Bit of a heavy subject, but....
Posted by: Rasher on 03 February 2004
My wife is sitting lectures at the moment for Law, and she has been hearing about the James Bulger case. The boys that killed this poor little 2 year old, pre-meditated I might add, have been released and given new identities after winning "the right to a life" in the european court of human rights.
I know we have been here before, but what will it take to stop vigalante groups emerging to address the failure of the justice system, and is the threat of vigilante groups a more effective crime prevention method?
Example of law failure: Lord Brockett on Celebrity telling that he served 7 years for fraud, sharing a cell with a murderer who was doing 5 years.
I'm not suggesting vigalanteism is OK, I just acknowledge that the law is next to useless.
I know we have been here before, but what will it take to stop vigalante groups emerging to address the failure of the justice system, and is the threat of vigilante groups a more effective crime prevention method?
Example of law failure: Lord Brockett on Celebrity telling that he served 7 years for fraud, sharing a cell with a murderer who was doing 5 years.
I'm not suggesting vigalanteism is OK, I just acknowledge that the law is next to useless.
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by HTK
I have to agree Rasher. This is always going to be a minefeld but the boys who murdered Bulger are monsters. It seems you have to be a certain type of monster to be locked up for good. The fact that they were children at the time makes no difference. It seems that they didn't kill enough people or steal enough money to be kept where they belong.
I'm stronly in favour of civil liberty (I don't think there's enough of it unless you're rich and white) and opposed to the death penality. But the Bulger killers walking about among us is wrong. I still wonder if Rose West will get out because of all the publicity surrounding her trial, but that doesn't look to be in progress yet.
This is depressing.
Just my £0.02
Harry
I'm stronly in favour of civil liberty (I don't think there's enough of it unless you're rich and white) and opposed to the death penality. But the Bulger killers walking about among us is wrong. I still wonder if Rose West will get out because of all the publicity surrounding her trial, but that doesn't look to be in progress yet.
This is depressing.
Just my £0.02
Harry
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Fisbey
Very depressing - wish I knew the answers, but I don't. One thing's for sure current politics or religion don't seem to be supplying too many answers, mind you neither does spending twelve grand on a CD player....
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Rasher
Sorry to bring you down, but I just wondered after yesterdays civil disobedience by father trying to get rights, and the known paedophiles being hounded from their homes a couple of years ago, I wonder if the public are not already starting to take matters into their own hands. Maybe a wake-up call is encouraging, just to get the law more effective.
I am also sure that new identities will be blown eventually, as the public that want to find out are far ahead of the authorities regarding resources.
I am also sure that new identities will be blown eventually, as the public that want to find out are far ahead of the authorities regarding resources.
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Fisbey
I think maybe it's a vicious circle with the dear old media in the middle somewhere, spreading horror stories, almost perversely glorifying the stories, so much so that kids will be frightened too look at anyone for fear of them being a paedophile.
Definitely a control thing in my view, a big game where only the 'rich' (and white?) survive - all very insidious....
Apart from looking at myself and trying to be true I still don't know the answers...
PS Didn't mean to offend anyone with a 12 grand CD player - a kind of personal 'anti affluence' thing I have....
Definitely a control thing in my view, a big game where only the 'rich' (and white?) survive - all very insidious....
Apart from looking at myself and trying to be true I still don't know the answers...
PS Didn't mean to offend anyone with a 12 grand CD player - a kind of personal 'anti affluence' thing I have....
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by FISBEY:
Apart from looking at myself and trying to be true I still don't know the answers.......
And if the world was full of people with that responsibility, then we would all be OK Fiz.
I don't think an anti-affluence "thing" is necessarily a bad thing either, although this is probably a strange place to say so
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by HTK
Ah yes, the media. Didn't they send a rampaging mob to kick the shit out of a paedophile - except he wasn't? It's cynical manipulation. They don't report the news, they make it up. I'm surprised so many people go for it. Of course, it's not like the alternatives are any better - scripted sound bites to camera, direct from the party press offices, stage managed photo opportunities - Gus Hedges was right all along!
