When life means 5 years?

Yep.

Welcome to england. "Its A Nice Place To Live".

Unfortunately this is not that difficult to believe.

"Robbery, Assault and Flattery"
Seriously, life for a bonk on the head resulting in a couple of stitches? And then make it a minimum of 5?
Sounds like justice gone awry.
David

Chaps

When I was on holiday in South Africa a couple of years ago, a young thug entered a hotel bedroom and shot a woman dead and wounded her husband. The thug was caught and got 44 yrs.

This week 2 men were sentenced to 50 yrs each for the murder of an English couple.

Basically these men will die in prison which is how it should be. They cannot re offend when they are rotting in a cell.

Justice should be for benefit of the victim with the criminal having no rights what so ever.

People criticise the Saudis for chopping off hands as a punishment but they do have the right attitude. A young thug will think twice about doing a crime when his mate is walking around with a stump at the end of his arm.

Put the victims first and the crooks last.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
People criticise the Saudis for chopping off hands as a punishment but they do have the right attitude. A young thug will think twice about doing a crime when his mate is walking around with a stump at the end of his arm.

Put the victims first and the crooks last.

You make a good point Mick that the victim should be given far greater priority but there are provisos.

We can't go back to the sort of justice we had in the Middle Ages where the punishment for theft was hanging and children could be hanged for stealing food. In practice, those that didn't cross the path of sadistic members of the public or judges were not prosecuted and the law became essentially meaningless.

Remember too that though the victims should certainly be put first, the family of the criminal may be totally innocent people who also suffer through no fault of their own.

Finally, a civilised society must not take actions that brutalise or desensitise its own citizens. Cutting off a hand is no longer appropriate as a punishment and nor, in the vast majority of cases, is capital punishment - not because of the effect on the criminal but because what these acts make of the judges, juries and executioners.

Your example of Saudi justice is an unfortunate one. On 11th March, 2002 fifteen school girls lost their lives when their school burnt down . The Saudi Religious Police would not allow them to leave the building, nor allow the Firemen to enter. The school girls were considered to be inappropriately dressed (no face coverings or some such). The law is the law, right?

Regards
Steve

I don't think we need to be too retrograde, and there's no need to behave like Arabs. That said, the penal system in this country has lost the all important element of deterrence, and criminals don't seem to fear any significant consequence for their actions. As usual, the system has suffered at the hands of luvvies and pinkos and they have a lot to answer for.

EW

EW & All

The current level of punishments are far too soft to act as a deterrent.

We need something that absolutely scares the living daylights out of potential criminals in order to stop their carrying out violent acts of crime.

The choice is down to 3 types.

1. Very long prison sentences backed up by the Clinton style " 3 strikes and you are out".

2. Corporal punishment aka the birch. Very few reoffended when that was dished out.

Also you could suspend the sentence. Behave yourself for 20 years and the birching will not happen. Do something bad and you get double the amount.

3. For persistant thugs, amputate the hand. I agree it is bloody severe, but tough. My concern is protecting inocent people being beaten up, the thug comes way down the pecking order.

Either you play at justice as we do now or you clamp down hard.

Regards

Mick

There's always the death penalty a la the USA...
Even the proponents can't point to a real reduction in murder crimes as a result of the threat of injection, the chair, etc.
Rational people believe these are deterrents.
Irrational people commit the crimes.
Major disconnect.
I’d like to think that tough punishment is a deterrent and I’m “for” it as long as it does not punish innocent people. But the effort of avoiding punishing the innocent is exactly why it is so hard to convict someone, the checks and balances seemingly take a lot of extra effort and make for the occasional tragic mistake of justice.
Even prisoners deserve humane treatment and a real chance to rehabilitate. Though I think this is rarely realistic with the system the way it is. I do personally know convicts that have turned and made a decent life for themselves and make positive contributions to society. God bless them, the few that they are.
The other side of it is a maximum security prisoner costs the USA well over $50k a year, which is a decent (but not opulent by any means) living for most law-abiding folk. This vs. a couple of dollars worth of chemicals or electricity... (And of course Naim fans would want the mains done properly!)
I'm glad I don't have to directly make these decisions.
BTW, what is "birching"? I'm not familiar with that term.
David

David

This may help you get the picture on birching....plenty more references in Google as well.

