Presumably you're referring to his ill health?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18703715
|
|
i hope he makes a speedy recovery so they can keep force feeding him and keep his miserable existence going
|
shame no one can poison him with a small dose of polonium.
not a large dose, just a small enough dose that he stays alive long enough to suffer his internal organs shutting down whilst coughing up his spleen.
|
Why should anyone give a damn what happens to this man, since he is under lock and key unable to harm anyone? I can't deny that I too thought 'Good, hope he's suffering the tortures of the damned' in a knee-jerk way. But there's something trivial and ignoble about it.
Sadistic psychopaths of that sort are among the vilest of God's creatures. I wouldn't turn a hair if he had been executed. Bear in mind though that there are others, still at large, and that something (or a combination of things) makes them like that.
|
|
Others still at large AC it's catching them that is the problem.
|
>> i hope he makes a speedy recovery so they can keep force feeding him and
>> keep his miserable existence going
>>
+1
|
|
A mark of a civilised society is that we do not torture those who torture others. Shame on those above.
|
'A mark of a civilised society is that we do not torture those who torture others. Shame on those above.'
You wouldn't be saying that if someone close to you had been at the hands of that psycho
Last edited by: diddy1234 on Wed 4 Jul 12 at 14:52
|
>> You wouldn't be saying that if someone close to you had been at the hands
>> of that psycho
As you rightly point out, he's mentally ill. Only Hitler sent lunatics to their deaths.
|
speak to winnie johnson, she wants him kept alive in the hope brady tells her where kieth is buried somwhere on saddleworth moor..
|
Some people are beyond evil, Brady is one of them. If a Google search can throw up a copy of the transcripts from the tapes he and Hindley made as they coldly tortured their victims before killing them and anyone can get through it without getting sick then come back and say we should show him some mercy.
Brady should be kept alive and in increasing amounts of pain till he reveals where Keith Bennett is buried.
|
|
Coincidentally there was a human interest story on the Welsh news about a SAR dog who lost a leg - his owners were off to Saddleworth Moor to continue the search this week. Obviously ongoing.
|
I was involved, in avery small way, in the searches for Keith around the demolition areas of East Manchester. At that time, nothing was linked to Brady/Hindley. Together with the search for Lesley Ann, it was just another missing child search.
I was about 18 and a Manchester City Police cadet. We were used as manpower for all sorts of things. Later, after the murder of Edward Evans, the searches moved to the moors at Woodhead and later to Wessenden Head, where Downey and Kilbride were found. Later, Pauline Read was found in the same area of moorland.
I don't think Winnie will live to see her Keith found, she's suffering from a terminal illness.
The events have never left my memory. For 4 years I used to drive to work past the spot where the bodies were found...it was only a hundred yards or so off the main road. I sometimes stopped the car and looked over the peat wondering where Keith was lying.
Lesley Ann was buried in the Manchester Southern Cemetery just round the corner to our house. Sadly, her grave was constantly vandalised and her mother, Ann West, had her moved to a secret location. People thought she'd been moved to a churchyard somewhere but she was only moved a hundred yards and now there is a well tended and decorated grave behind a rhododendron bush, hidden from view. Ann West lies with her, mother and daughter re-united in death. Lesley's surname is missing from the memorial.
I have no real thoughts about what should happen to Brady now. He's obviously barking but I'm not so sure about 50 yrs ago. He knew what he was doing then and Hindley, being in thrall to him, went along with him and participated in his crimes. I sometimes wonder what the one-time office girl would have become had she not got a job where she met Brady all those years ago.
The main players, the police, the crims, the press and relatives of the time are all dead now or soon will be. In a very short time there will be no-one left except us on the fringes and the matter will be consigned to history books to be read and wondered at by future generations.
The book ' Beyond Belief ' by Emlyn Williams is a good account of what happened.
Ted
|
>> I was involved, in avery small way, in the searches for Keith around the demolition areas of East Manchester. At that time, nothing was linked to Brady/Hindley. Together with the search for Lesley Ann, it was just another missing child search.
>> I was about 18
Ted: the late gong was from me, for that sound experience-based background piece. Chapeau!
|
>> speak to winnie johnson, she wants him kept alive in the hope brady tells her
>> where kieth is buried somwhere on saddleworth moor..
>>
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19292164
Moors Murderer Ian Brady has revealed information about where one of his victims, 12-year-old Keith Bennett, is buried, detectives believe.
|
>A mark of a civilised society is that we do not torture those who torture others.
Given 10yrs and unlimited funding I don't think I could come up with a better torture than locking someone up 24hrs a day with the only source of mental stimulation being a bunch of other nutters.
Denying his request that he be allowed to die is a stroke of genius though.
Who say's there's no justice in Britain?
|
|
People on here boohooed me when I suggested much the same.
|
>A mark of a civilised society is that we do not torture those who torture others.
I do not advocate torture as a form of punishment. I get fed up with people who get on their moral high horse and deny that torture is not permissible in any circumstances though.
I can easily think of a scenario where anyone with decent human feelings would agree to the evil of torturing someone in order to achieve a noble goal. i.e the lesser of two evils is to torture someone.
|
>> i.e the lesser of two evils is to torture someone.
You've been watching too much '24' :)
|
Seriously, Focus, I can outline a scenario for you, provided that you promise to reply afterwards with how YOU would react to it.
Are you up to the challenge?
|
|
I think they should grant his wish to starve to death but only if he reveals where Keith is buried first.
|
|
Sorry Londoner, I was only being flippant; I'm afraid I tend to sit on the fence on issues like this. However I have enjoyed 4 or 5 series of Jack Bauer taking a rather heavy-handed approach to interrogation, so I'm not averse to it in fiction at least.
Last edited by: Focus on Wed 4 Jul 12 at 23:12
|
After all this time I would not be surprised of Brady didn't know the actual location. And those moors have been searched before so you need some info. Unless it's not the moors.
From Ted's post I see Kevin's mother might not last long - and when she dies then who else would really benefit from knowing where Kevin was buried?
I agree the sentence was life imprisonment and he should serve that. And be kept alive to serve it. That is quite some punishment and he deserved it. And no doubt is not sane now - but he probably was when the crimes were committed.
|
>> >A mark of a civilised society is that we do not torture those who torture
>> others.
>>
>> I do not advocate torture as a form of punishment. I get fed up with
>> people who get on their moral high horse and deny that torture is not permissible
>> in any circumstances though.
>>
>> I can easily think of a scenario where anyone with decent human feelings would agree
>> to the evil of torturing someone in order to achieve a noble goal. i.e the
>> lesser of two evils is to torture someone.
There is no scenario where state torture can be condoned or accepted. As soon as the state resorts to such an action they immediately legitimise the perpetrators actions. The line between law, order and evil wrongdoing is erased.
You scenario is going to be the hidden nuclear device in London one I guess
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 07:56
|
>> I can easily think of a scenario where anyone with decent human feelings would agree
>> to the evil of torturing someone in order to achieve a noble goal.
>>
I agree, but torturing Ian Brady would not achieve a noble goal.
|
If he is now insane which I am sure anybody would be by this stage then there is no benefit to him being alive, just another waste of money. His existence serves no purpose other than to hopefully reveal the location of Keith which I doubt.
A friend has a contact who works with convicted child molesters of the very worst kind. Apparently like alcoholism there is no cure even if you chop their bits off. No change at all she said............ever. Makes one think.
|
>> You scenario is going to be the hidden nuclear device in London one I guess
No. Not thought of that one. Please feel free to explain it.
The first one that came to mind was suggested by the subject of the thread. Remember this is my scenario, and I make the rules. If you don't agree with any of the premises, then tough! I only have to state a logical problem as a scenario, not justify whether it would ever happen.
THE SCENARIO
A series of crimes have been committed whereby children have been abducted and never seen again. Yet another child is abducted but this time the perpetrator (Let's call him "Mr X") leaves evidence which enables police to track him down. Mr X confesses to the other crimes as well, and reveals where some of the bodies are buried, which is confirmed when they are exhumed. He is, as the old saying goes "bang to rights".
Now he reveals that the child who he recently abducted is still alive, but tied up in a secret location known only to him. He always starves his victims to death. There is time to find the child, but not much, and Mr X won't co-operate.
The authorities possess drugs which are 100% effective (remember the rules at the start, BTW) in making the recipient reveal any information, but cause very painful reactions as a side-effect. The UN, Amnesty International and a host of other bodies has branded their use as "torture". The authorities threaten to use these drugs, but Mr X calls their bluff and still refuses to volunteer any information about the missing child.
THE QUESTION
At this point the parents of the missing child are called in and asked if they will consent to the authorities using the drugs on Mr X.
If they say "YES", then Mr X suffers torture, but an innocent person (the missing child) does not suffer.
If they say "NO", then Mr X does not suffer torture, but the missing innocent child will suffer a horrible death by starvation.
Whatever you say, someone will have to suffer. Who's it to be?
Zero is on the side of the villain. I'm on the side of the innocent child. What do you think?
|
While we are thinking about this, remember that the child has only recently been abducted, and the police know who was responsible. So obviously they are busy tracing his movements in the past few days prior to arrest, so there is a chance that the child will be found anyway.
Also it appears no one else is involved, because the rules say the child will starve, not be killed by an accomplice.
Therefore, unlike many real or fictional situations, there will be no risk that clumsy police intervention will trigger the child being killed, so they can involve as many police, army, volunteers, they like to comb suspected areas.
They can use heat-seeking helicopters to cover moorland etc.
Give these activities a day or so, and then reconsider the drug question.
Remember also none of this is necessarily true. We have only Mr X's word that he left the child alive.
|
Well talk about make it complicated and obtuse. If you break out all the waffle then its easy. You don't and can't torture the baddie. As I said, you bring the state down to the same level as the perp, and makes a mockery of the morals of the law. The child dies.
And now for the difficult one. The Atomic bomb threat.
