Britains legal system is shit

[HBK-aholic]

After browsing the internet for the latest news stories, I've come to the conclusion I detest our legal system with a passion. (Okay, so I've always hated it, but I really, really hate it). It's WAY too easy to get off of crimes altogether, or with almost nothing. You can kill and be out in a few years. Life never means life. You can get out of prison by saying you're scared of it. Admitting what you did somehow makes it better? 'Human rights' apply more to criminals than they do to victims. Half the cases you see reported, the criminal should be killed, yet you see they'll likely be out in a few years, with a new identity so they can get on with their lives like nothing ever happened. A new identity law-abiding citizens have paid for.

Rant over. Discuss if you wish.

 

[Dave]

Agreed.

It annoys me the most that nothing we can ever do will change this fact. The point is, prisons are dangerously over-crowded, victim's lives etc do not mean anything any more and criminals are getting off with more and more things simply because a judge sees it that way. I know it probably is not as simple as that but that's the way I see it. People honestly could not care less about someone else's life any more. You kill someone and you are out in 10 years and that is it. A family needs to live with the loss of a family member for the rest of their lives.

You're right Bex. The judicial system in Britain is quickly becoming a joke, nay, the laughing stock of the world. I remember reading a story a couple of years ago and it just shocked me to the core. A man, who was proven guilty of a double-rape-homicide on two teenagers, was allowed to go free from court because he had a mental deficiency. After being inspected by doctors, they found no reason as to why he may have done it. His lawyers claimed that he was mentally insane and had no recollection of the fact that he had done it and had no idea why. The gave him a guilty verdict and let him go to a lavish mental hospital for a 16 year sentence. He will probably only do half of that sentence. This was because he had no past history of crime. On the same day, a man was convicted of pushing a woman out onto the street whilst trying to steal her bag from her. The woman was clipped by a car and no real lasting damage was done. Although, it is still a crime, the man was given 12 years in a maximum security prison because he had been a criminal beforehand. What the fuck is that. Are you seriously trying to tell me that stealing a bag is worth 4 more years than a rape homicide on a young life.

It's a joke.

 

[Kip The Fury]

Couldnt agree more, there have been a few cases recently that have wound me up but this one takes the piss:

Baby P - these monsters (i cant bring myself to call them people) basically torture a baby killing him slowly over a period of time. The "mother" gets 6 years, she'll be out in 3 because of time served. The step father who has also been charged with molesting a 2 yr old and a lodgher who was living with them will be out in a few years as well. There was a petition to look into these sentences as there seen to be too short, Baroness scotland (i forget which made up job she holds) decides that no, 6 years is a perfectly adequate sentance for brutally torturing a child.

Over the past few months iv heard of loads more stories about criminals being let out early. I believe there was a case where a father hung himself because the rapist who murdered his daughter was released after only 10 years of his "life sentance". Basically you take whatever sentance the judge hands out and then half it and you'll be back on the street.

The state of prisons in britain is a joke too. Prison should be where criminals are locked up and have their freedoms taken away from them. Bullcrap, most prisoners live comfortable lives at the taxpayers expense. There was even a story about prisoners getting PS3s and Xboxes at the taxpayers expense. Criminals take away there victims human rights and freedoms, why should they be granted them?

The justice system and prisons need to be toughened up or the British people are going to end up living in fear of the thugs that the police do nothing about.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

The worst thing about todays legal system is the fact that an honest person has been jailed and is in prison with killers, pedos and rapists.

Ive recently had a friend of mine been taken to brixton prison due to a domestic dispute, yes you heard it right a domestic dispute, now im not condoning what happened but i will tell the story of the incident.

He basically found out that his brother in law was cheating on his sister and withholding money from his nieces and nephews, the father of said family was holding all money paid to him by work and not paying a penny, my friend went down to his brother in laws flat and asked him to return the keys to a car that his sister paid for and a fight ensued my friend walked out the house after he was handed the keys but was then stopped by the police, he explained the situation but was then taken down to brixton station and released on bail, he then found out he was being charged with three offences, ABH, Theft and a third offence that i am unaware of, he attempted to phone his brother in law to get him to see reason and drop the charges, instead the guy phones the police and states that my friend has thretened him violating the terms of his bail, my friend is now in custody of brixton prison being held until he goes to court, the problem is he could be there for upto a year, which to me is utter bull.

I visit him every week and watch him deteriorate in prison whilst a revolving door of criminals go through his wing, he is currently sharing a cell with a psycho who has killed but was let out due to his mental condition.

Its not only bad that someone abused our legal system to get my friend inside, but criminals who commit such disgusting acts as rape and murder are let out, and the sad part is they dont learn there lesson, they keep offending because they know they will be inside happy, they dont give a crap if they are caught or not

 

[Nitafrong]

I know it’s popular to deride the legal system for not being effective. In fairness, as there is yet to be discovered a sure fire way to prevent crime from occurring, or to stop criminals from re-offending (bar perhaps the death penalty- but it seems like a little harsh to be the only method to stop people doing illegal acts), how can any legal system really be seen as effective? We are punishing crime, not preventing it.

But one of the things which always annoys me, is when people criticise it for not being harsh enough. Crime statistics are currently down on their levels in the 1990's, and yet more people are in prison that ever in the past by quite a margin. Judges are sending more people to prison and for longer than ever before, and yet people always feel it is never enough. One of the authors above actually admitted the system was dangerously overcrowded and yet at the same time felt it wasn't harsh enough, and that prisoners got off early, or had too soft a time. There are a number of prisons in England where slopping out of cells has returned, as facilities built for two now house four or five. Are these not contradictions?

Really though the question we need to ask ourselves, is how else can we prevent crime from occurring without turning to the expensive, and ineffective approach of imprisonment. What changes do we need to make to our society? How else can we push governments to really achieve a change in crime, rather than listen to all the parties promise tougher approaches?

 

[HBK-aholic]

I know it’s popular to deride the legal system for not being effective. In fairness, as there is yet to be discovered a sure fire way to prevent crime from occurring, or to stop criminals from re-offending (bar perhaps the death penalty- but it seems like a little harsh to be the only method to stop people doing illegal acts), how can any legal system really be seen as effective? We are punishing crime, not preventing it.

As we should.

But one of the things which always annoys me, is when people criticise it for not being harsh enough.

How in the world can that annoy you when it's true? It's in no way harsh enough. Unless you're telling me that a guy who slowly tortured and killed his step son, as well as raped a 2 year old girl only deserves the 10 years minimum he was given? His 'minimum' should be dying slowly in prison.

Crime statistics are currently down on their levels in the 1990's, and yet more people are in prison that ever in the past by quite a margin. Judges are sending more people to prison and for longer than ever before, and yet people always feel it is never enough. One of the authors above actually admitted the system was dangerously overcrowded and yet at the same time felt it wasn't harsh enough, and that prisoners got off early, or had too soft a time. There are a number of prisons in England where slopping out of cells has returned, as facilities built for two now house four or five. Are these not contradictions?

Contradictions? How, exactly? Harshness, and people not building enough space? 2 completely different issues. Unless you're implying we allow people to go free early simply because there isn't enough space?

And if you want to speak contradictions in this pointless way, Aren't you contradicting yourself now saying there's less crime yet more people in prison? How does that make sense?

 

[Nitafrong]

Yeah, still getting to grips with this quoting thing I am afraid- so I will have to do this in this most basic of ways I am afraid : ).