Cheers

Jim

Ah..
Or should I say "ouch!"
Too many folks worry about emotional damage from punishing kids in a non-permanent but memorable way. Let them get away with it and show that any punishment will have no consequences.
I have to say that many parents in my circle of friends who have problems with their kids don't believe in actually punishing them (then forgiving afterwards!). Doesn't have to be a spanking (or caneing!) but should carry some weight and appropriate to the offense.
There is a place for this kind of thing but also room for abuse.
Make it public, that way there's no worry about abuses behind closed doors.
Reminds me of the caneing of the American kid that was caught vandalizing a building with spray paint in Singapore. The press was outraged that he would be subjected to such "abuse". I say the punishment was due, the kid was a jerk and probably learned his lesson from it.
Thanks for the reference.
David

quote:

That said, the penal system in this country has lost the all important element of deterrence, and criminals don't seem to fear any significant consequence for their actions. As usual, the system has suffered at the hands of luvvies and pinkos and they have a lot to answer for.

It's all down to cost, remember.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
EW & All

The current level of punishments are far too soft to act as a deterrent.

We need something that absolutely scares the living daylights out of potential criminals in order to stop their carrying out violent acts of crime.

The choice is down to 3 types.

1. Very long prison sentences backed up by the Clinton style " 3 strikes and you are out".

2. Corporal punishment aka the birch. Very few reoffended when that was dished out.

Also you could suspend the sentence. Behave yourself for 20 years and the birching will not happen. Do something bad and you get double the amount.

3. For persistant thugs, amputate the hand. I agree it is bloody severe, but tough. My concern is protecting inocent people being beaten up, the thug comes way down the pecking order.

Either you play at justice as we do now or you clamp down hard.

Regards

Mick

Mick

I'm with you all the way - apart from that last point, I couldn't condone maiming another human being as that is too much like sinking to the thugs level.

However, I am in agreement with most of what others have said here and was having this very conversation with my wife this morning.

If there are no consequences for miscreant behaviour or the consequences are not severe enough to act as a deterrent, then some people will by their nature push the boundaries as far as they can. This applies whether it's kids at home or criminals on the street.

We have become far too liberal generally and, as a result, can only expect a breakdown of lawful society, which depends on discipline to work for the benefit of all.

I think if we don't 'clamp down hard' soon as you say, Mick, it could be a poor society to live in soon.

You only have to look at the rising knife culture to see that and the apparently low value a human life has to some elements. You now put your life at risk just defending people or property. Just look at the young lad and the young community support officer who lost their lives doing just that in this part of London recently.

We need to put away the politically correct handbooks and start to deal with the problems soon and in earnest.

Let the punishments fit the crimes again.

Regards

Mark

I suppose you've just got to decide how vengeful and barbaric you want to get, once someone's been convicted of a heinous crime. There's always going to be both a case to be made and a desire (in certain quarters) to tie the sonofabitch down and saw his legs off. Would it achieve anything, other than make some people feel better? Not much, in all probability, but you can argue it'd be some kind of deterrent - if you're lucky. A valid strand of opinion has it that sawing people's legs off isn't something a civilised society we should condone under any circumstances... rather like killing people.

In the last analysis the world is a shithole and bad things are always going to happen in it; no amount of retributive barbarity will solve the problem(s). The current problems we have with crime derive as much from a general social decline as much as the law's risible lack of teeth. The bottom line is I think society's now too far gone, and nothing can be done to effect any great improvement; not in the foreseeable future anyway.

EW

I wasn't really posting the link to get into crime and punishment.

It struck me as odd that we have a legal system that allows the handing down of a life sentence that could mean as little as five years.

Are we the exception or the norm in this regard?

