of.

QUOTE (ajbns87)

Risk of the miscarriage of justice? If the case is not clear cut, put them in a cold cell, and make them generate their own electricity for heating / tv, by attaching them to a device which is power by themselves, like a hamster in a wheel

This is just downright bizarre, if I am understanding your point correctly. So you agree that the possible jeopardy of executing an innocent person in a dubious case rules out the capital sentence, but want it replaced with a punishment that violates various laws and conventions regarding human rights? You would sentence an accused with some reasonable chance of innocence to this? As I said. Bizarre.

QUOTE (ajbns87)

Give the victims of their crimes the choice for their justice. It should be a human right, to be feel protected by the laws of the country, if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

One of the raison d'êtres for the rule of law and criminal justice system is to prevent mob justice and vigilantism. Officiating and fostering efficiency of such actions would have a devastating impact on the moral fabric and integrity of the land. Handing over a convicted murderer to the families of victims would not help anyone; the family will not have their loved one back after they exert whatever punishment on the convicted, the convicted will never have the opportunity to learn true remorse and become a functioning, contributing member of society again.

Prison is a sufficient deterrent for most of us, most of the time. I would love nothing more than to hack certain people to death with the most outlandish garden tool I could find, but I don't because I know the chances of myself landing in jail as a result increase exponentially. Sometimes however we don't have this comfortable position to make logical decisions and then violence occurs. The media consistently over-exaggerate the comforts enjoyed by prisoners because it always gets people riled and sells papers (duh). Prisoners obviously need some comforts, how would you hope to reform them without some forms of entertainment? Lock a guy in a grey cell for years with nothing to do, and upon release you'll likely have a very resentful, mentally unstable individual with a higher chance of offending than before he went to prison. Rehabilitation isn't meant to be a deterrent; it's meant to rehabilitate.

QUOTE (ajbns87)

As for the idea that nothing will deter a madman from wielding a gun and shooting a crowd of people for no logical reason, I completely agree, but at the same time that's a different kettle of fish compared to a family who has found out their child has raped and murdered by a paedophile,  if he does that and shows no remorse, should he really be cared for, potentially by the victims families, who probably pay tax to look after him... which again leads to another argument, it costs more to execute than to imprison, just give me an axe, preferably sharp, and it won't cost you much, maybe just a dinner. I'd happily remove these sick people from society, like a dangerous dog that mauls a child to death, they should be put down, removed from society.

Prison does remove them from society, that's the point of prison. Have your medieval executioner fetish all you want, but introducing capital punishment would, if anything, worsen our society. If the state is allowed to execute then a precedent is set in society as a whole for murder. Furthermore, we will see a return to the days of innocent men and women having their lives taken from them by an imperfect justice system. We will see no reduction in violent crime or pedophilia, because people don't think about the gallows when they pull a knife in a fight, or fiddle kiddies at the weekend. Capital punishment is a pointless, out-dated and barbaric punishment that no state should have in its arsenal; particularly when that state is in a position to operate a more viable alternative that transforms anti-social characters into contributory ones.

Reducing violent offending and crime in general is best accomplished by tackling the roots. This means a greater focus on reducing relative poverty, tackling domestic violence in all its forms, and better identification and treatment of individuals with a higher pre-disposition for criminality.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

just give me an axe, preferably sharp, and it won't cost you much, maybe just a dinner. I'd happily remove these sick people from society, like a dangerous dog that mauls a child to death, they should be put down, removed from society.

Doubt it, but alright tough guy.

[MikeWh]

Being a link in the chain of the UK Criminal Justice system, I'm not for the death penalty - the margin of error/miscarriage of justices that can happen are just not worth it, and I'd rather a murderer had to stare at the same 4 walls for the rest of his natural rather than had the easy, simple and coward's way out!

I see a lot of people at work time and time again, and people get reputations and known around local nicks, this isn't because 'prison's not a good enough deterrent' - it's because here we use the CPS for charging decisions and they couldn't prosecute Bin Laden for terrorism, they'd have knocked it down to assault!