“As we should.” (When referring to whether we should punish or prevent crime)
Well that’s your belief, that the legal system should be about punishing crime. Personally I think that there should be a mix of punishment and rehabilitation, as we can’t afford to punish everyone as harshly as some would like. Victims and the public cry out for vengeance but I believe that the legal system should stand above this, that it should have longer term motives, for the good of the country as a whole and that it shouldn’t let personal feeling intrude. That’s why we can supposedly trust the rule of law in a democracy- its impartial. Rehabilitation works (when it does work) in a longer term basis by stopping committing new crimes. But really there are a wide number of divergent views on how to deal with crime. Some as you do believe in punishment, some in rehabiliation, some for simple detainment of prisoners, some for solving the causes of crime, and others that victims need a much larger role within the system. Its a complex issue that doesn't look like its going to be solved anytime soon.

In the same sense to answer your second point about the harshness of the judicial system, is it fair that someone who has failed to pay a parking fine after being requested to by the court, should be also imprisoned? And in these individual cases such as you mentioned with regards to the guy given the 10 year minimum- he would have been given a 20 year sentence with the option of parole after 10 years dependant on what the parole authorities judged. He might necessarily get out after 10 years. In most sentences, parole tends to be optional after half sentence. Put in the way you have above, it seems unreasonable, but without seeing the full information of the case including any mitigating factors we can really judge the judge fairly (that’s a bit of a mouthful). Most laws do tend to have a sound basis in my opinion, though their depiction in the media tends to be different.

My point about contradictions was that the author had claimed that prisons were over crowded and yet were not harsh enough. I have had to read reports on the conditions suffered by those in overcrowded cells, and they are much harsher than people would imagine. In some prisons, inmates stay in their overcrowded cells 23 hours a day, with one hour of exercise, and no proper toilet facilities. In my book this is fairly harsh though everyone has their own opinion.

Finally your last point- you asked how it made sense that there was less crime and yet more people in prison. I perhaps did not make myself properly clear above but this is due to judges “net widening”- sending increasing amount of people to prison for minor crimes, and the average length of sentences increasing, leaving more people in prison.

And yay- thanks for replying- first time someone has on this forum

 

[Uncle Sam]

I've got to agree with the Nitafrong. Good post, mang.

The legal system is about more than punishment. Well, it should be. Preventing crimes with schemes like neighbourhood watch, improving schools and such is just as important. Sad thing is, the poor are more likely to turn to crime, simply because they live in shitholes. Eliminate the shitholes, less crime.

Rehabilitation of criminals can be important too. I don't mind the idea of life imprisonment, but I'm not crazy about capital punishments - even with DNA evidence.

As for punishments not being harsh enough; they're better than the media would have you believe. For obvious reasons, they highlight cases where the punishment hasn't been strict enough. This is a by-product of our laws - it's very difficult to work out the loopholes and you can't go into specific cases. A possible solution would be to give judges - and not Parliament - control over minimum sentencing.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Yeah, still getting to grips with this quoting thing I am afraid- so I will have to do this in this most basic of ways I am afraid : ).

The easiest way for me to explain broken quotes is to copy and paste what you want to reply to, then write [quote][/quote] around what you've copied .

“As we should.” (When referring to whether we should punish or prevent crime)
Well that’s your belief, that the legal system should be about punishing crime. Personally I think that there should be a mix of punishment and rehabilitation, as we can’t afford to punish everyone as harshly as some would like. Victims and the public cry out for vengeance but I believe that the legal system should stand above this, that it should have longer term motives, for the good of the country as a whole and that it shouldn’t let personal feeling intrude. That’s why we can supposedly trust the rule of law in a democracy- its impartial. Rehabilitation works (when it does work) in a longer term basis by stopping committing new crimes. But really there are a wide number of divergent views on how to deal with crime. Some as you do believe in punishment, some in rehabiliation, some for simple detainment of prisoners, some for solving the causes of crime, and others that victims need a much larger role within the system. Its a complex issue that doesn't look like its going to be solved anytime soon.

I believe in a mix of them. I really don't understand why people believe punishment is such a bad thing. I mean, I'm not arguing for the punishments some countries have, and the torture they use. But there should be some punishment, to try and deter from the first crime, and, yes, to punish them for that offence. I mean, some prisons have games consoles in. How is that punishment? How is this seen as a bad thing? Prisons are way too nice to criminals.

In the same sense to answer your second point about the harshness of the judicial system, is it fair that someone who has failed to pay a parking fine after being requested to by the court, should be also imprisoned?

If it's not something that's hurt anyone else, jail is something that should be a last resort. But if they continually refuse to pay the fine, or do community service to pay that fine, they should be imprisoned.

And in these individual cases such as you mentioned with regards to the guy given the 10 year minimum- he would have been given a 20 year sentence with the option of parole after 10 years dependant on what the parole authorities judged. He might necessarily get out after 10 years. In most sentences, parole tends to be optional after half sentence. Put in the way you have above, it seems unreasonable, but without seeing the full information of the case including any mitigating factors we can really judge the judge fairly (that’s a bit of a mouthful). Most laws do tend to have a sound basis in my opinion, though their depiction in the media tends to be different.

They shouldn't have the option of parole though. If you've raped a child and killed another, there shouldn't even be the tiniest possibility you will ever be allowed out, let alone after only 10 years. The cases were 2 of the worst I'd ever seen, and when I found out the same guy did them I thought we should have the death penalty for him alone. He should never, ever be allowed back into society after what he did.

My point about contradictions was that the author had claimed that prisons were over crowded and yet were not harsh enough. I have had to read reports on the conditions suffered by those in overcrowded cells, and they are much harsher than people would imagine. In some prisons, inmates stay in their overcrowded cells 23 hours a day, with one hour of exercise, and no proper toilet facilities. In my book this is fairly harsh though everyone has their own opinion.

It's harsh, yet I wouldn't campaign against it in any way. These criminals didn't care how harsh they were being when they were killing/attacking their victims. They didn't care about those human rights. So I'm not going to lose sleep over these people being a little uncomfortable. It's not politically correct to feel this way, or to say it. It's why conditions are so good in most places. But political correctness has gone too far.

Finally your last point- you asked how it made sense that there was less crime and yet more people in prison. I perhaps did not make myself properly clear above but this is due to judges “net widening”- sending increasing amount of people to prison for minor crimes, and the average length of sentences increasing, leaving more people in prison.

The minor crimes thing is a weird one. On one hand, I'm not too bothered about (using your above example) someone who missed a fine being on the streets. I mean, they're not a risk to me or my family. But anyone who's hurt another should be in prison for a suitable amount of time. Instead of complaining about overcrowding they should just build more prisons. And that's also lots more jobs that are being created.

And yay- thanks for replying- first time someone has on this forum

 

[Uncle Sam]

I believe in a mix of them.

You mean "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - the pledge that Tony Blair made as Shadow Home Secretary in 1994. You'll find that most people believe in a similar thing, whether they be a member of the public or a politician. That's the conclusion that people always come to.

It's harsh, yet I wouldn't campaign against it in any way. These criminals didn't care how harsh they were being when they were killing/attacking their victims. They didn't care about those human rights. So I'm not going to lose sleep over these people being a little uncomfortable. It's not politically correct to feel this way, or to say it. It's why conditions are so good in most places. But political correctness has gone too far.