But what really irks me is the fact that so called white collar crims get away almost scot free. After ripping off many person's life savings they get a few years in jail, declare themselves bankrupt and have a clean slate - or if the crime was done as a corporate body they sometimes even get to keep their house. In my eye these ba**ards are lower scum than std house thieves, and should really have to pay back everything.
Pete

The animal rights extremists who stole the bones of a dead person (a stupid thing to do, unhelpful and overly distressing to the family) have got 12 years each in prison. It's not for rape or murder; it's for stupidity.

US soldiers who are convicted of abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib get 10-12 years in prison.

Tony Martin spent 5 years for killing a man.

Overtly leniant sentences in the UK? Depends on what you do and what you comapre it with.

Stephen

I think you have to remember that a lot of the problems lie with the parents and that the yobs are usually victims too. I really do think that parents should be accountable for the actions of their offspring, but that probably leads to more violence at home and then the kid gets more fucked up than he was before. We need to find a way to give the kids a way out of the endless cycle of crime and violence and I think it's too easy to let people live on welfare handouts. Everyone needs a sense of worth. Qualifying for a council house by getting pregnant is insane - where is that going to lead for chrissakes!? What message is that sending!! Anone who is as irresponsible to do that isn't exactly going to take much interest in the future of their children.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hutchings:
It struck me as odd that we have a legal system that allows the handing down of a life sentence that could mean as little as five years.

It's my understanding that when someone is released from prison before their sentence is finished (??parole??), they are the responsibility of the probation service until their original sentence is complete.

I guess a life sentence means that the person will be under the control of the probation service for their whole life.

IIRC, someone on probation can go back to prison if they ever get arrested, even for something trivial (at the discretion of the Probation Service). This might even be for something where most people might just be released without any further action.

Still, I agree - five years seems ludicrous for a life sentence.

cheers, Martin

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
The animal rights extremists who stole the bones of a dead person (a stupid thing to do, unhelpful and overly distressing to the family) have got 12 years each in prison. It's not for rape or murder; it's for stupidity.

Stephen,

it's for calculated animal rights "terrorism", and part of a much larger campaign against that family.

cheers, Martin

Sorry in advance if this is a thread hijack!

Punisment has failed to prevent re-offending. The proof is out there. It is the sign of times.

There is less care in todays society than in the past. How many strangers say hello to you when you walk past them and vice versa? Do you often stop to help others when you yourself in similar situation would want others to help you?

Do you know your neighbours well? Enough that you would trust them to the keys of your house?

Society as a whole is getting more "impersonal", so when one of these members decide to commit a crime, there is not that remorse or guilt feeling. You would not steal/main/injure from your good friend on purpose would you?

This is just one aspect of society's many ills, today.

Sadly.

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Punishment has failed to prevent re-offending. The proof is out there. It is the sign of times.

That's an argument for longer sentences. Even if they re-offend when they get out, they're not offending while they're in.

Regards
Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Payne:

it's for calculated animal rights "terrorism", and part of a much larger campaign against that family.

cheers, Martin

So what did they do that deserves 12 years when rapists get 6 and unrepentant killers get 5?

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Payne:

it's for calculated animal rights "terrorism", and part of a much larger campaign against that family.

cheers, Martin

So what did they do that deserves 12 years when rapists get 6 and unrepentant killers get 5?

Regards

Stephen

Stephen,

methinks the problem is the five or six year sentences, not the 12.

cheers, Martin

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

Originally posted by wellyspyder:
Punishment has failed to prevent re-offending. The proof is out there. It is the sign of times.

That's an argument for longer sentences. Even if they re-offend when they get out, they're not offending while they're in.

Regards
Steve

That is just for one individual. What about the many out there who are non too willing to take this fellon's place? Eventually in time, the number of criminals will increase to what it was before these longer incarcerations began.

I say it is the society which is to blame or the state of it or what it has become. Fix the damm society!

Or is it that we are getting better at catching the criminals with all the new technology and investigating techniques?