Cheers
Harry
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Steve Toy
This is the biggest crime you can commit in our enlightened land. It is probably considered far more serious than even murder. So who or what constitutes Authority?
Is it the judges and magistrates in our courtrooms, senior police officers, and other enforcement agents?
Is it the Church of England bishops who preach us morality while they perhaps practise something else?
Is it the royalty and aristocracy who hold unelected office?
Is it captains of industry and all those with a wide access to the means of production, who are the paymasters of the mean-spirited politicians on all levels, from local councillor to Prime Minister who say they want to make the world a better place when really, instead of being our dutiful servants, all they really want is for other people to feel the effects of their abuse of power and privilege, and because they have their hands on all the levers of accountability they can ensure that someone else will take the rap when they do wrong?
The rest of us, the ordinary people of this country simply don't matter. We are subjects to the above not citizens. It does not matter a great deal to the above if one of us beats another senseless, kills, rapes or steals from another.
One example: on our roads. If you exceed a 30 mph speed limit in front of a parade of shops where children are milling around you may face a fine of up to £1000 if it goes to court. Exceed the National Speed limit on a clear motorway and the maximum penalty is £2500. In the first instance you put the lives of others at risk, in the second you challenge authority and break the Law of the Land, and evidently this is more serious.
Contempt of court? What's that all about then? Yes I watched Coronation Street last night, something I rarely do, but if you feel that you have been dispensed rough justice and decide to call the judge or magistrate a wanker then surely you should be escorted out onto the street and not into a cell.
The prisons are full of people who are there for just the retribution element of justice, and as such their chances of rehabilitation and being fully reintegrated into society are greatly diminished, and they are more likely to reoffend, but who will it be that they offend when they do? Our prison population could be cut by three quarters if prisons were reserved exclusively for those who pose a real physical danger to society. The rest could be made to pay their debt to society in more constructive ways that don't actually cost the taxpayer.
As for Jamie Bulger's killers they were only children themselves, and as such were not completely responsible for their actions. It is only right therefore that they should be given the chance to be rehabilitated as adults. Yes, I know, try telling that to Jamie's parents!
Guilty of fraud? Pay a big hefty fine and compensation to those whom you defrauded, and do a few hundred hours of Community Service. Even if you are an aristocrat ;-)
Guilty of murder or rape? Go to jail for ten years or longer.
Drive past a school or shops at 60mph when there are children present - be disqualified.
Drive at 90 down a motorway in clear conditions, maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle in front? Get there sooner.
Tony Martin went to jail for shooting a sixteen year old scumbag, not because it is wrong to shoot sixteen year-old scumbages who repeatedly break into and steal from your propety, but because he took the Law into his own hands and challenged the Authority of our legal system.
Justice should focus on the relationship between action and consequence, not on maintaining the Status Quo and protecting positions of power and privilege.
Regards,
Steve.
Is it the judges and magistrates in our courtrooms, senior police officers, and other enforcement agents?
Is it the Church of England bishops who preach us morality while they perhaps practise something else?
Is it the royalty and aristocracy who hold unelected office?
Is it captains of industry and all those with a wide access to the means of production, who are the paymasters of the mean-spirited politicians on all levels, from local councillor to Prime Minister who say they want to make the world a better place when really, instead of being our dutiful servants, all they really want is for other people to feel the effects of their abuse of power and privilege, and because they have their hands on all the levers of accountability they can ensure that someone else will take the rap when they do wrong?
The rest of us, the ordinary people of this country simply don't matter. We are subjects to the above not citizens. It does not matter a great deal to the above if one of us beats another senseless, kills, rapes or steals from another.
One example: on our roads. If you exceed a 30 mph speed limit in front of a parade of shops where children are milling around you may face a fine of up to £1000 if it goes to court. Exceed the National Speed limit on a clear motorway and the maximum penalty is £2500. In the first instance you put the lives of others at risk, in the second you challenge authority and break the Law of the Land, and evidently this is more serious.