That's the thing though. The judicial system is meant to be impartial and neutral, above just fighting fire with fire. The punishment is supposed to match the crime, but not completely literally.

Instead of complaining about overcrowding they should just build more prisons. And that's also lots more jobs that are being created.

The problem being, of course, where you find the money to build and maintain these new prisons and to pay the workers.

 

[HBK-aholic]

You mean "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - the pledge that Tony Blair made as Shadow Home Secretary in 1994. You'll find that most people believe in a similar thing, whether they be a member of the public or a politician. That's the conclusion that people always come to.

Well exactly, it should be a mix. Yet it seems to be wrong to want people to be punished for their crimes as well. Noted both from this thread, and from a Death Penalty thread a few months ago. I don't see the problem.

That's the thing though. The judicial system is meant to be impartial and neutral, above just fighting fire with fire. The punishment is supposed to match the crime, but not completely literally.

Exactly. But does it? If you kill someone, you should spend your life in prison. You've taken their life, so yours should be taken, although not literally.

The problem being, of course, where you find the money to build and maintain these new prisons and to pay the workers.

Get the MPs to pay back all their expenses.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Exactly. But does it? If you kill someone, you should spend your life in prison. You've taken their life, so yours should be taken, although not literally.

I agree wholeheartedly. Well, not wholeheartedly - I'd have to see the details of the case and... this is how problems arise.

Get the MPs to pay back all their expenses.

I hate to say it, but I don't think even that would be enough. I get that you were making a joke but I thought I'd be a killjoy. It's what I do best.

All the same, I like my solution of giving judges control over minimum sentences. The UK's supreme court will be ready soon; might as well give them something to do with their time.

Edit: Overall solution - Liberal Democrat government.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

After browsing the internet for the latest news stories, I've come to the conclusion I detest our legal system with a passion. (Okay, so I've always hated it, but I really, really hate it). It's WAY too easy to get off of crimes altogether, or with almost nothing. You can kill and be out in a few years. Life never means life. You can get out of prison by saying you're scared of it. Admitting what you did somehow makes it better? 'Human rights' apply more to criminals than they do to victims. Half the cases you see reported, the criminal should be killed, yet you see they'll likely be out in a few years, with a new identity so they can get on with their lives like nothing ever happened. A new identity law-abiding citizens have paid for.

Rant over. Discuss if you wish.

What's so wrong with giving someone a new identity when they leave prison, especially if they're first-time offenders? You seem to think that this is economically inefficient, but I fail to see how that's the case. I respect your strong beliefs about criminal justice and punishment, but I definitely don't think that such punishment should go beyond one's prison sentence. When someone's prison sentence has ended, they have paid their debt to society and should be able to enter it again as an active participant.

I'd argue that making criminals live with the consequences of their actions after their rehabilitation only increases recidivism rates. People who have been incarcerated and who have to disclose this incarceration to others are almost always stigmatized. Subsequently, they are excluded from opportunities that they may be more than capable of taking on and are also forced to live on the margins of society. In such a situation, when you can't realize your full potential and are, in effect, labeled forever as a criminal, why wouldn't you resort to criminal activity once again?

We all make mistakes, and some of us make mistakes that are much, much more serious than the mistakes others make. Once an authority steps in and decides a punishment fitting for our mistake, then that mistake should only be recognized in the event that we make other mistakes in the future.

 

[FromTheSouth]

What's so wrong with giving someone a new identity when they leave prison, especially if they're first-time offenders?

Because felons don't deserve the same rights as someone who has not committed a felony, even after prison. To say that they do is laughable, at best. A law abiding citizen should be given the benefit of the doubt over a convicted felon in job interview, and providing a new identity, with a clean record for convicted felons is unfair to those that haven't committed crimes.

You seem to think that this is economically inefficient, but I fail to see how that's the case.

1. A convicted felon has spent years in prison, which erodes social skills, which can be off putting to customers in a retail establishment or service facility.

2. A convicted felon is likely to commit another crime, which is disadvantageous for an employer. One, it could happen in his business or two, it could cause time lost for the business.

3. Worldwide unemployment rates are up, and you want to hire felons when there are people without criminal records looking for jobs.

4. The world needs ditch diggers, and I doubt you need a clear record to be one of those.

I respect your strong beliefs about criminal justice and punishment, but I definitely don't think that such punishment should go beyond one's prison sentence.

I do. I think a rapist should have to pay for that crime for the rest of his life. I think that a murderer who gets released on parole after 45 years for good behavior should have "MURDERER" tattooed to his head. Would you disagree with the yard signs for convicted sex offenders? What about the sex offender database? Don't you think that the public safety concerns outweigh the rights of a convicted felon? This is a way that crime follows you around your whole life, and it does so because convicted felons are dangers to society, and just because they've been in the shitty US or British prison system doesn't mean they're rehabilitated. It means that someone got tired of feeding their sorry ass and sent them on their way.

When someone's prison sentence has ended, they have paid their debt to society and should be able to enter it again as an active participant.

With extra restrictions and boundaries to make sure that law abiding citizens get to cut in front of them in every line.

I'd argue that making criminals live with the consequences of their actions after their rehabilitation only increases recidivism rates.

I would argue that you're using the word rehabilitation instead of incarceration because the euphemism helps you with your point. Prisons in America and most of the west don't rehab. they babysit. I would argue that recidivism rates are an illustration of the failure of the prison system, not the legal system.

People who have been incarcerated and who have to disclose this incarceration to others are almost always stigmatized. Subsequently, they are excluded from opportunities that they may be more than capable of taking on and are also forced to live on the margins of society.

Then you shouldn't have raped, killed, stolen in the first place. I have no sypathy for someone who commits a felony. If you didn't know or weren't taught right from wrong, it is not society's job to coddle you back in. You find someone to hire you, you pay taxes, and you thank God everyday that this isn't a nation that summarily executes all criminals. No one is forced to live on the margins of society. Go get a labor job, stop pretending that you deserve special dispensation, and live the meager life you should feel lucky to have after what you did. These are felons, not teenage vandals we are taking about.

In such a situation, when you can't realize your full potential and are, in effect, labeled forever as a criminal, why wouldn't you resort to criminal activity once again?

Because jail sucked the first time, and you don't want to go back.

We all make mistakes, and some of us make mistakes that are much, much more serious than the mistakes others make. Once an authority steps in and decides a punishment fitting for our mistake, then that mistake should only be recognized in the event that we make other mistakes in the future.

I think that child molesters should be hung from their balls. I think rapists should be killed. I think murderers should work in the fields or making license plates or whatever the state feels they should do for the rest of their lives. We are talking about felons, the worst kind of criminals.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Because felons don't deserve the same rights as someone who has not committed a felony, even after prison. To say that they do is laughable, at best. A law abiding citizen should be given the benefit of the doubt over a convicted felon in job interview, and providing a new identity, with a clean record for convicted felons is unfair to those that haven't committed crimes.

So, people should continue living with the burden of their mistake for their whole life, even after a punishment commensurate with their crime has already been given? This should also be the case when it's pretty much been proven that a disproportionate amount of non-violent crimes (excluding white-collar crime) are committed by people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? I don't see how this is laughable at all.

1. A convicted felon has spent years in prison, which erodes social skills, which can be off putting to customers in a retail establishment or service facility.