Then when it gets to court the magistrates and the CPS will settle on a sob story in determining sentence and bail conditions, which they then break, get arrested on warrant for that and go back to the same court with the same lame excuses!

Can we sort the charging system out before we start committing people to death...

Prisons could be tougher, I agree but I don't agree with letting them have industry and jobs or forcing them to do hard labour - at the end of the day why should companies benefit from crime, getting cheap labour and why should prisoners take a job that an innocent, law abiding person could have. Forcing them to work and make things will just, ultimately drive industry to the prisons for their cheap labour and drive other people to crime through unemployment!

The death penalty won't prevent or deter crime, let's face it things are that bad here now if criminals saw death himself staring at them they'd give him the middle finger salute and call him a twat and be completely unfazed - they're too used to getting off with it! Honestly, the amount of times I've seen officers have someone bang to rights and just for the CPS to go 'Well he's got x going on at home' or 'Y happened to him 10 years ago!' and suddenly it's 'not in the public's interest' to prosecute a burglar, car thief, sex offender or general scrote!

[ccrogers15]

I appose death penalty. People who support it and authorize it, are total retard hypocrites. They KILL someone for KILLING SOMEONE! Hypocrites much?

-Please keep D&D posts in line with house rules in future-

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Monday, Sep 17 2012, 16:37

[Melchior]

QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Friday, Sep 7 2012, 07:37)

if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people become criminals because of circumstance, because they have reasons? Would it not make more sense to try and remove these reasons from the equation rather than to simply shove a huge portion of society into cages like animals? At any rate, the criminal justice system is incapable of providing a deterrent, nobody commits crimes because they're certain they'll just get a slap on the wrist.

[MikeWh]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 08:06)

QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Friday, Sep 7 2012, 07:37) if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people become criminals because of circumstance, because they have reasons? Would it not make more sense to try and remove these reasons from the equation rather than to simply shove a huge portion of society into cages like animals? At any rate, the criminal justice system is incapable of providing a deterrent, nobody commits crimes because they're certain they'll just get a slap on the wrist.

It's occurred to me, I know it happens - but there's a larger proportion of criminals who are criminals through their own choice. They dig their own graves.

Usual routine is they'll commit a crime once or twice, say burglary, to fund a habit - they get found guilty and have to attend 3 drug rehab sessions spaced 1 month apart, there's no testing at these things and then they keep their habit up - they get caught again, repeat above, they try their luck a third time and end up in prison on a 6 month stretch - realise they get 3 square meals a day and looked after so when they're released, after learning tips and tricks from other inmates they're out again, breaking the law. They go back even longer. They grow accustomed to the cushy and easy lifestyle.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (MikeWh @ Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 13:21)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Sep 24 2012, 08:06) QUOTE (ajbns87 @ Friday, Sep 7 2012, 07:37) if a jail is considered by a criminal to be a place of comfort and 'rehabilitation' what kind of deterrent is that? It isn't. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people become criminals because of circumstance, because they have reasons? Would it not make more sense to try and remove these reasons from the equation rather than to simply shove a huge portion of society into cages like animals? At any rate, the criminal justice system is incapable of providing a deterrent, nobody commits crimes because they're certain they'll just get a slap on the wrist. It's occurred to me, I know it happens - but there's a larger proportion of criminals who are criminals through their own choice. They dig their own graves. Usual routine is they'll commit a crime once or twice, say burglary, to fund a habit - they get found guilty and have to attend 3 drug rehab sessions spaced 1 month apart, there's no testing at these things and then they keep their habit up - they get caught again, repeat above, they try their luck a third time and end up in prison on a 6 month stretch - realise they get 3 square meals a day and looked after so when they're released, after learning tips and tricks from other inmates they're out again, breaking the law. They go back even longer. They grow accustomed to the cushy and easy lifestyle.

...

Accustomed to the easy lifestyle? That is simply asinine. What happens is: once you lock someone up a few times, they're branded as a criminal and no longer feel that they can make an honest living, they cease to feel as though they have peers in "respectable" society. It's not a "choice" there are easily identifiable mechanisms through which people with low socioeconomic status become criminals. And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle".

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 08:30)

And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle".