Contempt of court? What's that all about then? Yes I watched Coronation Street last night, something I rarely do, but if you feel that you have been dispensed rough justice and decide to call the judge or magistrate a wanker then surely you should be escorted out onto the street and not into a cell.
The prisons are full of people who are there for just the retribution element of justice, and as such their chances of rehabilitation and being fully reintegrated into society are greatly diminished, and they are more likely to reoffend, but who will it be that they offend when they do? Our prison population could be cut by three quarters if prisons were reserved exclusively for those who pose a real physical danger to society. The rest could be made to pay their debt to society in more constructive ways that don't actually cost the taxpayer.
As for Jamie Bulger's killers they were only children themselves, and as such were not completely responsible for their actions. It is only right therefore that they should be given the chance to be rehabilitated as adults. Yes, I know, try telling that to Jamie's parents!
Guilty of fraud? Pay a big hefty fine and compensation to those whom you defrauded, and do a few hundred hours of Community Service. Even if you are an aristocrat ;-)
Guilty of murder or rape? Go to jail for ten years or longer.
Drive past a school or shops at 60mph when there are children present - be disqualified.
Drive at 90 down a motorway in clear conditions, maintaining a safe distance from the vehicle in front? Get there sooner.
Tony Martin went to jail for shooting a sixteen year old scumbag, not because it is wrong to shoot sixteen year-old scumbages who repeatedly break into and steal from your propety, but because he took the Law into his own hands and challenged the Authority of our legal system.
Justice should focus on the relationship between action and consequence, not on maintaining the Status Quo and protecting positions of power and privilege.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by reductionist
Are we only allowed to rant about the law? It's just that my neighbours hedge is getting a bit tall ... and as for their kids ...
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Fisbey
'Challenging Authority'
Er, in my humble opinion I think it's probably a bit more basic than the judges, church etc etc. I think perhaps questioning ourselves and our beliefs/traditions/prejudices etc. - which I guess ultimately means challenging our upbringing and possibly even our parents
As the Buddhists say 'truth is reality' and I feel we can only see the truth when we rid ourselves of the afforementioned prejudices etc. Maybe even look upon things from a more impartial viewpoint.
Again, in my opinion, we are all capable of 'crimes', whether it be murder, rape, theft, lies, deceipt etc - in the final analysis they are all crimes - crimes against ourselves.
Otherwise we simply continue playing the game 'ain't it awful'.....
Er, in my humble opinion I think it's probably a bit more basic than the judges, church etc etc. I think perhaps questioning ourselves and our beliefs/traditions/prejudices etc. - which I guess ultimately means challenging our upbringing and possibly even our parents
As the Buddhists say 'truth is reality' and I feel we can only see the truth when we rid ourselves of the afforementioned prejudices etc. Maybe even look upon things from a more impartial viewpoint.
Again, in my opinion, we are all capable of 'crimes', whether it be murder, rape, theft, lies, deceipt etc - in the final analysis they are all crimes - crimes against ourselves.
Otherwise we simply continue playing the game 'ain't it awful'.....
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by long-time-dead
Let's put this into perspective for a moment as a result of a recent event...
Last Friday evening (around 12-30am), whilst driving home from a concert, I had the misfortune of witnessing a group of youths engaged in a "gang-fight". So what you may think......... In the near 40 years I have lived here, it is the first time I have seen this.
Noticing two rather large knives entering the "party" - I decided to do the decent thing and dial 999 as I made a sharp exit with my passengers.
After things quietened down a little, I returned to the scene to notify the police that I made the call, saving police time in finding me and allowing me to make a statement before I continued my journey home.
What amazed me was that I stood around for 90 minutes giving details etc. whilst the wounded parties (two slashings / stabbings) were whisked to the local A&E. I told myself I was doing the "citizen thing" and that my actions would be more than justified as there would be less grief through injury than death.