You've covered two industries out of many more. I'd imagine that quite a few prisoners would look to go into a trade, seeing as how manufacturing is pretty much a thing of the past in America and other mature industrialized countries. So, if they're capable of doing trade work that requires them to interact with inanimate objects, how does the erosion of social skills hinder them here?

2. A convicted felon is likely to commit another crime, which is disadvantageous for an employer. One, it could happen in his business or two, it could cause time lost for the business.

And why would that be exactly? Why do convicted felons commit crimes once again? Maybe it's because they can't find jobs because no one else will hire them? This would be a problem if most crimes were committed in the workplace, but that's simply not true. I could see an employer being wary of hiring someone as an accountant who has been convicted of embezzlement, but why should an employer be wary of someone who robbed out of desperate circumstances?

3. Worldwide unemployment rates are up, and you want to hire felons when there are people without criminal records looking for jobs.

So, what do you want to do then? Kill all released felons who enter the labor pool once again? Or, keep them in prison, and put an extra burden of approximately $22,000 per prisoner per year on taxpayers?

4. The world needs ditch diggers, and I doubt you need a clear record to be one of those.

So, someone's intelligence and talent should just go to waste here, for a mistake? You're trying to argue from a standpoint that heavily appeals to morals, which, from a standpoint of efficiency, is just ludicrous. For example, let's say we have a world of 500 people of low-intelligence and 500 people of high-intelligence, and that they must all be employed in either one of two fields, which both have only 500 spots: finance or grave digging. Let's also say that half of both of these intelligence groups have committed a felony, and this prevents them from being employed as a financier. From this, it can be concluded that we'll have half of each intelligence group working as financiers and grave diggers.

Now, how would morals in this instance best serve the economy?

I do. I think a rapist should have to pay for that crime for the rest of his life. I think that a murderer who gets released on parole after 45 years for good behavior should have "MURDERER" tattooed to his head. Would you disagree with the yard signs for convicted sex offenders? What about the sex offender database? Don't you think that the public safety concerns outweigh the rights of a convicted felon? This is a way that crime follows you around your whole life, and it does so because convicted felons are dangers to society, and just because they've been in the shitty US or British prison system doesn't mean they're rehabilitated. It means that someone got tired of feeding their sorry ass and sent them on their way.

No, I don't think that someone's crime should follow them around their whole life. If you can pull up recidivism rates for Britain and the US, I'd shit myself if they were actually lower in the US. So, according to you, we have a shitty prison system that does nothing to help prisoners out and that will inevitably release these prisoners after they get tired of feeding their sorry asses. Wouldn't you then want to go with the strategy that minimized the chances of a convicted felon being a repeat offender, seeing as how prison did nothing for them and kicked them out? How does it exactly help society as a whole to label someone a criminal for the rest of their life, except to give members of society a sense of moral superiority?

With extra restrictions and boundaries to make sure that law abiding citizens get to cut in front of them in every line.


I would argue that you're using the word rehabilitation instead of incarceration because the euphemism helps you with your point. Prisons in America and most of the west don't rehab. they babysit. I would argue that recidivism rates are an illustration of the failure of the prison system, not the legal system.

No, I use rehabilitation because that's the point of prisons that hold convicts that aren't on death row or are in for life without the possibility of parole.

Then you shouldn't have raped, killed, stolen in the first place. I have no sypathy for someone who commits a felony. If you didn't know or weren't taught right from wrong, it is not society's job to coddle you back in. You find someone to hire you, you pay taxes, and you thank God everyday that this isn't a nation that summarily executes all criminals. No one is forced to live on the margins of society. Go get a labor job, stop pretending that you deserve special dispensation, and live the meager life you should feel lucky to have after what you did. These are felons, not teenage vandals we are taking about.

What do you mean no one is forced to live on the margins of society? That is exactly what you're arguing convicted felons should do because they're bad.

Because jail sucked the first time, and you don't want to go back.

Doesn't seem to stop many robbers from going back.

I think that child molesters should be hung from their balls. I think rapists should be killed. I think murderers should work in the fields or making license plates or whatever the state feels they should do for the rest of their lives. We are talking about felons, the worst kind of criminals.

So, one-time offenders should just kiss everything away then and accept their fate of a shitty existence? What's the point of even releasing someone from prison then, if a life even worse than the one they've lived in prison awaits them? I just don't buy this at all. Repeat offenders are a different story altogether, but I think it's absolutely ludicrous to nail down first-time offenders as unsalvageable.

Also, you seem to believe that punishment should serve as a deterrent to crime. But, hasn't research already shown that people hardly ever sit back and think of the consequences of their actions before committing a crime? I would say that someone who is about to rob another person out of desperation puts very little emphasis on what will happen afterwards.

 

[Jonny B]

Because felons don't deserve the same rights as someone who has not committed a felony, even after prison. To say that they do is laughable, at best. A law abiding citizen should be given the benefit of the doubt over a convicted felon in job interview, and providing a new identity, with a clean record for convicted felons is unfair to those that haven't committed crimes.

That is by far the most close minded thing I have ever read in my life. I'll agree there is a need for restrictions on certain offenders, for example paedophiles not being allowed to live in close proximity to schools that's decent prevention. There are thousands and thousands of cases where there are extremely mitigating circumstances in a crime which effectively mean people will not offend again.... but of course on the flip side there are likely to be 10 times more repeat offenders, does that mean that the select few who actually leave prison a better person and will not offend should be punished? No it fucking doesn't, we live in a country (or countries) of equal opportunities I refuse to believe that people should be punished for something they have done in the past, are sorry for and have paid a price for, for the rest of their lives if you want to live a country like that, fuck off to China.

A convicted felon has spent years in prison, which erodes social skills, which can be off putting to customers in a retail establishment or service facility.

In most cases, but thats still a massive generalisation.

A convicted felon is likely to commit another crime, which is disadvantageous for an employer. One, it could happen in his business or two, it could cause time lost for the business.

Again massive generalisation.

Worldwide unemployment rates are up, and you want to hire felons when there are people without criminal records looking for jobs.

Everyone has the right to earn a living no matter what they have done in the past, if they didn't they would re-employ the death penalty.

I do. I think a rapist should have to pay for that crime for the rest of his life. I think that a murderer who gets released on parole after 45 years for good behavior should have "MURDERER" tattooed to his head.

Repeat offenders, I agree.

Would you disagree with the yard signs for convicted sex offenders? What about the sex offender database? Don't you think that the public safety concerns outweigh the rights of a convicted felon?

Putting them on a database and persecuting them for the rest of their lives are two completely separate things.

This is a way that crime follows you around your whole life, and it does so because convicted felons are dangers to society, and just because they've been in the shitty US or British prison system doesn't mean they're rehabilitated. It means that someone got tired of feeding their sorry ass and sent them on their way.

Who do you think has more of a chance of re-offending? A person who comes out of prison, is persecuted for being in prison, not given a job.... or someone who comes out and is given a second chance?

With extra restrictions and boundaries to make sure that law abiding citizens get to cut in front of them in every line.

That is fucking bollocks. So someone who has been in prison who could do a better job than someone who hasn't should be at the bottom of the list?

I would argue that you're using the word rehabilitation instead of incarceration because the euphemism helps you with your point. Prisons in America and most of the west don't rehab. they babysit. I would argue that recidivism rates are an illustration of the failure of the prison system, not the legal system.