A radical terrorist group has hidden a small but powerful (and as Goldfinger put it - " A particularly dirty") nuclear bomb in London on a timer, The chief plotter who planted the bomb has been caught and knows the location. He reveals the existence of the bomb, and reveals it has two hours to explode.
Now do you torture the perp?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 16:04
|
>> Now do you torture the perp?
Doesn't your first para still apply?
|
"Doesn't your first para still apply?"
No - Zero lives in the fallout zone.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 16:18
|
>> >> Now do you torture the perp?
>>
>> Doesn't your first para still apply?
Ah I haven't provided the answer. I answered Londoners one, but not the biggie. And the biggie is not beyond the realms of possibility either.
|
No - because in two hours it will go off anyway and that is not enough time to extract the answer and get to the site with appropriate de-fusing gear.
Just shoot him in the guts, walk away, stick your head between your legs and kiss your donkey goodbye.
Last edited by: Roger on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 16:29
|
>> Well talk about make it complicated and obtuse. If you break out all the waffle
>> then its easy. You don't and can't torture the baddie. As I said, you bring
>> the state down to the same level as the perp, and makes a mockery of
>> the morals of the law. The child dies.
You get sued by his parents for abuse of his, the child's, human rights.
|
>> The child dies.
>>
In my ideal world you set fire to the 'baddies' gonads until he tells you where the child is.
>>
>> And now for the difficult one. The Atomic bomb threat.
>> Now do you torture the perp?
Same as above.
In my little dream world, the strong look after the weak, not wring their hands and naively try to equate decent thinking men's attitudes to that of human vermin.
True lowlife think totally differently and only respect strength.
|
>
>> In my little dream world, the strong look after the weak,
Throughout history torturers have been weak pathetic little nonces one the power is stripped away from them. Nothing strong about them. Nor values you could aspire to.
|
>> Throughout history torturers have been weak pathetic little nonces one the power is stripped away
>> from them. Nothing strong about them. Nor values you could aspire to.
>>
Quite agree. Trouble is you have to knock them off their perch to see that. Who does the perch knocking if the hand wringers don't like the confrontation?
|
|
moral and principled people are not "hand wringers" nor are they weak. Plenty of them have done stuff the hard and dangerous way without resorting to the level of those they oppose.
|
>> moral and principled people are not "hand wringers" nor are they weak.
They are if they don't do anything. They are if they oppose violence at all costs, when violent men carry on regardless, usually picking on the defenceless. They are if they let principle override a current pressing need.
History is full of it.
|
>> moral and principled people are not "hand wringers" nor are they weak. Plenty of them
>> have done stuff the hard and dangerous way without resorting to the level of those
>> they oppose.
+1.
There are a lot of "principled" people who are happy to get some different principles when it suits their purpose. Not what I call being principled, which isn't always easy.
|
>>. You don't and can't torture the baddie.
>>
You can't and don't in Londoner's example because there is no need, and the risks of doing so exceed the benefits.
Other more promising avenues have not yet been explored.
The scenario is not necessarily true, being based entirely on what Mr X said.
The child may already have been killed.
Mr X may be pretending to be the perpetrator to tease.
But above all the political risks and potential bad PR outweigh the very slight possibility of actually rescuing the child.
|
>> THE SCENARIO
>>
>> A series of crimes have been committed whereby children have been abducted and never seen again. [snip]
The scenario is highly contrived, and I suspect most if not all similar justifications of torture are contrived, and unlikely to occur in real life, or at least rarely. I think most people would accept torture in such a situation, although there is the fact that you would be torturing an innocent man, since you are innocent until proven guilty, and the suspect had not been tried. But in such a contrived situation, where you are sure you have the right man, you are sure he has abducted a child, and the child may be alive. then torture might work.
In general I am against torture, principally because it does not work. The subject tends to say what the torturer wants to hear. One possible exception is Sheikh Khalid Mohammed, who was sent to Guantanamo Bay, and is said to have helped reveal the whereabouts of Bin Laden. However, I think he said X was important, and Y was insignificant, and the interrogators then assumed that Y must be very important as Mohammed kept saying he was minor.
I would support torture of a senior Talk Talk manager.
|
>> A mark of a civilised society is that we do not torture those who torture
>> others. Shame on those above.
>>
I'm obviously not civilised then, if you'd count the hangman's noose as 'torture'.
|
|
I got in terrible trouble some years ago when Myra Hindley died and I tried to point out to a friend, a committed Christian, that as she had become a 'born again' Christian and - according to what they accept - had been forgiven her sins by the Good Lord she was then in Heaven.
|
>> I tried to point out to a friend,
How do you know what God forgives and what he does not? I'm impressed. You're straight up there to be the next Pope!
|
|
How do you know there is a "God"? (Any one - you choose)
|
>> How do you know there is a "God"?
At the risk of stating the obvious, how do you know there isn't? :)
|
Read Mike's post again - "according to what they accept". Mike may well be an atheist.
The big flaw in monotheism is that are several varieties of it.
Anyway, those of us who like to worship something can now focus on the Higgs boson. At least it exists.
|
>> Read Mike's post again - "according to what they accept". Mike may well be an
>> atheist.
>>
>> The big flaw in monotheism is that are several varieties of it.
>>
>> Anyway, those of us who like to worship something can now focus on the Higgs
>> boson. At least it exists.
Is the pope going to beatify it?
|
>> Read Mike's post again - "according to what they accept". Mike may well be an
>> atheist.
I'm sure he is. Because it's not very nice for him to say this sort of thing to a friend who is a "committed Christian" - whatever one of those is. "Accept" is a strange term to use when believe would be much better.
"I tried to point out to a friend, a committed Christian, that as she had become a 'born again' Christian and - according to what they accept - had been forgiven her sins by the Good Lord she was then in Heaven."
|
Well, Zero, you make a terrific "jobsworth" with your mentality. i.e. Pick an idea and blindly stick to it at all costs.
In your fanatical devotion to a "No Torture" rule, you'd rather that the innocent suffer so that the guilty can be protected. (Even if the innocent person were a child of yours, apparently. "The child dies. " you glibly say.) I can just see you now remonstrating with the Police "Oh! Please don't torture that poor man, I'd rather that my child died rather than you torture him!".
This idea that Torture is always wrong is a logical twin to the idea that Killing is wrong under all circumstances. Not surprising really, since killing is a more final act against its victim than torture.
Try putting that one to the test using World War Two as an example. If the Allied powers had refused to fight because we are all so "civilized" and against War, then the Axis would have won, and as Churchill said in his famous speech before the Battle of Britain:
"But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."
|
|
Londoner. Being at war is quite different.
|
|
Surely though its not about torture. The choice is down to suspect. Asked for some information about the whereabouts of a child who is suffering due to their actions and given the consequences of not answering the question then its their choice. They don't deserve any sympathy after that point.
|
There's a fog of humbug in this thread following the welcome topic drift away from the nauseating Brady.
It's easy for me to imagine circumstances where murder and torture would be justifiable. Of course they would still be 'uncivilized'. I'm not going to suggest any 'scenarios' though for those who don't get it. They can count themselves fortunate, in a way.
It also seems to me highly unlikely that 'our' government agencies never, ever torture or kill anyone, or at least allow the US to get one of their uncivilized allies to do it for us. But they don't seem to do it much, so it is difficult to contradict their official denials. Naturally I approve of those denials too.
It isn't a damn playground. The real world isn't simple or easy.
|
Broadly speaking, I'd favour the pacifist attitude. However, I would willingly torture the person who quality controlled my Espace.
Oh, and whoever authorised the closure of major chunks of England's motorways last Tuesday night when I was trying to get from Stansted to Cheshire after a very very long day.
|
...after a very very long day...
...doing the final leg of the journey in a very uncomfortable very large very German estate car. :)
|
>> However, I would willingly torture the person who
>> quality controlled my Espace.
It's not one person, but a whole lot of people ~ probably a person for every single component and sub-assembly.
|
|
I am fairly sure Humph would settle for someone senior.
|
>> ....... the nauseating Brady.
He didn't do it for the sake of it. He was mentally unbalanced, which he didn't have any control over.
|
>> >> ....... the nauseating Brady.
>>
>> He didn't do it for the sake of it. He was mentally unbalanced, which he
>> didn't have any control over.
Was, and didn't he?
Most 'normal people would say you'd have to be insane to commit such horrible crimes.
We can all say we couldn't help it - with me, it's having that extra helping of spuds. But if you have the urge to rape and murder children, you have to make a bit more effort to curb your urges, or suffer the consequences - or, get help before you do it. You don't often hear about people doing that do you?
And if someone is that insane, and incurable, you have to ask what use they are.
|
>> And if someone is that insane, and incurable, you have to ask what use they
>> are.
>>
Nobody has the right to ask that. You've clearly not known anyone who suffered from a mental illness or who was clinically depressed.
|
>> >> And if someone is that insane, and incurable, you have to ask what use
>> they
>> >> are.
>> >>
>>
>> Nobody has the right to ask that. You've clearly not known anyone who suffered from
>> a mental illness or who was clinically depressed.
I certainly won't try to win the argument there.
But I do have a good friend who certainly was seriously depressed - a senior insurance underwriter who fell apart almost overnight, could scarcely get up in the morning let alone make a decision. So I know it can happen to decent people. He recovered after a couple of years.
But as far as I know, he didn't try to murder anybody while he was ill. That's what I meant by "that insane".
|
>> But I do have a good friend who certainly was seriously depressed - a senior insurance underwriter who fell apart almost overnight, could scarcely get up in the morning let alone make a decision. So I know it can happen to decent people. He recovered after a couple of years.
>>
>> But as far as I know, he didn't try to murder anybody while he was ill. That's what I meant by "that insane".
I myself have been there - nasty dark pit, that's VERY hard to get out of, and very easy to fall back into.
When I was there the only person I wanted to kill, was myself.
|
>> Nobody has the right to ask that. You've clearly not known anyone who suffered from a mental illness or who was clinically depressed.
Oh come on Gastropod, what nonsense. The utility of sadistic psychopaths like Brady is well inside negative territory. He didn't develop his alleged psychotic condition until he had been in jail for years.