I also had the pleasure of a CID visit to my home to verify my statement the next day.
The time I stood around is not the issue here, but it transpired that the "victims" refused to co-operate with the police at the hospital and decided to vent their anger at one another in the casualty department - injuring innocent staff and patients in the process.
I'll tell you one thing that really sticks in my throat and that is that a part of me wishes I had never made the call and they both bled to death leaving society a little safer.
It sickens me to have thought that way but the reality is that whilst the most appalling crimes seem to receive the least sentencing and motorists are persecuted for the most minor of offences, it seems to be that the lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
This country will decay into a deeper quagmire if the police forces and courts do not get their act together to punish the crimes that do the most harm to society.
You'd be less likely to be nicked if you were drunk or smacked out of you head, mugged old people and terrorised children than if you were driving at 35 - 40 mph in the same area.
Now who was it that said "The Law is an ass...." ???????
Last Friday evening (around 12-30am), whilst driving home from a concert, I had the misfortune of witnessing a group of youths engaged in a "gang-fight". So what you may think......... In the near 40 years I have lived here, it is the first time I have seen this.
Noticing two rather large knives entering the "party" - I decided to do the decent thing and dial 999 as I made a sharp exit with my passengers.
After things quietened down a little, I returned to the scene to notify the police that I made the call, saving police time in finding me and allowing me to make a statement before I continued my journey home.
What amazed me was that I stood around for 90 minutes giving details etc. whilst the wounded parties (two slashings / stabbings) were whisked to the local A&E. I told myself I was doing the "citizen thing" and that my actions would be more than justified as there would be less grief through injury than death.
I also had the pleasure of a CID visit to my home to verify my statement the next day.
The time I stood around is not the issue here, but it transpired that the "victims" refused to co-operate with the police at the hospital and decided to vent their anger at one another in the casualty department - injuring innocent staff and patients in the process.
I'll tell you one thing that really sticks in my throat and that is that a part of me wishes I had never made the call and they both bled to death leaving society a little safer.
It sickens me to have thought that way but the reality is that whilst the most appalling crimes seem to receive the least sentencing and motorists are persecuted for the most minor of offences, it seems to be that the lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
This country will decay into a deeper quagmire if the police forces and courts do not get their act together to punish the crimes that do the most harm to society.
You'd be less likely to be nicked if you were drunk or smacked out of you head, mugged old people and terrorised children than if you were driving at 35 - 40 mph in the same area.
Now who was it that said "The Law is an ass...." ???????
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by long-time-dead:
it transpired that the "victims" refused to co-operate with the police at the hospital and decided to vent their anger at one another in the casualty department - injuring innocent staff and patients in the process.
a part of me wishes I had never made the call and they both bled to death leaving society a little safer. It sickens me to have thought that way but
That is a sick & dreadful thing to think LTD, and now you feel bad about thinking it. That's the difference though - that you feel bad about thinking it!! Some wouldn't.
But that is exactly what gets me too, 'cos I can feel myself becoming more cynical all the time, and I don't want to be that way. The tragic consequence is that now, next time, you may think twice*, and the "victim" dies. Not your fault, but the fault of the system that will not intervene - (*except you won't of course
)Posted on: 03 February 2004 by long-time-dead
Rasher
Thanks for your kind words of support. Yes, I want evil, vindictive bast&rds to swing from the highest trees but I agree that it should not be of our doing but of those who are empowered to keep us safe.
I will continue to keep my own standards and educate my children accordingly.
Thanks for your kind words of support. Yes, I want evil, vindictive bast&rds to swing from the highest trees but I agree that it should not be of our doing but of those who are empowered to keep us safe.
I will continue to keep my own standards and educate my children accordingly.
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by long-time-dead:
This country will decay into a deeper quagmire if the police forces and courts do not get their act together to punish the crimes that do the most harm to society.
An almighty hear hear to that.