Yeah the prison systems in the US and the UK fucking suck. Doesn't really justify persecuting people now does it.

Then you shouldn't have raped, killed, stolen in the first place. I have no sypathy for someone who commits a felony. If you didn't know or weren't taught right from wrong, it is not society's job to coddle you back in.

So by that logic if someone was bought up by their parents people they have no control over, and their peers telling them, and socialising them that doing these things are okay it is their fault? They should pay for it for the rest of their lives and not even be given a chance at rehabilitation? Again, bollocks.

You find someone to hire you, you pay taxes, and you thank God everyday that this isn't a nation that summarily executes all criminals. No one is forced to live on the margins of society. Go get a labor job, stop pretending that you deserve special dispensation, and live the meager life you should feel lucky to have after what you did. These are felons, not teenage vandals we are taking about.

But what you are proposing robs people of this chance... if idiots like yourselves continue to perpetuate the notion that criminals should never be given a second chance then of course they will turn to crime, if only to survive.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Because felons don't deserve the same rights as someone who has not committed a felony, even after prison. To say that they do is laughable, at best. A law abiding citizen should be given the benefit of the doubt over a convicted felon in job interview, and providing a new identity, with a clean record for convicted felons is unfair to those that haven't committed crimes.



1. A convicted felon has spent years in prison, which erodes social skills, which can be off putting to customers in a retail establishment or service facility.

2. A convicted felon is likely to commit another crime, which is disadvantageous for an employer. One, it could happen in his business or two, it could cause time lost for the business.

3. Worldwide unemployment rates are up, and you want to hire felons when there are people without criminal records looking for jobs.

4. The world needs ditch diggers, and I doubt you need a clear record to be one of those.

Couldn't agree with you more, the problem with todays society is a convicted killer or pedo can scream human rights and the world has to take notice, solicitors who defend these disgusting foul things do it for the money, not for anything else so they will do whatever it takes to either get them off or at least make sure they are treated reasonable inside, its utter bull!!!, what about the family of those who where killed or raped by these disgusting people?.

I do. I think a rapist should have to pay for that crime for the rest of his life. I think that a murderer who gets released on parole after 45 years for good behavior should have "MURDERER" tattooed to his head. Would you disagree with the yard signs for convicted sex offenders? What about the sex offender database? Don't you think that the public safety concerns outweigh the rights of a convicted felon? This is a way that crime follows you around your whole life, and it does so because convicted felons are dangers to society, and just because they've been in the shitty US or British prison system doesn't mean they're rehabilitated. It means that someone got tired of feeding their sorry ass and sent them on their way.

exactly the crime should think the punishment, they should have nothing but the walls to think about what theyve done, instead of counting the days when they will be released, its an abomination, my friend is currently inside for upto a year due to someone else abusing the legal system, yes he violated his parol but the legal system shouldn't be used this way!

With extra restrictions and boundaries to make sure that law abiding citizens get to cut in front of them in every line.

Its a known fact that pedophiles get rehoused in hostals that are close to rural areas near families, children in fact why should these people be allowed to be near children when they have been committed for raping a child?, its like putting a sex offender near a women's hostel, it shouldn't happen, its stupid and they should be away from society because they are not able to live in it simple as.

I would argue that you're using the word rehabilitation instead of incarceration because the euphemism helps you with your point. Prisons in America and most of the west don't rehab. they babysit. I would argue that recidivism rates are an illustration of the failure of the prison system, not the legal system.

In most cases criminals go back into society and re offend, the fact is its easier then suppressing there urges, they don't care if they go back because they get fed, they get to interact with others and they will just come back into society ready to do it again.

Then you shouldn't have raped, killed, stolen in the first place. I have no sypathy for someone who commits a felony. If you didn't know or weren't taught right from wrong, it is not society's job to coddle you back in. You find someone to hire you, you pay taxes, and you thank God everyday that this isn't a nation that summarily executes all criminals. No one is forced to live on the margins of society. Go get a labor job, stop pretending that you deserve special dispensation, and live the meager life you should feel lucky to have after what you did. These are felons, not teenage vandals we are taking about.

Again agreed, I remember the case of the poor boy Jamie Buldger who was killed by two young kids who abducted the child shoved a rocket up his ass and beat him to death, then they left him barely moving on the train tracks and watched a train run over him, guess where they are, living new identities in Australia, we've been told its because they where only young when they committed the crime and they had no control over what theyd done, that my friend is utter bull crap, they knew what they where doing, they understood what they did and acknowledged it when they committed the damn crime, in this matter ignorance should not be a reason for children to commit such horrid acts IMO.

Because jail sucked the first time, and you don't want to go back.

But most don't give a damn they'd be happy to go back because what they did the first time was easy and beat the big wide world.

I think that child molesters should be hung from their balls. I think rapists should be killed. I think murderers should work in the fields or making license plates or whatever the state feels they should do for the rest of their lives. We are talking about felons, the worst kind of criminals.

Agreed but apparently European law means equal rights which again is utter garbage!!!!.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

That is by far the most close minded thing I have ever read in my life. I'll agree there is a need for restrictions on certain offenders, for example paedophiles not being allowed to live in close proximity to schools that's decent prevention. There are thousands and thousands of cases where there are extremely mitigating circumstances in a crime which effectively mean people will not offend again.... but of course on the flip side there are likely to be 10 times more repeat offenders, does that mean that the select few who actually leave prison a better person and will not offend should be punished? No it fucking doesn't, we live in a country (or countries) of equal opportunities I refuse to believe that people should be punished for something they have done in the past, are sorry for and have paid a price for, for the rest of their lives if you want to live a country like that, fuck off to China.

So what about the child that pedophile just raped?, why should we allow that person back into society because he is sorry?, IMO your giving killers, rapists and pedos a chance to migrate back into society because they are sorry?, theyve ruined the life of a child, ruined their innocence and you think they should be justified? that my friend is absolute bollocks if you ask me, if its a minor offence i would see your point maybe justifiable but for serious offences no.

Everyone has the right to earn a living no matter what they have done in the past, if they didn't they would re-employ the death penalty.

Who is everyone? do you mean the monsters that raped children and abused and killed others?.....erm no, the fact is these people don't even deserve to be in society, I have kids and believe they should remain innocent, not have to be exposed to things they should never be involved in because some guy has a sexual preference for children.

Repeat offenders, I agree.

Glad you agree on something.

Putting them on a database and persecuting them for the rest of their lives are two completely separate things.

Its not enough, because they still could re-offend, i would be worried some guy was living near me who was a convicted pedophile and would attempt to get him moved, I would fear for my children s safety and have a damn right to be afraid.

Who do you think has more of a chance of re-offending? A person who comes out of prison, is persecuted for being in prison, not given a job.... or someone who comes out and is given a second chance?

Depends on the crime IMO

That is fucking bollocks. So someone who has been in prison who could do a better job than someone who hasn't should be at the bottom of the list?

Depends on the offence which the government is looking into, the less serious the offence the person may get it stricken from their record.

Yeah the prison systems in the US and the UK fucking suck. Doesn't really justify persecuting people now does it.

does it justify that person raping a child?