I agree though, and have said here, that his fate shouldn't be of any interest to an adult. He is out of circulation and that's good enough.
|
>>And if someone is that insane, and incurable, you have to ask what use they are.<<
There's a vast difference from suffering severe depression to being mentally ill.
Being insane, and it being incurable doesn't mean the person should be written off and disposed of, though.
Pat
|
>> There's a vast difference from suffering severe depression to being mentally ill.
I thought (proper) depression was a mental illness?
|
>> >> There's a vast difference from suffering severe depression to being mentally ill.
>>
>> I thought (proper) depression was a mental illness?
>>
It is.
There are of course many different levels of mental illness, as there are in all illnesses...
|
>> >> There's a vast difference from suffering severe depression to being mentally ill.
>>
>> I thought (proper) depression was a mental illness?
...and that both are different from whatever afflicts Ian Brady.
I'm in the AC camp really - getting angry and vengeful now won't bother him and will only get me in an unhappy frame of mind. So, forget him as long as he's not at large.
|
|
This piece of low life should have gone to the Gallows Pat.Torturing children and putting it on tape is beyond my comprehension.I don't think they where both insane Myra and him,they both enjoyed torturing children beyond insane me thinks.
|
>> beyond insane me thinks.
The real point is that it just doesn't matter whether they were clinically insane or not. Their very existence, when they were at large, was a threat to other people, to 'society'. They just needed to be locked up for ever. Their rights needed to be ignored for everyone else's sake.
|
|
I know it doesn't matter A.C.People with a mental illness no matter how severe do not always hurt people.Very complex subject.Maybe it's to do with not having a concious or capable of feeling remorse.They reckoned that Myra was lead by Brady.It's frightening what humans are capable off.
|
>> People with a mental illness no matter how severe do not always hurt people.
They hardly ever do. They just hurt themselves and get into trouble, or are a nuisance to their friends and families. Their rights and welfare should be respected.
Strong-willed sadistic psychopaths are another matter, as are cunning child molesters for example. Anyone who bleats about their rights when it's a question of putting them out of circulation is a faffing idiot.
|
>> >> beyond insane me thinks.
>>
>> The real point is that it just doesn't matter whether they were clinically insane or
>> not. Their very existence, when they were at large, was a threat to other people,
>> to 'society'. They just needed to be locked up for ever. Their rights needed to
>> be ignored for everyone else's sake.
I think at the end of the day that is the correct viewpoint. Revenge is not really a function of the state, but putting them out of circulation is. Brady was and is mentally ill in the sense that he feels little or no empathy for the suffering of other people. Perhaps he suffered a head injury, or was born with the area in the brain that controls empathy already damaged. The test of a compassionate and just state is surely that it does not inflict suffering needlessly, or for pleasure, but protects the majority from psychopaths. No doubt Brady is a psychopath. And he has suffered by being incarcerated for his entire post trial life.
|
>> He didn't do it for the sake of it. He was mentally unbalanced, which he didn't have any control over.
That's just wrong Gastropod. He did do it just for the sake of it, for the filthy pleasure and specious power of it. That's what sadistic psychopaths are like. He had choice. He may have been 'mentally unbalanced' as many people are, but so what? He didn't have any control over being cold and cruel. But he had control over what he did. He did all that for pleasure, and got away with it for ages.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 8 Jul 12 at 03:50
|
>> >> He didn't do it for the sake of it. He was mentally unbalanced, which
>> he didn't have any control over.
>>
>> That's just wrong Gastropod. He did do it just for the sake of it, for
>> the filthy pleasure and specious power of it.
>>
That's quite right. How do you define what mental illness is anyway? Was Hitler mentally ill, or Stalin or Pol Pot, or the guy who stabs someone for their mobile phone, or the other who rapes someone?
Some people are just evil to one degree or another and every bad deed cannot be excused by putting it down to a person's mental health.
|
How do you define what mentall illness is?
Take a person who has Schizophrenia and they stop medication.See their behaviour and actions they take that is a mental illness.
|
>> How do you define what mentall illness is?
>>
>> Take a person who has Schizophrenia and they stop medication.See their behaviour and actions they take that is a mental illness.
>>
But Brady didn't have a medically defined mental illness, neither did the other people I mentioned in my post. You cannot surely claim that every violent person on the planet is not responsible for their actions? Everything has an opposite and if some people are good characters who would never chose to harm anyone else you have to accept that others are just evil.
|
>>
>> Some people are just evil to one degree or another and every bad deed cannot
>> be excused by putting it down to a person's mental health.
>>
I agree. There is an old saying that hanging is too good for some people, and Brady fits that category perfectly. Every day he's forced to stay alive denies him the ultimate thrill, and that's as close to justice as you can get.
|
>> Well, Zero, you make a terrific "jobsworth" with your mentality. i.e. Pick an idea and
>> blindly stick to it at all costs.
You asked a question, I provided an answer, the answer you knew I would give. So clearly you just provided the scenario so you could get all outraged, climb upon your high horse, and call someone names. Moral principles are not "jobsworth"
>>
>> In your fanatical devotion to a "No Torture" rule, you'd rather that the innocent suffer
>> so that the guilty can be protected. (Even if the innocent person were a child
>> of yours, apparently. "The child dies. " you glibly say.) I can just see you
>> now remonstrating with the Police "Oh! Please don't torture that poor man, I'd rather that
>> my child died rather than you torture him!".
Oh super! a bit of play acting and drama thrown in to make the insult so much more dramatic. Bravo Bravo - Applause Applause.
>> Try putting that one to the test using World War Two as an example. If
>> the Allied powers had refused to fight because we are all so "civilized" and against
>> War, then the Axis would have won, and as Churchill said in his famous speech
>> before the Battle of Britain:
>> "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that
>> we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark
>> age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."
And you know what? we didn't Torture people during WW2 and thats what made us morally superior to the Nazis, and with the support of like minded people we were victorious. Thank you for the example to use, it was a good one.
Now have you finished trying to abuse and belittle me?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 18:23
|
|
So are you saying the Brits and the Dutch for that matter didn't torture anybody during the war? I don't believe it.
|
................or in various conflicts AFTER WW2?
I served in Cyprus in the EOKA days in 1955/6.
|
>>
>> Now have you finished trying to abuse and belittle me?
>>
Stop getting so paranoid and hysterical. Go and get a glass of water.
>> ...we didn't Torture people during WW2 . .
Dream on, Zero, dream on.
|
>> >> ...we didn't Torture people during WW2 . .
>> Dream on, Zero, dream on.
Sanctioned? Policy? Nope. Perpetrators of such could easily find themselves charged. As many were.
But the main reason was because the british didn't need to. Ways of getting required intelligence from prisoners was much more discrete, intelligent, and far far more successful than torture. As it invariably is.
|
>> Sanctioned? Policy? Nope.
Not policy, but sanctioned sometimes if only via the blind eye. It was done sometimes when someone thought it necessary.
The nazis did it a lot of course, for fun and because being horrible they thought it was efficient. There was certainly no equivalence in this area.
|
In addition to my last post. They suspect has a choice when asked the question. Their victims never have a choice.
"It also seems to me highly unlikely that 'our' government agencies never, ever torture or kill anyone, or at least allow the US to get one of their uncivilized allies to do it for us. But they don't seem to do it much, so it is difficult to contradict their official denials. Naturally I approve of those denials too."
I'm a firm believer that there is an element of our security services that operate outside the normal parameters in the interests of national security when the need arrives.
|
>> I'm a firm believer that there is an element of our security services that operate
>> outside the normal parameters in the interests of national security when the need arrives.
>>
So am I
|
|
So am I. Probably why we can't stick half of them in Jail because the evidence is inadmissible.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 Jul 12 at 20:13
|
>> >> I'm a firm believer that there is an element of our security services that
>> operate
>> >> outside the normal parameters in the interests of national security when the need arrives.
>>
>> >>
>> So am I
>>
I believe it, and so they should. It would be absurd if there was no one to do dirty work in the interests of national security when necessary.
|
>> I believe it, and so they should. It would be absurd if there was no
>> one to do dirty work in the interests of national security when necessary.
>>
Good guys have to do bad things to protect us. Makes sense.
Thank goodness for them!
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 7 Jul 12 at 00:18
|
>> Good guys have to do bad things to protect us. Makes sense.
>>
>> Thank goodness for them!
>>
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” - George Orwell
|
>> >>
>> Now have you finished trying to abuse and belittle me?
>>
Can I have a go?
|
>> >> >>
>> >> Now have you finished trying to abuse and belittle me?
>> >>
>> Can I have a go?
You can try, but you're crap at it.
|
Says you!
You actually belittle yourself, Zero.
You probably abuse yourself as well.
|
Don't have to try too hard, Zero.
If I want to get involved in a fight, I'll go to the gym, thanks.
Being a keyboard warrior isn't my scene.
|
>> Being a keyboard warrior isn't my scene.
You are a great actor then.
|
Acting has nothing to do with it, Zero.
I am what I am. Those people who've met me (including from here) will attest to that.
|
|
So why on earth did you jump into a post that was days old and cold, with a provocative personally aimed comment?
|
|
Ian Brady may, through no fault of his own, been of unsound mind when he committed the offence(s). If that was the case, it's not reasonable for anyone to wish bad things on him. It was right that he was jailed, to stop him doing it again, but there the matter should rest.
|
|
Don't know much about other religions, but one of the most humbling things about Christianity is the belief and power to forgive those that trespass against you - once you accept that as a principle or theory it changes everything. He lives in his own personal hell on earth leave him alone and move on.
|
The voice of reason from the last two posts is very welcome.
Pat
|
Anyone that thinks that this country plays by the rules in a sort of gentlemanly way should be aware of this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Cage
|
>> Anyone that thinks that this country plays by the rules in a sort of gentlemanly
>> way should be aware of this.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Cage
>>
>>
>>
>> Contrast that with the treatment of Franz von Werra at the Cage, documented in the book, "The one that got away"; IIRC the worst he suffered was being kept in a spartan room with the light on permanently, which hardly qualifies as torture.
|
|
Book was censored though - wonder if the papers have been released yet ?
|
>> Book was censored though - wonder if the papers have been released yet ?