Mike
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
IF children can be rehabilitated in this way does it not seem a far more reasonable proposition? I don't believe the concept of deterrent is relevant in such extraordinary cases.
The concept of deterrence is often confused with a lust for retribution on the part of the next of kin.
"Try telling that to the parents of a victim" is an oft-used justification for pointless acts, sponsored by the state, of retribution and revenge for terrible crimes of violence.
Here in the UK such retribution amounts to no more than life imprisonment - and the possible subjecting of such criminals to physical abuse by other inmates. This in itself is only one step removed from the barbaric and medieval practices advocated by Shariah Law.
Sweden obviously got it right in my book.
My grandmother who will be 99 years old this year would say,
"Two wrongs don't make a right," and I totally agree with her.
Also the mechanism of deterrence often involves making an example of, and victimising minor trangressors of laws.
It may be an urban myth or a cynical piece of propaganda on the part of Northamptonshire police, who in their attempts at scaring people into obeying their newly enforced lower speed limits, cited an alleged case of the school-run mum who lost her clean licence in the space of one day having dropped her kid off at school and picked him/her up again because she'd passed through a camera on a stretch of road with a new lowered speed limit the requisite four times slightly over the new - and probably un-posted limit to notch up 12 points, a £240 fine, and a driving ban.
It was also alleged that as a result she lost her job, and her marriage also subsequently failed.
When I was training to be a teacher, a rather elderly supply teacher told me over lunch of one old classroom strategy where upon entering a new class he was told to pick on a sensitive and conscientious pupil and make them cry in order to instil fear into the more hardened potential transgressors in the class so that they would behave in future lessons.
This strategy has been abandoned by the teaching profession, but is still seemingly carried out by the police to this day in certain places.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on WEDNESDAY 04 February 2004 at 02:05.]
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Fisbey
Question:
What use is a deterrent to someone who doesn't know any better?
What use is a deterrent to someone who doesn't know any better?
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Steve Toy
Answer: Deterrence is not about the person who gets singled out for punishment. They are but a worthy sacrifice from the authority's point of view. It is the effect on the rest that counts.
Knowing right from wrong doesn't count either; it is not about responsibility for your actions, it is about obedience to avoid punishment.
Regards,
Steve.
Knowing right from wrong doesn't count either; it is not about responsibility for your actions, it is about obedience to avoid punishment.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Fisbey
Sounds a bit like my earlier bit on parents and upbringing - I think many parents teach us to be obedient, not necessarily good (or responsible)...
Difficult job, parenting, in my limited experience...
Regards
Difficult job, parenting, in my limited experience...
Regards
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Rasher
No-one is on the brink of advocating vigalanteism, it's just the frustration at the ineffectiveness of the authorities to do anything. You just can't help but get cynical, and that will lead to vigalante groups emerging as we have seen - that's the point. I'm not suggesting that it's a desirable situation because it will lead to total chaos, so something needs to address the problems before that happens.
I agree with you Steven, I really do.
I agree with you Steven, I really do.
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Steve Toy
I certainly don't agree with vigilante groups, but if they do form and act it will underline the fact that our philosophy on law and order is flawed (well, completely fucked up) and may then prompt a rethink.
However, I very much doubt it and the ringleaders of such groups will probably be dealt with severely, and nothing else will come of it.
Regards,
Steve.
However, I very much doubt it and the ringleaders of such groups will probably be dealt with severely, and nothing else will come of it.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Fisbey
I've been thinking about this and it occurs to me why do we have such egotistical people in places of 'power' and why do we put them there?
Also why do many managers, who seem to have no clue about dealing with people, surround themselves with 'yes men' ? - I suppose the answer is self evident really...
Also why do many managers, who seem to have no clue about dealing with people, surround themselves with 'yes men' ? - I suppose the answer is self evident really...
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Steve Toy
We put them there because they are liars and cheats and we believe them.
Managers often get the job because they were good at their previous job. Unfortunately their new job as manager requires a completely different set of skills to the ones they were proven to have.