So by that logic if someone was bought up by their parents people they have no control over, and their peers telling them, and socialising them that doing these things are okay it is their fault? They should pay for it for the rest of their lives and not even be given a chance at rehabilitation? Again, bollocks.

so a rapist can be rehabilitated? a pedophile really? now thats just ignorant, these people were aware of what they did, so if you where aware why should you be fed into the system and come out saying your rehabilitated ready to reoffend?

But what you are proposing robs people of this chance... if idiots like yourselves continue to perpetuate the notion that criminals should never be given a second chance then of course they will turn to crime, if only to survive.

Wrong!, people turn to crime because its easy not because they are persecuted, the fact is the huge group that are being persecuted such as killers, rapists and pedos have right to be, they destroyed lives and should be paying for that, not giving a chance to back and fuck up again IMO

 

[FromTheSouth]

So, people should continue living with the burden of their mistake for their whole life, even after a punishment commensurate with their crime has already been given?

Yes. these aren't kids who are out having a good time and stealing some beer from the corner store. We're talking about rapists, murderers and child molesters, so they can suffer and I won't lose any sleep.

This should also be the case when it's pretty much been proven that a disproportionate amount of non-violent crimes (excluding white-collar crime) are committed by people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds? I don't see how this is laughable at all.

So, are you saying the poor don't know right from wrong? I never understood what this has to do with the debate. They're acting out of desperation? They're selling drugs because they have to? They killed out of necessity? All that is bullshit. If you're poor, take advantage of all the social welfare programs out there for you. I used to work in a welfare office, and food stamps, WIC, gas vouchers, job programs, and child care are all available. People don't commit crime out of necessity, they do it out of laziness and malice. Opportunities exist, it's just that people would rather bitch about how much harder it is for them than to do something about their condition. I understand that it's harder for the poor to succeed, and that is why my tax dollars go to helping them. I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with the poor who abuse the system and then blame society for the crack rocks in their pocket. It's bullshit. You make your own decisions, and should face the consequences of the bad ones. Wait, your next argument is that the poor get longer sentences than the wealthy for the same crime. I would say that that it unfair, and if you don't want to deal with that unfairness, don't commit crime.

You've covered two industries out of many more. I'd imagine that quite a few prisoners would look to go into a trade, seeing as how manufacturing is pretty much a thing of the past in America and other mature industrialized countries. So, if they're capable of doing trade work that requires them to interact with inanimate objects, how does the erosion of social skills hinder them here?

Great, then go into construction. I already said the world needs ditch diggers. Find a job that law abiding citizens don't want, and do it well.

And why would that be exactly? Why do convicted felons commit crimes once again? Maybe it's because they can't find jobs because no one else will hire them?

Nope. I put welfare recipients into jobs, and many of my clients were ex-criminals. They felt as if they were too good job to be a stocker at Walmart, and decided to sell drugs because it was more money and easier. I'm sorry, if you are a convicted felon you deserve to be put in the back of the line. I'm not saying you can't have a job, but private business has every right to exclude felons from their payroll, and giving them another identity is a violation of the right to information for the law abiding employer and no bleeding heart liberal can tell me that that is OK. The employer has every right to know if an applicant is a convicted felon and throw him out on his ass if he chooses. I couldn't care less, and I am more appalled that you think one should be able to hide a criminal past from an employer. That is stupid.

This would be a problem if most crimes were committed in the workplace, but that's simply not true.

I know. I've told you how criminals choose not to work. It's hard to sell weed when you have to be at an office.

I could see an employer being wary of hiring someone as an accountant who has been convicted of embezzlement, but why should an employer be wary of someone who robbed out of desperate circumstances?

Because desperation is an excuse for someone who chose not to take advantage of the millions of tax dollars invested in helping the destitute leave their circumstances. I have no sympathy for people who choose not to make the effort. You don't start as the CEO of a company, and someone has to flip the burgers.

So, what do you want to do then? Kill all released felons who enter the labor pool once again? Or, keep them in prison, and put an extra burden of approximately $22,000 per prisoner per year on taxpayers?

No, I want them to accept that they failed themselves, and that no one else failed them. I then want them to accept labor jobs or whatever will hire them and not have their identity changed so that the state helps them lie to employers. It is a pretty big character flaw to agree with this tactic.

So, someone's intelligence and talent should just go to waste here, for a mistake?

These are felons. Stop making excuses for them. No one gets excluded form hiring for an underage drinking ticket. If you're selling pounds of cocaine, what makes you think that you deserve to have that hidden in the future from prospective employers? I am dumbfounded that you believe this.

You're trying to argue from a standpoint that heavily appeals to morals,

Forgive me for impressing upon you that when you can't be fair, you give the benefit to the person who deserves it instead of the child molester.

which, from a standpoint of efficiency, is just ludicrous.

Right. So, what you're saying is that it is more efficient for a company to hire a convicted rapist than a law abiding citizen? Which argument is ludicrous. I also like that you call morals ludicrous.

For example, let's say we have a world of 500 people of low-intelligence and 500 people of high-intelligence, and that they must all be employed in either one of two fields, which both have only 500 spots: finance or grave digging. Let's also say that half of both of these intelligence groups have committed a felony, and this prevents them from being employed as a financier. From this, it can be concluded that we'll have half of each intelligence group working as financiers and grave diggers.

Because muderers and rapists have finance degree. Your analogy is further left than the rest of your arguments.

Now, how would morals in this instance best serve the economy?

Well, when the 250 child molesters with phd's in economics figure out an elaborate plan to filter millions of American dollars into Swiss bank accounts, I would say that the moral solution was better. Furthermore, if a business was really presented with your options, they would hire the 250 non felon geniuses and give them twice as much work until they found 250 more. Wow, that was terrible.

No, I don't think that someone's crime should follow them around their whole life. If you can pull up recidivism rates for Britain and the US, I'd shit myself if they were actually lower in the US.

Your point?

So, according to you, we have a shitty prison system that does nothing to help prisoners out and that will inevitably release these prisoners after they get tired of feeding their sorry asses. Wouldn't you then want to go with the strategy that minimized the chances of a convicted felon being a repeat offender, seeing as how prison did nothing for them and kicked them out? How does it exactly help society as a whole to label someone a criminal for the rest of their life, except to give members of society a sense of moral superiority?

You've failed to show me how you've minimized the chances of recidivism. Like I said, over here in the real world, where I worked with these people, they were no more interested in a job than you are getting run over by Santa's sleigh. They wanted to go back to the same job they had, selling crack, because it was easy and they made money, and worked for years without getting caught the first time.

No, I use rehabilitation because that's the point of prisons that hold convicts that aren't on death row or are in for life without the possibility of parole.

No, the purpose of prisons is punishment. The left has been pushing for rehab, however, no one in power thinks it's a good idea. In theory it might be, but criminals, by and large, don't care. If you think you're going to send motivational speakers and therapists into prison to discuss daddy issues with rapists and make them better, you're crazy. Sorry, these guys made their decisions and should be locked down like the animals they are and then thrown out to make their own way. If prison was harsh enough, there would be no recidivism. And you want to make it easier.

What do you mean no one is forced to live on the margins of society? That is exactly what you're arguing convicted felons should do because they're bad.

I mean that no one has to be a criminal. People are criminals because they choose to be, and should suffer the consequences of those choices without the state covering up for them. There are all kinds of job programs for released prisoners that the criminals choose not to take advantage of. I'm sorry, Mr. Rapist, that you feel you are too good to wheel shit out sewage, but maybe you should have thought about that before yo violently beat and violated that teenaged girl.