>>
Does the 100 year rule apply?
|
Dunno -some papers were released in 05/06. The foreign office "retains some"
|
|
thats the "never in a million years" rule.
|
The RAF were particularly good at obtaining intelligence in softly softly ways, half the time the prisoners didn't know they were providing it.
As far as "torture" goes in "the cage" it really doesn't raise a ripple in the world of real torture, hardly Gestapo now was it.
|
>> Anyone that thinks that this country plays by the rules in a sort of gentlemanly
>> way should be aware of this.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Cage
>>
>>
>>
>>
Lovely quote, "Security was provided by soldiers from the Guards regiments selected "for their height rather than their brains."
Is that not still included in the selection criteria for the Guards Regiments to this day?:)
Last edited by: pmh on Sun 8 Jul 12 at 17:32
|
Documentary on Nat Geo just finished. Interviews with Police, Legal and Psychiatric professionals.
Surprising how you forget the details like the murder of 10 year old Lesley Ann Downey at Christmas. Taped being tortured and murdered with the music of Little Drummer Boy in the background. And for the benefit of any bleeding heart Liberals here's the transcript.
schadenfreudeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/lesley-ann-downey-tape-transcript.html
Diagnosed as not being mad but a manipulative controlling psychopath.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 8 Jul 12 at 23:26
|
In any discussion of madness it is important to remember that the legal definition of madness as defined in the M'Naghten rules is a lot narrower than what the average person might see or think of as madness.
Thus a psychopath who kills people for fun in a cruel manner and hides their bodies in a wood would probably be seen and described by most people as a madman. At law the very act of hiding the bodies would indicate that the killer knew his act were wrong and thus proved that he was not insane.
|
>> And for the benefit of any bleeding heart Liberals here's the transcript.
Was that necessary or relevant? I don't seem to recall any "bleeding heart liberal" on here saying we should pat him on the back and let him go? I don't recall anyone excusing his behaviour?
|
|
Don't be so touchy Z. Was not directed at anyone. Just a reminder of the depths this animal sank to.
|
>> Was that necessary or relevant?
Yes, if you think that some people are far too liberal minded on the subject and that we as a society are too feeble to properly look after the weak and vulnerable... and you have a perfectly valid viewpoint that you'd like to share on an open forum...in the manner that plenty of others do.
|
>> Diagnosed as not being mad but a manipulative controlling psychopath.
>>
>>
I'm struggling with the difference; surely a psychopath is as mad as..... whatever.
|
>> struggling with the difference; surely a psychopath is as mad
Psychopaths lack moral consciousness. But they don't 'hear voices' or suffer from delusions that might lead to dangerous behaviour. They know exactly what they are doing. 'Mad' people often don't.
Normally described in newspapers as a 'personality disorder'.
|
"I'm struggling with the difference; surely a psychopath is as mad as..... whatever."
Not mad within the meaning of the law - mad in the everyday meaning of the term. All to do do with whether or not you know what you are doing. In law if you know what you are doing you are not mad. Psychopaths know what they are doing - they just enjoy manipulative control of others and inflicting hurt or even killing people
|
>> Not mad within the meaning of the law - mad in the everyday meaning of
>> the term.
And by extension unlikley therefore to be deterred by punishment whether inflicted on them or of the 'encourager les autres' type. Treatment might achieve something but no certainty that it would.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Jul 12 at 13:21
|
|
I think the general consensus is that there is no effective treatment for psychopaths. There is equally no way of deterring them form their actions. They lack all empathy with others. The only solution is to lock them up out of harms way for the protection of others.
|
I saw once a program about psychopatic behaviour.It mentioned that it was in some people genes.How they found out I can't remember.What happens in childhood has a lot to do with it.
Once they are locked up the damage is done.Its finding out before they do any harm.
|
|
didnt Fred West have a knock to his crust that sent him ( a bit) psycho?
|
|
Fred was from Hereford. No more need be said
|
|
thank god he wasnt from Sileby, the body count would have been a lot higher...theres some right knuckle scrapers there
|
>>I saw once a program about psychopatic behaviour.It mentioned that it was in some people genes.How they found out I can't remember.What happens in childhood has a lot to do with it<<
S'right Dutchie, my m8 Laurie Smith the leather craftsman was a Psycho, never killed anyone, or harmed anyone either, he could be a tad manipulative but ... he was also a genius with a grreat mind.
|
|
Never mind Dog we got our wifes to control us sit up and beg.>:)
|
These two beasts typify psycho-paths, I have a certain amount of sympathy for their victim though.
Although he committed a serious crime, he certainly wasn't in their league.
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4426592/Cannibals-disembowelled-inmate-to-eat-his-liver.html
|
|
What an absolute total fabrication of the fact. This was reported several days ago in "more Trustworthy" rags. The story was, "They" took justice into their own hands against a convicted child-rapist. Convicts often "beat-up" sex-offenders (especially child) in prisons, these two went over the "top", they did not do it to "Eat his Liver" !!!! thats just the Sun spreading carp!!!
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 13 Jul 12 at 16:15
|
"they did not do it to "Eat his Liver" !!!! thats just the Sun spreading carp!!!"
Wrong I'm afraid. Here's a report of the court proceedings form the Independant who are rarely accused of sensationalism .
www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/prisoners-disembowelled-child-rapist-so-they-could-eat-his-liver-3167263.html
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 13 Jul 12 at 16:15
|
Er, that's the Irish Independent who may well have just copied the Sun.
However, the BBC agree. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-18808886
|
Made me wonder if the original offence could have been statutory rape, but it seems not:
"The court was told at his sentencing that Harrison, originally from Wolverhampton, told his victim to stand and strip, threatening that she would be “dead” if she did not. It was the third time he had been in trouble for sexual assaults on girls."
Just my opinion of course, but I think that threatening to kill an innocent, helpless 13 year old girl, and then raping her, is worse than what those two guys did to him.
I don't suggest that they had a right to do what they did, and I acknowledge the impact on his family...but if we are ranking these crimes, I consider his much worse.
|
Several points stand out in that report as "strange", first, they lured him into one of the co-accused`s cell, but the body was only discovered at "let-out" the next morning, did the gaurds not check that each prisoner was in the right cell at lock-up?. Secondly, one admits they chose him because he was arrogant and they didn`t like him, not because he looked like he had a tasty liver! eating that was only a by-thought. Thirdly One of them threatened to kill somebody if he wasn`t given a solitary cell, looks like he kept his promise. The facts that they may have been pyscopaths with cannibalistic tendencies are co-incidental traits, not the primary motivation for the killing.
|
I reckon they decided against eating his liver when they realised they didn't have any onions to go with it.
|
|
the illegal brew inside was nothing like a nice Chianti.
|
|
They had been force feeding him and were hoping to make foie gras
|
Theres an article on AOL this morning stating that Brady has given his legal advocate a letter that may reveal where Keith Bennets body is. This letter is only to be opened after his death.
Surely as he (Brady) is detained under the Mental Health Act, this letter could be opened before, especially given Keiths mothers health? - if not, they should stop tube-feeding him, and let him die whilst she is still alive, so that she may see Keith decently buried before she dies herself.
|
|
At best it probably says something like 'Saddleworth Moor' at worst 'Fooled you'. I'd like to think I'm wrong. Brady wants to remain in what he perceives as in control.
|
|
we went through this in the late eighties when they let the animal back on the moors to find keith.....my heart goes out to winnie she has suffered for far too long
|
Prison has no place in a civilised society.
It does not deter - nobody commmits a crime believe that they will be caught
It does not rehablitate - have you seen reoffending rates
Retribution is pointless and appalling as a motive.
If their offence is sufficiently bad that they need to be removed from society, then do so, permanently. End their life, painlessly, without torture, with respect. Whether the offendor deserves it for any reason other than being human or not.
Torturing Brady, or anyone else, would be mistreating another human being because you think its ok to do so. Whilst that view might be in the majority, that really is the only difference between it and Brady's thought.
I their offence is such that reparation must be made, then make it something of benefit to society, and appropriate to the crime.
Abolish all prisons now unless you can come up with something other than personal need for payback.
And I bet you can't.
|
>> If their offence is sufficiently bad that they need to be removed from society, then
>> do so, permanently. End their life, painlessly, without torture, with respect. Whether the offendor deserves
>> it for any reason other than being human or not.
Who decides that the offence is bad enough for someone to be removed from society? Where do you draw the line?
|
"End their life, painlessly, without torture, with respect."
How do you do that. Telling someone they will be killed tomorrow surely constitutes mental torture.
|
Yes, but then that'll be the case from the moment they ae arrested. Some will be justified as part ofthe process.
Quite how the US justifies 25 years on Death Row though, is another matter.
However, teh starting is for society to decide whether or not it is an desirable solution, and then to work out how to implement it acceptably.
Somehow I doubt that society is capable of getting past its media-fuelled need for revenge.
|
>> Somehow I doubt that society is capable of getting past its media-fuelled need for revenge.
>>
My desire for revenge would have nothing to do with the media.
|
>>My desire for revenge would have nothing to do with the media.
As you no doubt know, one has to differentiate between what a person would do and what society does. Or any other large group.
It is for that reason that the law must be made objectively, not subjectively. What I would or would not do to someone who committed a crime against my mother is not relevant to what the law or society should do to people who commit a crime against a mother.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 17 Aug 12 at 18:10
|
>>Who decides that the offence is bad enough for someone to be removed from society? Where do you draw the line?
Those are mere logistics, and should be dealt with as society deals with penalty setting now.
Actually there's really only one significant issue even in the implementation; Accuracy. How do you know you've got the right person? And how does society feel if it discovers it made a mistake after the fact.
|
>> Prison has no place in a civilised society.
Why ever not?
>>
>> It does not deter - nobody commmits a crime believe that they will be caught
Only because the damned places are so comfortable nowadays.