I'm not going to open a can of worms right now by disputing the rest of your argument, but in the UK it really is. Most non-violent criminals end up in low-security or even open prisons, regardless of the length of their stretch. They've got a reasonably comfy bed in a cell that's all theirs, a TV, access to computer games, on-site training, three fairly decent meals a day, air conditioning and all manner of niceties. If you are, say, a homeless addict, that sounds positively luxurious. It's luxury compared to the squalor in which most addicts live, regardless of whether they are homeless, in fact.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 18:52)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 08:30) And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle". I'm not going to open a can of worms right now by disputing the rest of your argument, but in the UK it really is. Most non-violent criminals end up in low-security or even open prisons, regardless of the length of their stretch. They've got a reasonably comfy bed in a cell that's all theirs, a TV, access to computer games, on-site training, three fairly decent meals a day, air conditioning and all manner of niceties. If you are, say, a homeless addict, that sounds positively luxurious. It's luxury compared to the squalor in which most addicts live, regardless of whether they are homeless, in fact.

So then you're agreeing with his ridiculous statement that criminals just love the cushy prison environment? Probably not but at any rate: I don't know how anyone can consider an environment where restrictions are placed upon your activities, and your life is literally in the hands of other people, luxurious. Especially if you're an addict and don't have access to the drugs that help you get through the day.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 14:08)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 18:52) QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 08:30) And prison is not a "cushy and easy lifestyle". I'm not going to open a can of worms right now by disputing the rest of your argument, but in the UK it really is. Most non-violent criminals end up in low-security or even open prisons, regardless of the length of their stretch. They've got a reasonably comfy bed in a cell that's all theirs, a TV, access to computer games, on-site training, three fairly decent meals a day, air conditioning and all manner of niceties. If you are, say, a homeless addict, that sounds positively luxurious. It's luxury compared to the squalor in which most addicts live, regardless of whether they are homeless, in fact. So then you're agreeing with his ridiculous statement that criminals just love the cushy prison environment? Probably not but at any rate: I don't know how anyone can consider an environment where restrictions are placed upon your activities, and your life is literally in the hands of other people, luxurious. Especially if you're an addict and don't have access to the drugs that help you get through the day.

It's quite naive to think that addicts don't have access to illicit drugs in low-security prisons. If anything, they're more available than they are freely on the street. And people have different priorities. My point is not so much that I agree that re-offending is caused by cushy prisons- I think they are a contributing factor, but its much more complex than that. Mike is a serving police officer, so he's got a good knowledge of the criminal justice system. I think he's right, that there are a proportion of society who embarked on criminal activity because its easier than paid work, and who have found that convictions for non-violent activity that brings them a net benefit only ever lead to stints at her majesty's pleasure that in the context of the daily lives of the perpetrators really don't look like a detractor.

[Otter]

Whoa.

Hate to jump in so quickly out of the blue here, but to begin a thought by remarking about naivety and then suggesting that an addict will be able to easily - nay, even easier than on the streets! - support his habit behind bars... is frankly absurd.

Do you have any actual statistics to back that up? Because that would, truly, blow my mind.

This post has been edited by Otter on Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 20:43

[sivispacem]

Not statistical evidence per se but plenty of press reports suggesting that illicit drugs are relatively easy to get hold of in open prisons in the UK. One in eight prisoners at HMP Ford tested positive in mandatory drug tests according to that report- that's an indicator, to me at least, that illicit drugs are comparatively easy to get hold of. Though I'll willingly admit my "easier" comment is probably a step beyond what can be demonstrated, but purely because obtaining illicit substances outside of a confined space is more a case of who you know than a matter of direct non-circumstantial availability.

[Otter]

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't think you're recognizing the realities of the depths of addiction. I may take my experiences for granted, and living in a city with one of the worst drug problems in the civilized world may sway my opinion too far in the opposite direction, but I don't believe there's any way a junkie would be able to satiate his addiction behind bars. Unless he was the head of some television prison gang, or something.

But we all know junkies aren't the head of anything.

This post has been edited by Otter on Sunday, Oct 14 2012, 22:10