Doesn't seem to stop many robbers from going back.

Nothing will stop a criminal from crime except the criminal himself. Period. Giving someone a new name to commit crime under seems counterproductive. I think that is the state helping someone commit a crime instead of stopping crime.

So, one-time offenders should just kiss everything away then and accept their fate of a shitty existence?

Felons, like rapists and murderers and drug traffickers, and child molesters. I don't think that a kid who got caught with a fake ID should have his life taken away, I do, however, feel that someone who rapes someone should be put at the bottom of society and forced to work for everything without the benefit of the doubt over someone with a clean record and should not be given a new identity to gain access to a place that may be denying access to a law abiding citizen. When in conflict, a criminal should always be the one to take the harm, the law abiding citizen should be the one to take the benefit.

What's the point of even releasing someone from prison then,

The world needs ditch diggers, shit shovelers, and night watchmen. You do a good job there, then there's a promotion available, then another, then another. I'm not trying to give you a plan for dealing with criminals, I'm jsut saying that the one you endorse is absolute shit, and harms law abiding citizens in order to benefit rapists. How does that make any sense to you?

if a life even worse than the one they've lived in prison awaits them?

Every day in the free world is better than the best day in prison.

I just don't buy this at all. Repeat offenders are a different story altogether, but I think it's absolutely ludicrous to nail down first-time offenders as unsalvageable.

Felons, not a kid with a doobie behind the library. Big difference.

Also, you seem to believe that punishment should serve as a deterrent to crime. But, hasn't research already shown that people hardly ever sit back and think of the consequences of their actions before committing a crime? I would say that someone who is about to rob another person out of desperation puts very little emphasis on what will happen afterwards.

I never said anything about a deterrent except to say that jail is not tough enough if people continue to commit crime after release. But I agree here. Heat of passion or premeditation. You're right. But that has nothing to do with any of my arguments.


And now.......

That is by far the most close minded thing I have ever read in my life. I'll agree there is a need for restrictions on certain offenders, for example paedophiles not being allowed to live in close proximity to schools that's decent prevention. There are thousands and thousands of cases where there are extremely mitigating circumstances in a crime which effectively mean people will not offend again.... but of course on the flip side there are likely to be 10 times more repeat offenders, does that mean that the select few who actually leave prison a better person and will not offend should be punished?

No, but would you not agree that starting at the bottom and having to work your way up is not a bad idea. Look, if someone works at one job, and comes up for a promotion after doing a bang up job can get past the stigma of committing a crime in his past. I don't think that hiding someone's past does a service to the potential employer and sets them up for disaster. I think we should protect the law abiding citizen over the criminal.

No it fucking doesn't, we live in a country (or countries) of equal opportunities

And when you violate the social contract, then the opportunities presented to you are narrowed.

I refuse to believe that people should be punished for something they have done in the past, are sorry for and have paid a price for, for the rest of their lives if you want to live a country like that, fuck off to China.

So, then there should be no sex offender database that parents can look at when choosing a neighborhood and school to keep their children safe? Pedophiles that have completed a sentence should be allowed to work at ball parks, amusement parks, and schools? Rapists should have their identity sealed by the court so they can go work at 24 hour gym, where women come in alone at 3 in the morning. Predators are predators, and if one of them is given a job because of a changed identity that allows them to prey on INNOCENT people, then the program is a failure, and there is no one to blame beyond the state for allowing that act to happen, and if my government was allowing rape to happen just to be nice to a criminal, then I would gladly go to China. At least they don't sugarcoat their atrocious record on human rights.

In most cases, but thats still a massive generalisation.

If hiding an identity leads one recidivist act that would not have happened if the person was labeled a criminal, then one case is all I need.

Again massive generalisation.

I don't see how massive of a generalization it is to assume that criminals commit crimes, but OK.

Everyone has the right to earn a living no matter what they have done in the past, if they didn't they would re-employ the death penalty.

But not at the expense of someone who hasn't broken the law.

Repeat offenders, I agree.

So, according to you, everyone gets one free murder?

Putting them on a database and persecuting them for the rest of their lives are two completely separate things.

Right, but giving them a new identity, which is what this is about, would be uselss if they put them in the registry. Yard signs should be in the front yard of every pedophile for his entire life. The pedo on the block who has been convicted of touching kids should be the first suspect every time a child is missing, and he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He also does not deserve state protection to act again.

Who do you think has more of a chance of re-offending? A person who comes out of prison, is persecuted for being in prison, not given a job.... or someone who comes out and is given a second chance?

How do criminals not get second chances when they are released without being given a clean, new identity? They just have to work harder to advance. For me, that doesn't seem like it's too much to ask of them. Great, you're out of prison. Now that we know you can act right with armed guards watching you, let's take some time to see if you can act right without them. Does that not make sense to you?

That is fucking bollocks. So someone who has been in prison who could do a better job than someone who hasn't should be at the bottom of the list?

Not at McDonalds, yes at the bank.

Yeah the prison systems in the US and the UK fucking suck. Doesn't really justify persecuting people now does it.

No. The fact that someone committed a FELONY justifies their being persecuted.

So by that logic if someone was bought up by their parents people they have no control over, and their peers telling them, and socialising them that doing these things are okay it is their fault? They should pay for it for the rest of their lives and not even be given a chance at rehabilitation? Again, bollocks.

No, you're thinking that someone isn't smart enough to learn that selling crack, stealing, killing, and raping is wrong is bollocks. If your parents never told you it was wrong to rape someone, would you not be able to figure that out on your own? Give me a fucking break.

But what you are proposing robs people of this chance... if idiots like yourselves continue to perpetuate the notion that criminals should never be given a second chance then of course they will turn to crime, if only to survive.

So, I'm an idiot? That was so nice of you. And I never said that they shouldn't get a second chance. You and TDigle both tried to put words in my mouth because your points are so weak, and you don't have an answer to the central theme of my post. When in CONFLICT, why should a CONVICTED FELON get any benefit above and beyond a law abiding citizen?

That took forever. Good effort boys.

 

[huntmaster86]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this thread. I've not read the whole thing but the main question here is about the way the system works. Is it about the rehabilitation of criminals, or the punishemnt for crimes?

I will say the later servges bno purpose other than eating up taxpayers money. If punishment os the only thing than anyone wants, bring back the electric chair.

On the rehab thing...I'll offer a different opinion. my cousin is servin a 'life' sentence for armed robbery. I'm currently working with him on an autobiography. He is a serial offender (6th spell in prison) but is up for parole/equivalent in a year or so. Having known him all my life (his crime was commited 9 years ago), this is the first time i've ever know him to be truely remorseful, and I think his reintegration into society is extremely possible, without reoffending. But thats me...

I think that the medias coverage of suck things are ridiculous, ad only negative to the system. Minipulative and cold. That is the reason for such outcry and fear (and this thread. I think we ned to re-evaluate the reason for the judicial system to be perfectly honest.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this thread. I've not read the whole thing but the main question here is about the way the system works. Is it about the rehabilitation of criminals, or the punishemnt for crimes?

I will say the later servges bno purpose other than eating up taxpayers money. If punishment os the only thing than anyone wants, bring back the electric chair.