>> It does not rehablitate - have you seen reoffending rates
True. They ought to drop that pretence.
>> Retribution is pointless and appalling as a motive.
Don't agree. If the strong are willing to fight back and most importantly, look after the weak in the process...then the true sh!ts in the world, would have something to worry about.
As it is, we don't, so they do as they will.
>> If their offence is sufficiently bad that they need to be removed from society, then
>> do so, permanently.
Don't have a problem with that, I'd be willing to form an orderly queue. Ian Brady can go first.
|
>>Only because the damned places are so comfortable nowadays.
It did not deter in the 19th century. Getting a hand cut off does not deter thieves.
Removal solves the problem of any ongoing harm to society. And petty thieves end up working for the good of others, whethere or not they like it, whether or not they're "good" people.
>> Retribution is pointless and appalling as a motive.
Don't agree. If the strong are willing to fight back and most importantly, look after the weak in the process...then the true sh!ts in the world, would have something to worry about.
You are saying you disagree about retribution and then discussing deterrent.
|
>> >> You are saying you disagree about retribution and then discussing deterrent.
>>
It's both. The retribution can also be the future deterrent. Once it becomes well known, it can be the current deterrent
|
No, I think you misunderstand.
The deterrent or the act of retribution may be the same act. But as motivation they are quite different.
Shooting someone in the foot could be a deterrent. It may also be retribution. But when discussing them as the reason for an action there is no overlap.
|
>> stating that Brady has given his legal advocate
>> a letter that may reveal where Keith Bennets body is.
Not LEGAL advocate, MENTAL HEALTH advocate.
Volunteer or charity funded. No legal basis and no legal safeguards to allow them to keep quiet on matters that should be shared with the police.
Has me wondering whether Keith Bennett's mother has access to volunteers or charities willing to come in and help her with her mental trauma...although we all know the answer to that one don't we.
|
>> Shooting someone in the foot could be a deterrent. It may also be retribution. But
>> when discussing them as the reason for an action there is no overlap.
>>
There could be.
You done (whatever)..so I've shot you in the foot. Hopefully you'll realise that next time there'll be worse to come, so don't think of doing it again.
Retribution and deterrent, all in one hit..pardon the pun.
|
Well, lets go with deterrent; Prison is not now, nor has it ever been, a deterrent. 100 years ago when it was barbaric it wasn't a deterrent.
You get shot for deserting in war time, people still do it.
You lose a hand for stealing in some cultures, people still do it.
Ok, so maybe that means that they didn't realise how bad it was going to be; but at least with execution you CAN'T do it again. When you get out of prison you CAN do it again. And most of them do. So whether or not prison may be a deterrent to you, it is not to the majority.
So prison as a deterrent is not effective.
It is not rehabilitative.
So it can ONLY be revenge or retribution. I can't see that either of those, however tempting on a personal and emotional level, truly have a place in a civilised society.
As I said above...
"Abolish all prisons now unless you can come up with something other than personal need for payback.
And I bet you can't."
|
By the way, to pick up on earlier point about nuclear device;
torturing someone is bad and uncivilised. Torturing them for personal revenge, retribution and satisfaction is appalling.
Torturing them so they'll say where the nuclear device is? Pass me the branding iron......
Saving the lives of many people would seem a reasonable justification for torturing an evil man. But doing it for emotional reasons would be quite wrong.
|
"o it can ONLY be revenge or retribution. I can't see that either of those, however tempting on a personal and emotional level, truly have a place in a civilised society."
err..
Nope
It protects society from people too dangerous to live in it.
As Ian Brady is.
|
>>It protects society from people too dangerous to live in it.
And for those I would want permanent removal. Why bother keeping them in prison?
Again, what is prison for?
|
Deterrents can work.
Imagine a Sicilian town..one that happens to house the local Mafia chief.
Don't suppose his son will ever get bullied at school, or his mother mugged for her handbag.
|
>> Well, lets go with deterrent; Prison is not now, nor has it ever been, a
>> deterrent. 100 years ago when it was barbaric it wasn't a deterrent.
>>
It is for decent folk.
For me a summons would be the end of the world.
For the truly lowlife in society, you just have to adjust the severity of the deterrent, otherwise it doesn't work...and even then some clown would ignore it...but in the meantime you've deterred thousands.
|
>> Well, lets go with deterrent; Prison is not now, nor has it ever been, a
>> deterrent.
Prison IS a deterrent. The threat of it doesn't deter professional criminals who accept is as one of the risks of the job, neither does it deter those lower down the scale whose life outside is really no more fulfilling than it is when they are banged up. There will always be a percentage of people who will take any risk no matter what the consequences.
But it does a damn good job of making sure the majority of us don't apply for multiple credit cards in false names or chance our arm by making a run past the till with our weekly shop. We are kept on the straight and narrow by a mixture of being basically decent human beings and fear of the consequences of getting caught.
|
>>But it does a damn good job of making sure the majority of us don't apply for multiple credit cards in false names
Yes, but there are many punishments that not only would achieve that, they would benefit society if you did offend.
What does prison do?
|
>> Yes, but there are many punishments that not only would achieve that, they would benefit
>> society if you did offend.
>>
>> What does prison do?
>>
Having once come close back in another life, it scares the living crap out of you. Especially when you've been through the court system and seen the type of people you'd be banged up with.
|
I've been closer than close.
However;
As a deterrent; (2011)
46% of adults jailed last year had at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.
90% of those sentenced had offended before
As rehabilitation;
Reoffending rates should help us understand (2010)
(Reoffending rates help us understand both rehabilitation and detterence.)
Gloucester (74.6%),
Leeds (74%)
Hull (73.8%).
It may deter some but for most it does not.
So what does prison do?
|
>> Having once come close back in another life, it scares the living crap out of
>> you. Especially when you've been through the court system and seen the type of people
>> you'd be banged up with.
Its presumably less of a deterrent for that sort of person. It's still a deterrent though IMO.
Reminded me I posted this a while back - anybody else remember hearing it?
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=2472&m=48538
Mark's getting off lightly here. I asked rhetorically a while back what some scumbag or other was for, and why we should keep people like that. I definitely got a red face, deservedly, and I think you-know who might have been mentioned soon afterwards.
There are a lot of the wrong sort of incentives around. There are basically contributors and freeloaders, and you don't even have to be a criminal to be a sponger. I suppose the next step would be to knock a few of those off too (bad joke, don't bother with the red face).
|
So what alternative do you suggest for the guy who has committed an armed robbery.
He has a history of crime, and has variously been put on probation, sentenced to community service, tagged and fined.
He has no money or property to confiscate and will almost certainly commit further crime.
|
|
Hasn't Mark made it clear what he'd do with criminals generally? Or was I reading too fast again?
|
|
After reading some of the "liberal" tosh posted here I really dare not say what I think, or I really would be banned. :-(
|
...Who's Mark?...
The new Zero?
|
Mark I presume is me.
I am not the new Zero, although I thank you for the compliment. He's more of a purist than I.
|
If even sensible coppers like WP are in the "hang 'em high" brigade, and less sensible coppers are willing to stitch people up because they are sure of their guilt, and there is a fallible legal system... state-sanctioned killing is out in my books.
Prison is not a cushy deal despite the tabloid nonsense:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19285210
Keeping the worst of the worst locked up is good enough for me.
|
>> If even sensible coppers like WP are in the "hang 'em high" brigade,
Mainly because I've seen at first hand what the victim's have to put up with. People with no hope of getting out of the situation they are in. Destined for a life of misery.
It's plain wrong.
As a society we worry about the wrong people.
|
>So what alternative do you suggest for the guy who has committed an armed robbery.
>He has a history of crime, and has variously been put on probation, sentenced to
>community service, tagged and fined.
So, prison not deterring him then?
If he truly cannot contribute to society, why should he be part of it?
If removing him is seen as too much, presumably that's because he has some value which potentially outweighs the negative? So, exploit that value for the good of society. e.g. Maybe he is an excellent father, so have him look after under priviledged kids.
Try looking at it this way; We've had prison for thousands of years, and it hasn't worked. We've had inhuman prisons, we've had holiday camps, still they don't work.
So do we carry on, or do we try another way?
What do you see as a good result? Lessening crime or revenge satisfaction?
Nobody has yet given a satisfactory answer, what is prison for?
|
>> Nobody has yet given a satisfactory answer, what is prison for?
Prison is a better (albeit flawed) answer than killing people who may not be guilty of their crimes.
Happy?
|
>> Prison is a better (albeit flawed) answer than killing people who may not be guilty
>> of their crimes.
That may be true. As I said a while ago...
"Actually there's really only one significant issue even in the implementation; Accuracy. How do you know you've got the right person? And how does society feel if it discovers it made a mistake after the fact. "
However, you use the word "answer". Are you able to help me understand to what you believe it is the answer?
>> Happy?
Why would I be happy? Or indeed unhappy?
But since you ask, the sun is shining, the dogs and the children are playing on the floor behind me and my wife is cheerfuly chatting to her friends. I can see new snow on the mountains through my window so skiing tomorrow is probable. So yes, pretty happy thank you.
|
>better (albeit flawed) answer than killing people who may not be guilty
Add thinking on...
If you have an approach to justice that society overall is happy with, that keeps crime to a minimum, and life generallly is comfortable....
...is even one mistake acceptable? 10?
...if by a new improved justice system we save 10 lives who would otherwise have been murder victims, is killing 1 person by mistake an acceptable net population gain?
HSE would have you believe that a life may be valued at £1m. Do you believe you can value a life in terms of other poeple's safety, comfort and happiness.
|
As a deterrent; (2011)
46% of adults jailed last year had at least 15 previous convictions or cautions.
90% of those sentenced had offended before
As rehabilitation;
Reoffending rates should help us understand (2010)
(Reoffending rates help us understand both rehabilitation and detterence.)
Gloucester (74.6%),
Leeds (74%)
Hull (73.8%).
It may deter some but for most it does not.