Regards,
Steve.
Managers often get the job because they were good at their previous job. Unfortunately their new job as manager requires a completely different set of skills to the ones they were proven to have.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Fisbey
In a more optimistic moment I think (in fact I'm sure I've it mentioned on radio debates) more and more people are becoming disillusioned with politics and politicians...
Mind you it's not just politicians is it, I sometimes think we're all trying to f**k each other over in one way or another...
Mind you it's not just politicians is it, I sometimes think we're all trying to f**k each other over in one way or another...
Posted on: 08 February 2004 by Steve O
Our justice system at times appears at least as criminal as the people it supposedly protects us from.
A crack addict who beats up your granny is an unfortunate victim of society. You the motorist, however, doing 35 in a 30 zone is an altogether different evil. I read recently there was a plan to increase every motoring fine by £5 - £10, the extra cash put into a fund for victims of crime (rapes, violent assaults etc.). Why not make the perpetrators of the crimes pay the fines? Or is that just too sensible?
Steve O.
A crack addict who beats up your granny is an unfortunate victim of society. You the motorist, however, doing 35 in a 30 zone is an altogether different evil. I read recently there was a plan to increase every motoring fine by £5 - £10, the extra cash put into a fund for victims of crime (rapes, violent assaults etc.). Why not make the perpetrators of the crimes pay the fines? Or is that just too sensible?
Steve O.
Posted on: 08 February 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Mind you it's not just politicians is it, I sometimes think we're all trying to f**k each other over in one way or another...
I don't think human nature is fundamentally bad. In fact the majority of us could probably coexist quite happily with no government or laws whatsoever.
Unfortunately government is a necessary evil to protect the majority of decent people from a minority of evil-doers. We simply don't have sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that
a) Evil-doers don't gain access to positions of authority.
b) Such checks and balances ensure that nobody actually has any real power over others without the rest of us being able to hold them to account for their actions.
Power corrupts, and those most eagerly seeking to occupy positions of authority are often those least fit to do so.
quote:
You the motorist, however, doing 35 in a 30 zone is an altogether different evil. I read recently there was a plan to increase every motoring fine by £5 - £10, the extra cash put into a fund for victims of crime (rapes, violent assaults etc.). Why not make the perpetrators of the crimes pay the fines? Or is that just too sensible?
Agreed. It is another fine example of the way that our wonderful government cynically ignores the relationship between action and consequence for a given individual. They prefer the consequences of the actions of one individual to be borne by somebody else because the latter may have the means to pay when the former clearly does not.
Drivers are simply used as as a financial resource by this government to pay for the actions of others. It is a practice of socialism triumphing over a principle of fairness.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 09 February 2004 by JohanR
quote:
I don't think human nature is fundamentally bad. In fact the majority of us could probably coexist quite happily with no government or laws whatsoever.
Unfortunately government is a necessary evil to protect the majority of decent people from a minority of evil-doers. We simply don't have sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that
I heard this about the current state in Iraq on the radio yesterday, reported by a Norwegian aid worker who had just returned. As to how it is in a place where anarqhy rules.
The streets of Bagdad is ruled by maffia organisations, people are afraid of going out in fear of being kidnapped. Particulary people are afraid of letting there kids go out, that means they can't go to School. About 70 (seventy) people are gunned down every day, half of them dies (that amounts to something like 10000 people since the war started). The American soldiers are travelling around in their pansered vehicles and are probably not even aware of what's happening.
Yes, we want a working justice system, complete with uniformed policemens on the street, even a somewhat flawed one is better than none at all. I can even handle being fined for driving my car above the speed limits knowing that I don't have to live in todays Bagdad (or yesterdays, for that matter. Even before the war, no one ever got fined for speeding in Iraq, it was a waste of time for the police as the guy who got fined then talked to someone who talked to someone he knew at the police who dropped the fine. And, of course, then they had Saddam...)
JohanR