On the rehab thing...I'll offer a different opinion. my cousin is servin a 'life' sentence for armed robbery. I'm currently working with him on an autobiography. He is a serial offender (6th spell in prison) but is up for parole/equivalent in a year or so. Having known him all my life (his crime was commited 9 years ago), this is the first time i've ever know him to be truely remorseful, and I think his reintegration into society is extremely possible, without reoffending. But thats me...

I think that the medias coverage of suck things are ridiculous, ad only negative to the system. Minipulative and cold. That is the reason for such outcry and fear (and this thread. I think we ned to re-evaluate the reason for the judicial system to be perfectly honest.

Once again, someone who complains about punishment. Why is there such a problem with thinking someone who has killed/raped another person should be punished? Because I certainly think they should. It shouldn't all be about "Oh well they did something wrong but let's just not punish them, just see if they can get back into society". It's wrong to say you think criminals should be punished - why, exactly? I'm not arguing solely for punishment based treatment, or I'd just be arguing for the death penalty.

The legal system is not fair. You can kill someone yet not spend your whole life in prison. Seem fair to you? It doesn't matter how sorry you are, you still took someone's life. They don't get a second chance at life, so why should you?

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with this thread. I've not read the whole thing but the main question here is about the way the system works. Is it about the rehabilitation of criminals, or the punishemnt for crimes?

I will say the later servges bno purpose other than eating up taxpayers money. If punishment os the only thing than anyone wants, bring back the electric chair.

On the rehab thing...I'll offer a different opinion. my cousin is servin a 'life' sentence for armed robbery. I'm currently working with him on an autobiography. He is a serial offender (6th spell in prison) but is up for parole/equivalent in a year or so. Having known him all my life (his crime was commited 9 years ago), this is the first time i've ever know him to be truely remorseful, and I think his reintegration into society is extremely possible, without reoffending. But thats me...

I think that the medias coverage of suck things are ridiculous, ad only negative to the system. Minipulative and cold. That is the reason for such outcry and fear (and this thread. I think we ned to re-evaluate the reason for the judicial system to be perfectly honest.

Did your cousin kill someone?, rape someone or murder someone?, the fact is the reason i ask this question is to get a better understanding for his situation, if a pedophile is remorseful for raping a young child should he be braught back to society with open arms?...no

should a murderer come back into society for murdering someone, what does it say for the family, will they get resolution?... again no

you dont understand the factors here of the system, what the thread is about raises the question on weather the current system in place works, and the fact is it doesn't but you would not know that because you did not read the whole thread, just like i cannot tell you weather your cousin deserves to be in prison or not, it depends on what he did, if he stole, sold drugs and made bad choices its upto him to go back into society and make amends, but if he did some unjust things that effected others lives then you really need to understand why hes in there in the first place.

 

[huntmaster86]

Did your cousin kill someone?, rape someone or murder someone?

No. His crime (for this imprisonment) was armed robbery. He was a getaway driver in several robberies of banks and post offices. Just to clear that up.

if a pedophile is remorseful for raping a young child should he be braught back to society with open arms?...no

should a murderer come back into society for murdering someone, what does it say for the family, will they get resolution?... again no

But a point I was trying to put across (sorry I had a few beverages last night and don't think I expressed myself completely) is that if we put someone behind bars for life without question, it completely disposes of the whole point in having a prison. Then it is there for fear (something I don't think should be cultivated at all) and punishment (a nice way to pointlessly waste taxpayers money with no due outcome).

It costs a huge amount to keep a prisoner in jail. I think that is a key element. I just looked it up, and the figures are between £17000-£37,500 per year. If someone kills someone at the age of 20, rehabilitation is reached by the age of 30, you still want to keep him in prison until he is 70 costing possibly 1.5 million (without inflation) with no reason other than punishment? This is completely pointless and mad to me. Makes no sense whatsoever. I think that aspect really needs to be looked into aswell, especially in an age where we have a 50% tax bracket.

I think rehabilitaion (not remorse) is the way forward. More psychological assesments, and possibly gated community's taking on some form of work before full release back into society. In this day and age we need to be more in touch with our sociology, and really look at these people who have slipped through the net.

 

[Kip The Fury]

It costs a huge amount to keep a prisoner in jail. I think that is a key element. I just looked it up, and the figures are between £17000-£37,500 per year. If someone kills someone at the age of 20, rehabilitation is reached by the age of 30, you still want to keep him in prison until he is 70 costing possibly 1.5 million (without inflation) with no reason other than punishment?

If prisons weren't run like holiday camps it wouldn't be as expensive. Instead of giving prisoners access to things like games consoles and TVs why not have prisons run like prison. IMO the crime rate would drop if Criminals were scared of the prison they were going to be put into. If most people think of prison as basically free room and board for a few years, no taxes to pay, don't have to worry about trivial things like food shopping etc then prisons not much of a deterrent is it? Prisons should be a shit experience and IMO murderers and peadophiles and criminals who have deprived someone else of their human rights dont deserve the same human rights as me.

I'll also concede that people are wrongly imprisoned but then if the judicial system was better they wouldn't be in there in the first place, further reducing the cost for other higher risk prisoners.

I'm not against rehabilitation for low risk prisoners, i think its a really good idea but for high risk prisoners the sentence they are given should be the sentence they serve, in a much tougher prison system.

 

[huntmaster86]

If prisons weren't run like holiday camps it wouldn't be as expensive. Instead of giving prisoners access to things like games consoles and TVs why not have prisons run like prison. IMO the crime rate would drop if Criminals were scared of the prison they were going to be put into. If most people think of prison as basically free room and board for a few years, no taxes to pay, don't have to worry about trivial things like food shopping etc then prisons not much of a deterrent is it? Prisons should be a shit experience and IMO murderers and peadophiles and criminals who have deprived someone else of their human rights dont deserve the same human rights as me.

I'll also concede that people are wrongly imprisoned but then if the judicial system was better they wouldn't be in there in the first place, further reducing the cost for other higher risk prisoners.

I'm not against rehabilitation for low risk prisoners, i think its a really good idea but for high risk prisoners the sentence they are given should be the sentence they serve, in a much tougher prison system.

I'm pretty certain they aren't that nice, although I completely agree there should be more responsibilty put on them (agreeing with a babysitting point someone made a few comments ago), but I can tell you right now, I wouldn't want to be there. I think its another case of media fear mongering that pushes these 'plush' ideas of prison on people. Have you ever spoken to someone who has done time? Have they ever said anything to make you believe they enjoyed it?

But would you care to explain what a prison should be run like? Again, we do need a rehabilitation sense, and also not infringing on human rights (I agree and disagree with a lot of those laws, but still, they need to be kept to). Should it be chain gangs? Solitary confinement for the whole stretch? Both would only create more sociopaths e.g. Charles Bronson (he was always a psycho, and quick side note, don't bother with the film. Its beyond shit).

I think games and gyms are a good way of keeping the inmates not happy as such, but pre-occupied. A prison riot leads to a guard being injured? Huge implications to him, and the taxpayer (especially with this "I'll sue you" culture we seem to have adopted from America). Also it allows a vent of frustration that will maybe help them re-enter society, and also stop them harming themselves and others.

I still think as a society we need to continue working on the way our prison system and our judicial system are run, and the only way to keep moving forward is trial and error. I completely realise this won't be sorted in our lifetimes, if ever, but moving back to a harsher, colder system is just a step back in my opinion. We are smarter people than we were 50 years ago, more enlightened, and we should use that to make sure our society has a future.