That's because most have nibbled away at the system for long enough and are institutionalised in their life of crime. Doing a bit of 'bird' goes with the territory. The are mollycoddled and treated with kid gloves in the early stages. Early harsh treatment would focus their minds
|
FC,
Do you believe that reoffending rates were lower in history? Because I think you'd find that if you adjusted for the absolute number of people imprisoned, %age of people punished who are imprisoned, and different reoffend profiles by crime, then the rates wouldn't be much different.
You have only to consider some of the barbaric imprisonment systems that have existed in the past in various parts of the world and to consider whether or not crime has continued unabated in those same parts to realise it doesn't work beyond making people feel better.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like soft prisons either. I dont se why people in prison shuld have more than someone making their way outside who has less. But that's not the point.
To know whether or not prision is successful, you have to first decide what it is supposed to be; and that would not appear to be deter or rehabilitate. So what is it supposed to do?
|
Historically there was no welfare state so I suppose committing crime to just survive was the only option. Currently drugs underpin the majority of aquisitive crime but that's an issue on it's own. Major crime offenders should be incarcerated for a very long time.
It is a fact that once you have managed to incarcerate particular offenders then crime patterns in particular area come to a halt and restart when the offenders are released.
So they should either be banged up for much longer or make prison so uncomfortable that it becomes more of a deterrent.
Basic human experiences from an early age in the majority teach us that if we do something wrong there will be a consequence. If those consequences become tolerable then they are not severe enough. Having said that certain sections of society do not suffer consequences or are alternatively given special treatment which panders to their egos.
|
|
Prison is to keep the scum away from the rest of us.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:49
|
I have a theory. Founded upon nothing other than my own prejudices, so advance warning / notice etc but certainly no apologies...
I am given to accept that an individual might, in a moment of selfish madness, steal. Or under severe peer pressure commit another crime, particularly if young and impressionable. Or if suffering severe social deprivation and desperate to feed themselves or a family, to do something illegal.
However,...I would, if empowered to do so, introduce a version of the "three strikes and out" system. Anyone convicted of a serious crime 3 successive times would be shot by firing squad. ( no I'm not joking ) What's more the executions would be shown every night after the 10 O'clock news.
For the first few weeks there would be outrage of course.
After that the serious crime rate would fall.
Dramatically.
Like it or not. It would.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Fri 17 Aug 12 at 21:51
|
|
Apart from prison overcrowding, the three strikes approach to serious crime has it's merits. Unless we allow humph to shoot them.
|
"After that the seriuous crime rate would fall."
Possibly, until violent criminals realise that there was nothing to lose in killing witnesses or members of the public and police who tried to apprehend them.
Actually is there really such a problem with serious violent crime that drastic action is needed? I thought the crime rate for such crimes was falling
Seems to me that the biggest problem in this country is low grade anti social crime that makes peoples life a misery. What we need is a better detection rate and certainty of punishment for these types of crimes. It is the fear of getting caught that deters most potential criminals. However violent the punishment you need to catch the criminals first.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 17 Aug 12 at 22:08
|
I would say that organised crime is on the increase because it is, sophisticated, very difficult and resource hungry to tackle. I'm talking here of human and drug trafficking, money laundering, counterfeiting and prostitution. That's where the big money is and carefully co-ordinated to hide the major players.
This may not appear to directly effect Mr & Mrs Average who are more concerned about anti social behaviour and dogs sh!tting on the pavement.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 17 Aug 12 at 22:15
|
I have often thought much the same thing. It largely gets over the miscarriage of justice objection to capital punishment.
But didn't the Yanks try something along those lines - three offences and life imprisonment ? ISTR it didn't really work in terms of deterrence but I don't recall the details.
I suppose it stops them doing any more...
The deterrence failure may be because so much crime is drug related and addiction driven. Maybe the deterrence works better on simple tea leaves once they've been away?
I have no sympathy at all for violent people, and I wouldn't worry about life sentences for them after 3 goes.
|
I'll try again....
Of course we need effective detection, arrest and conviction. Then we have penalties.
We need to stop or at least reduce crime. To do that we need to...
1) Deter those we can.
2) Rehabilitate those we cannot deter
3) Remove those that we cannot rehabilitate.
Therefore we need a penalty, punishment or other measure which addresses one or more of 1), 2) and 3).
Surely we're in agrement to this point?
The figures would seem to indicate that prison is not effective at 1) or 2) and is only partially successful at 3) and that it never has been, irrespective of the comfort or inhumanity of that prison.. And even with that lack of effectiveness it remains extremely expensive.
So, I would think we need a different approach. Just before we plunge off into having a different approach, does anyone have anything further than 1,2 or 3 that they believe the measure should atempt to achieve?
I can only think of one other which is revenge and retribution. Ar there any more?
Is there something else you believe prison achieves which you feel I'm missing?
Unless somebody actually comes up with something other than the same old emotional amd emotive "hang 'em high and treat 'em mean and that'll show them" crap, I doubt there's any point in pursuing it further this year. I'll try again next.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 17 Aug 12 at 22:28
|
"I can only think of one other which is revenge and retribution. Ar there any more?"
Yes , punishment, which is not the same thing as revenge or retribution and is probably the principal reason for prison.
Whether prison works as a deterrent or not society expects people to be punished for offences against society. We accept the restrictions of laws and obey those laws on the understanding that those who transgress will be punished.
Prison is not an ideal punishment and there are other alternatives but for major crime, especially for crimes against the person no one has come with a better alternative.
|
"Prison has no place in a civilised society....
If their offence is sufficiently bad that they need to be removed from society, then do so, permanently. End their life, painlessly, without torture, with respect. Whether the offendor deserves it for any reason other than being human or not. . . .
I their offence is such that reparation must be made, then make it something of benefit to society, and appropriate to the crime.
Abolish all prisons now unless you can come up with something other than personal need for payback."
Mark,
Thanks for your post. I appreciate it, not because I agree with all you say, but because your contribution is promoting discussion, and because I have, for many years, been unhappy about the use of imprisonment as a way of dealing with criminals.
(See, for example www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=4464 )
My answers are similar, but not quite the same as yours:
Where someone is not sufficiently dangerous that they need to be removed from society, their penalty should be financial. That does not just mean fines and confiscation of assets, but also, potentially, removal of benefits and entitlements, indentured labour, and penal rates of income tax - potentially for life.
Where someone commits murder, they should be executed, painlessly and humanely, in as far as it is possible. (Broadly speaking, I believe in talionic justice, and while I don't really like the death penalty, it is appropriate for murder.)
Where someone is sufficiently dangerous that they need to be removed from society, but have not actually committed murder, I would favour sending them to prison. I am, however, inclined to the view that it is unhelpful for prisoners to mix with other prisoners. Hence all prison sentences should be served in solitary confinement.
Last edited by: tyro on Fri 17 Aug 12 at 23:19
|
Roger summed it up for me as it stands generally.
'Prison is to keep the scum away from the rest of us.'
However if you look at it logically then other than drink/drug fueled violent crime then most other crime is about aquisition of cash or property at both ends of the spectrum. Greed and envy are human traits. Most of us accept our lot whether we just manage to make end meet or enjoy some success. We have discipline, a value structure and a sense of morality. Society has to have rules and bye and large we stick to those fundamental principles.
There are however those that want more and the only way they can accumulate is to work outside the norms. They are the criminals. They do not have the same values and whilst probably understanding the difference between right and wrong choose the latter.
So how do we deter them and bring complete order to our society? Well it never has and never will happen. So how can we make inroads? Give them all a million pound handout so that they can have what the want. That ain't going to happen and chances are they would waste it and want more.
The only way is deterrent. Now what deterrent we choose is the subject of this discussion. Our norm is shame or financial penalty. They have no shame and often no money. It must be said that that Asset Recovery of the major players has a huge impact.
Human beings do not like pain, discomfort (physical/mental) or humiliation, some have more tolerance to it than others. There comes a point where you accept that there is a lesser of two evils and that you must accept that you tow the line because the discomfort is not something you wish to repeat. And therein lies the crux of the matter. We no longer beat people to within an inch of their lives so we must find another way to make their lives uncomfortable. Prison? Might work for some but most seem to tolerate it. Make prison uncomfortable and make them work hard. Publicly humiliate amongst their peers to the extent that it is not a badge of honour.
And for the rest life means life. There might also be the prison space to accommodate if you get the first bit right. Perhaps introduce penal colonies - Ecuador springs to mind at the minute.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:49
|
|
The Chinese method takes some beating! - convicted of serious crime in court, straight out the back door, Bang!, now you can appeal if you would like to!
|
>>The Chinese method takes some beating!<<
Talking of beating, it amazes me how the beast has survived this long, even if I was a screw, I'd have to do him, like.
|
>> The Chinese method takes some beating! - convicted of serious crime in court, straight out
>> the back door, Bang!, now you can appeal if you would like to!
According to reports the family of the executed person is then sent a bill for the bullet used!
|
in reply to FC at 2312 on 17th
Spot on.
|
>> We need to stop or at least reduce crime. To do that we need to...
>>
>> 1) Deter those we can.
>> 2) Rehabilitate those we cannot deter
>> 3) Remove those that we cannot rehabilitate.
>>
>> Therefore we need a penalty, punishment or other measure which addresses one or more of
>> 1), 2) and 3).
>>
>> Surely we're in agrement to this point?
>>
>> The figures would seem to indicate that prison is not effective at 1) or 2)
>> and is only partially successful at 3) and that it never has been, irrespective of
>> the comfort or inhumanity of that prison.. And even with that lack of effectiveness it
>> remains extremely expensive.
The issue is risk-taking.
The world is full of risk-takers, and prisons are full of risk takers that got caught.
Some of them took calculated risks, where they believed there was a risk of imprisonment, but that the benefit outweighed it (£1 million in cash vs 1 in 10 chance of getting caught and getting 10 years).
Others thought that nothing would ever go wrong (the driver who had drunk 10 pints every Friday night for 20 years, until that one Friday when he ran over that kid).
Prison works as a deterrent, only in as much as it makes the risk not worth taking.
Putting aside the fact that most people would consider it wrong anyway, just the threat of a criminal record would deter the vast majority of people from nicking food from Tesco, certainly the risk of 10-15 years would deter them from robbing a cash van.
And yet people still commit armed robbery, because they are risk-takers.
You might think that having a policy of shooting armed robbers on sight, might deter them all, but then people take a 1 in 25 chance of dying , just to say that they have climbed Everest.
You could imagine that if people thought they could grab a million quid, with the same chance of dying, there would be quite a few takers.
So, the fact is that you are never going to rid the world of risk takers, and so you'll still have prisons with plenty of armed robbers and insider traders, even if the sentence for both armed robbery and insider trading was 100 years.
The real problem is that, for too many people, the risk/reward ratio is too favourable.
If you want to pretty much stop burglary, then make it a mandatory 30 year sentence for the first offence. Then prison will act as a deterrent for almost all burglars, because they know that they will eventually get caught, and the risk isn't worth it.
Our legal system has set the risk/reward ratio, and they have the crime rate to match it.
It may be that the level is set at a decent ratio, because, after all, we can pretty much walk the streets without getting robbed, raped and murdered within a few hours.
But maybe the ratio is set far too low, and should be increased.
It could be that by increasing it by a huge amount, we could have an almost crime free society.
But don't expect to ever have a completely crime free society, until we breed out the risk takers.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 18 Aug 12 at 09:33
|
|
If we "Toughened " Prisons up a bit "Papillon" style, it may be more of a deterrent?
|
Maybe if prostitution was legal there'd be less rapists.
Maybe if drugs were legal and controlled there'd be less drug-related crimes (although I'm not convinced legal alcohol means less alcohol related crime).
The US has a vast prison population and stiffer sentences and regimes than here in many states - they are far from crime-free.
Zero tolerance to petty offending/anti-social behaviour needs to be much better - community sentences are a joke at present: 80/120/240 hours unpaid work.
That's 2-6 weeks of 9-5 working and getting to go home each evening - how about 800/1200/2400 hours and make the programme worthwhile?
The factor that determines who can be rehabilitated and who can't is self-esteem - those who lack it can often be helped to appreciate themselves, and then society better.
Those who have self-esteem and still commit crimes are largely impossible to rehabilitate - for them the avoidance of punishment may work but recidivism rates suggest otherwise.
|
>> The US has a vast prison population and stiffer sentences and regimes than here in
>> many states - they are far from crime-free.
The problem with the US, I think, is that they are very prone to lock people up, but not necessarily for a long time.
I believe that the vast majority of prisoners are serving pretty short sentences, probably the same as here, but they seem even more keen to lock people up.
Not only does that remove the first deterrent, getting a criminal record, for many but it also indoctrinates them into the prison system.
A kid walks past a car, that he thinks he wants to steal, but he has a job and no criminal record, so he walks on by.
He then gets a criminal record for a minor drug conviction, and maybe even spends a bit of time in prison.
A few months later he walks past the same car...what does he have to lose this time?
We think it's right that Tesco should be able to check the criminal records of people applying to be shelf stackers...but is society served better by them stacking shelves, or mugging people and breaking into houses? Because that's the real choice we make when we label people as criminals.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 18 Aug 12 at 10:16
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19305055
Oh well, that's it then. I was surprised the cops had gone public on this - even more surprised that it was number one news item yesterday on R4. Maybe collective gobs should have been kept shut until they had a result. No dignity or restraint these days.
|
|
I'm surprised they went so public on this. Especially as they are now saying they think it might be a ruse. No doubt the story was part of the reason she died last night. they say she was not told but one does wonder.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 18 Aug 12 at 11:29
|
|
Seems to be a trend these days. Marketing in charge of the Police PR.
|
... Seems to be a trend these days. Marketing in charge of the Police PR...
We don't know the original source of the story, it may have been members of the boy's family, or the visitor herself who moaned to the press about being arrested.
The police may not have volunteered any information to the journalist, but quite rightly they will have answered truthfully the following question:
"Has a woman been arrested on suspicion of preventing the lawful burial of a body?"
|
You're possibly right iffy. I was probably too outraged and blighted by the recent revelations of corrupt practices to think logically.
The arrest was on Thursday - there was a press release on GMP's website the next day.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 18 Aug 12 at 12:45
|
It is more difficult these days for the police to go quietly about their business because, rightly or wrongly, there is pressure on them to keep the victim informed of every stage of an inquiry.
Sometimes a copper might say to me: "Yes, seeing as you asked, xxxx has happened, but the inquiry is at a delicate stage so we would prefer xxxx not to be published at this stage."
I don't know the details of this inquiry, but I doubt there were any operational difficulties for the police in releasing the information they did after being asked.
|
...there was a press release on GMP's website the next day...
They may have decided to attempt to manage the arrest themselves.
Equally, every journalist will tell you of instances where they have asked the police about something no other reporter knows about, only for the answer to be released to everyone within a few hours.
|
|
Perhaps she will now be reunited with her son at long last, who knows? Colin Fry would agree, I'm sure.
|
Maybe we're looking at it backwards. Generally criminals are brutish thugs that hang around with other brutish thugs. What if prison were actually a place full of flower arranging, yoga etc? Basically feminise them into not being macho meat heads so when they were out they couldn't hang around their old crowd as they'd find them brutish thugs. Being forced to learn non macho things and being derided for any macho behaviour would start to have some kind of conditioning effect. I'd also make sure any tattoos and such like were removed as that takes away part of their identity. Ideally you'd turn them into a bunch of wishy washy guardian reading liberals.
Sentences are too short. You keep people in prison as they can't bother the rest of us. If they cannot learn how to behave then stop letting them out or transfer them to secure estates where they are out of our way. There are plenty of rundown horrible council estates they could be shoved in and the decent people on them could be moved somewhere nice. Keep them within the confines of these estates then they can't bother the rest of us. Instead of the decent folk living in gated areas to get away from the criminals it should be the other way around. They should be kept in the gated areas and kept away from us.
Prison is more of a middle class fear as they don't want to be with the kind of people that get sent to prison. Those that do get sent aren't bothered as it is full of people like them so they just make friends and networks of other criminals. It's the criminal's linkedin.
If you want people not to indulge in a life of crime then you have to remove them from criminal influence. If a parent goes to jail more than once I can imagine it is likely to lead to children following suit. If they're still young enough remove them and get them adopted into decent families then they won't be influenced by rag bag parents.
|
|
teabelly, it sounds as if you have experience of prison life, either as a prison worker or as an inmate.
|
>> teabelly, it sounds as if you have experience of prison life, either as a prison
>> worker or as an inmate.
>>
Ha ha! I've seen it on the tv. No more than that. Everything I know about prison I learned from watching Porridge and Louis Theroux and a few other things. I did read Papillion a few years ago too.
|
|
I doubt any gated area would work. What we need is a penal colony on a remote island with dangerous currents round it. This would serve two aims of prison, punishment and protection of society.The third, rehabilitation, would be as unlikely as ever for men. A friend who was a senior member of the Probation Service told me that women tended to learn from prison whereas men tended not to, with different recidivism rates.
|
>> What we need is a penal colony on a remote island
Like described by the author of this book (Richard Herley):
www.amazon.co.uk/The-Penal-Colony-ebook/dp/B004VTHSA6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345299173&sr=8-1
I see the Kindle has gone up from £0 when I read it ;-)
|
I don't see the logic of your argument teabelly.Sending people back to these horrible estates creates revolving doors they will keep on committing crimes.Sometimes these so called decent folks the ones in suits can be the biggest criminals.Look at the banking and financial section.
We have got to stop the blame game.If you look at this problem black and white it will never be resolved.You might as well build concentration camps and have done with it.We have no leaders people who set a example to society somebody to look up to.The UK has one of the highest concentration of people in prison it hasn't solved anything.I am not a do gooder people like Brady or his ilk should out of soceity.
|
>> community sentences are
>> a joke at present: 80/120/240 hours unpaid work.
>>
>> That's 2-6 weeks of 9-5 working and getting to go home each evening - how
>> about 800/1200/2400 hours and make the programme worthwhile?
>>
The only people who attend community sentences are the basically decent people who have strayed from the norm.
The true lowlife ignore them.....as they do everything else dished out, apart from prison.
I cannot for the life of me understand why politicians cannot see this..unless they are doing a Nelson because of the costs. Trouble is, ignoring it and hoping it will all go away is making it far, far worse....and it's getting worse all the time.
The other thing I truly cannot understand, it leaves me most confused....why does a liberal type understand the 'difficulties and pain' of an offender, yet totally ignores the victim? What's that all about?
|
Bring back the birch.
Seriously.
|
>>After that the serious crime rate would fall.
Yes it would, but only because reoffending rates would be quite low 8-)
However, it would not deter or rehabilitate.
And surely we're better to reduce crime rather than *solely* focus on punishment.
And it doesn't matter how many times you say it people, post-prison reoffending rates are awful even where there are barbaric prisons.
Prison is there to satisfy the emotional need of the non-criminal. It briefly removes a problem.
It achieves NOTHING else.
|
|
makes you wonder if brady was tipped off about winnie johnsons rapid deteriation, either that or a complete coincedence ? at least she doesnt have to look for keith now....she has found him
|
>> makes you wonder if brady was tipped off about winnie johnsons rapid deteriation, either that
>> or a complete coincedence ? at least she doesnt have to look for keith now....she
>> has found him
>>
I didn't realise she'd gone...how sad that that truly awful piece of vermin couldn't have given her that tiny little bit of comfort before she went.
I could easily pull the trap door...and sleep well afterwards.
|
>> However, it would not deter or rehabilitate.
>>
>> And surely we're better to reduce crime rather than *solely* focus on punishment.
>>
>> And it doesn't matter how many times you say it people, post-prison reoffending rates are
>> awful even where there are barbaric prisons.
>>
>> Prison is there to satisfy the emotional need of the non-criminal. It briefly removes a
>> problem.
>>
>> It achieves NOTHING else.
You seem to be suggesting that, because there is a lot of recidivism, prison provides no deterrent at all.
I would question that. I would imagine that without any prisons, there would be a significantly higher crime rate (all other things being equal), because there would not be a lot to lose.
You may think that there is a better answer than prison, but to suggest that prison has no deterrent effect at all, seems too extreme.
Rather, it could be argued that the current implementation, does not sufficiently deter the majority of people who have been imprisoned at least once.
There are many other issues such as re-offending due to labelling, mental health issues and substance abuse, but I think it goes too far to suggest that prison is no deterrent at all.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 18 Aug 12 at 15:38
|
>>I think it goes too far to suggest that prison is no deterrent at all.
I'm not sure. I guess some people somewhere must be deterred, but I bet its not many.
For a start you are frequently (I posted the figure earlier) talking about people who have been repeatedly prosecuted and punished in another way. So they *must* see it coming, but it doesn't stop them.
For those people truly daunted by prison, then I suspect that they would be equally daunted by wearing a bright orange overall and cleaning the streeets in view of everybody else.
For those planning a large crime, they don't think it'll matter because they won't be caught.
And for those driven by drugs, desperation, drink or illness, then they won't be deterred becuse they won't think that far ahead.
So I'll accept that prison is not "no deterrent at all" but I don't know who it is deterring.
|
>> For a start you are frequently (I posted the figure earlier) talking about people who
>> have been repeatedly prosecuted and punished in another way. So they *must* see it coming,
>> but it doesn't stop them.
Yes. Do you think that significantly longer sentences could deter many of them?
>> For those people truly daunted by prison, then I suspect that they would be equally
>> daunted by wearing a bright orange overall and cleaning the streeets in view of everybody
>> else.
I would think there are many that would be very deterred by prison, but not so much by a bright orange vest.
>> For those planning a large crime, they don't think it'll matter because they won't be
>> caught.
These are probably the real risk takers that I mentioned before, so you are probably right.
These are the ones that'll be importing huge amounts of illegal drugs or carrying out armed robberies for lots of cash. You may never deter these people, or find another way to curb their risk taking.
>> And for those driven by drugs, desperation, drink or illness, then they won't be deterred
>> becuse they won't think that far ahead.
Yes, probably, because they act on the spur of the moment, especially those crimes driven by drink.
Also, I'd like to see a system, where you don't have to declare your criminal record for many offences, depending on who you will work with (children being an obvious exception).
If you have some who mugged someone once, would you feel safer if that person was working in your local Tesco, or hanging around your local neighbourhood (with no income)?
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 18 Aug 12 at 15:57
|
>>Yes. Do you think that significantly longer sentences could deter many of them?
No, I really don't. Absolute statements are usually not absoluely true, but I'd doubt its many.
I think a system of not declaring some criminal convictions is an excellent idea. And builds quite well on an approach of not imprisioning people, but getting them back into a worthwhile place.
|
"Prison is there to satisfy the emotional need of the non-criminal. It briefly removes a problem.
It achieves NOTHING else."
You constantly state this as though it is a great insight and that punishment in itself is not a reasonable and desirable objective. Expecting criminals to be punished is not vengeance it is justice.
Society has every reason to expect that those performing criminal acts are punished. Yes there are other punishments from hang drawing and quartering to fines and prison is far from the perfect punishment but most people don't like being locked up whatever they may say. No country has found a better alternative.
|
For goodness sakes...
I said...
"Prison is there to satisfy the EMOTIONAL NEED of the non-criminal"
and you said...
"Society has every reason to EXPECT that those performing criminal acts are punished"
Help me understand your position here, what do YOU think an expectation is? An emotional need perhaps?
|
|
No, I wouldn't call the expectation of justice an emotional need. Punishment of criminals is an essential component of justice. It is a basic tenet of a civilised society, an underpinning of civilisation. You seem to believe that the requirement for punishment of criminals is a trivial emotional need which is akin to vengeance. It is not.
|
I never said trivial. Given that it is the driver of our entire justice and legal system, it is not trivial.
I can't help you understand that expectation is an emotional need. But it is. I don't know what you think it is.
My point was and remains this;
What do we want to achieve;
If it is rehabilitation or deterrence then prison does not work. If it is removal, there are cheaper and more effective ways.
So those things would not appear to justify the prison system.
If it is revenge or retribution, then that doesn't seem a very civilised approach and so I don't think it should be used to justify an approach.
If it is an expectation of punishment than that, I believe, is an emotional need (its also wobbling on the edge of retribution).
I have an emotional need to live in an environment where crime is lower and effective, economic methods are used to deal with the situation and make the most of the situation. I would only have an emotional need for punishment where I had a subjective view, which is not a good basis for decision.
Nonetheless, my overall emotional need to see punishment is vastly outweighed by my emotional need to live in a better society.
You can quite obviously keep saying "not it isn't" or anything else. But I doubt you're any more comfortable with that than I.
|
>> "Prison is there to satisfy the EMOTIONAL NEED of the non-criminal"
I have been part of senior management meetings for a large London Borough (pop 320,000) and discussed ONE PERSON being jailed and the subsequent drop in crime figures (temporarily until he's out again).
I have been party to various policing options for that ONE PERSON, some that are exceptionally staff intensive and expensive... again because they are a prolific offender.
Prison works well in their case. When they are locked up, they are not offending.
There's plenty like that...the proportion of crooks in society is surprisingly small.
|
|
I don't disagree with that view, but I've seen impressionable young crims banged up and then come out worse. They've either been introduced to drugs or been on a HMP course in advanced crime. In one particular case I remember an youth bought back a couple of mates he'd met after being banged up and all three went on a major rampage once they were free to do so. There are no solutions. Meeting violence with violence isn't one either.
|
One fundamental problem with the prison system is that those on remand, first time offenders and habitual offenders are all mixed up together. The former groups need to be seperated from the latter for a start. I think Thatcher tried the short sharp shock but it didn't work. Sorting out the first time offenders so they don't become repeat offenders seems the best place to concentrate effort.
I was reading about crime in a manchester district dropping 80% because they had banged up one gang.
If there are habitual criminals responsible for a lot of crimes why one earth are they let out again?! If you can't fix them then keep them locked up. They are responsible for their actions. If you don't want to end up in prison don't commit crime. You can't accidentally steal something, mug an old lady or rob a bank. It's a conscious act. It's not an emotional need it is a right of an innocent citizen of a reasonable society to be able to go about their daily business without being the victim of crime. If the only solution is to keep them off the streets then it should be done in the absence of any better solution.
This includes any white collar criminals that cause misery too. If they can't behave then they go back too.
What do repeat offenders say about how to stop them from re-offending?
|
>>I've seen impressionable young crims banged up and then come out worse.
If one of my children misbehaved at school I would never accept them going into a class for misbehaved children. That's just throwing petrol on flames and branding them forever.
I'd want them in a normal class full of well behaved children and mentored* into becoming part of that class.
* in this case mentored means encouraged, cajolled, threatened, bribed, tempted, etc. etc. etc.
I wouldn't suggest that a criminal is the same thing at all, but there is a certain logic there.
However, perhaps unsurprisingly, the main thrust seems to be to punish an offender in a way which makes the non-offenders feel better and not really worry about it beyond that.
Still, that'll show them. Birch them, imprison them, mistreat them, make them suffer, that'll show 'em.
I just can't help but think that we will have to address the problem a little differently one day.
|
>> If one of my children misbehaved at school I would never accept them going into
>> a class for misbehaved children. That's just throwing petrol on flames and branding them forever.
>>
>> I'd want them in a normal class full of well behaved children and mentored* into
>> becoming part of that class.
>>
But what if that particular child kept misbehaving and refused to be mentored into becoming part of the class? I should think the parents of the other 39 children who wanted to get on and study would have little sympathy and just want the disruptive individual out of the way.
People who behave have rights too.
|
>>People who behave have rights too.
Absolutely. More rights, or stronger rights, IMO.
>>what if that particular child kept misbehaving and refused to be mentored into becoming part of the class?
There must come a point where the school says that they don't want that child in their midst. But do you lock the child away, give up on it or what?
I don't actually know what you'd do with a child at that stage, but if you revert back to considering a criminal at this point, I would remove them from society. Permanently.
|
... When they are locked up, they are not offending...
I have heard several judges say to defendants something along the lines of: "It has to be prison, not least because the public deserves a break from your offending."
It is also a fallacy to say criminals are not bothered about jail.
I have seen many, many people locked up, and most appear to take it well while stood in the dock.
But speaking to the barrister after he has been downstairs to see the punter, the barrister will often say: "He was nearly in tears."
It comes back to the risk/reward calculation.
Hypothetically, if you could speak to the offender the second before he plunges a knife into someone and say: "I'm not trying to stop you, but if you carry on, you will go to prison," 99 per cent would decline to commit the crime.
What is lacking is fear of detection and fear of harsh punishment if convicted.
"I may not get caught, and even if I do, I will get a not guilty somehow or other, or a ridiculously lenient sentence."
|
>> It achieves NOTHING else.
Good enough for me.
|
>> Prison is to keep the scum away from the rest of us.
>>
Couldn't agree more.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:49
|
>>>> Prison is to keep the scum away from the rest of us.
Is it?
So its a failure then. Is that what you're saying?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:48
|
|
Anyway, enough is enough. Unless someone, including me, comes up with something new, I'm off from this one.
|
...I'm off from this one...
NoFM's sounding increasingly like, what'shisname?
Oh, I forget now.
|
|
And have you noticed how you never see us both in the same thread at the same time.......
|
>> >>>> Prison is to keep the scum away from the rest of us.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> So its a failure then. Is that what you're saying?
I don't think it is a failure. It works well....whilst they are in there, they cannot prey on others...
...and those of us willing to be decent citizens, can think, 'ha you bar steward, have some of that on me, have a little reflection on what's right and wrong'.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:48
|
Ian Brady - VxFan
