the rights of the citizen versus society

[SV650rules]

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

You are right. We used to execute people for stealing goods worth more than a few quid or transport them for life for nicking a loaf of bread. It didnt prevent crime then and it wouldnt now. What does seem to work is knowing that you will get caught but even then there seems to be an element in society that doesnt think about it rationally and misbehaves accordingly.

you are talking about a time the loaf of bread was the difference between life and death ( starving people stealing food, and no dole / welfare system) so if the choice is between dying of starvation and being alive to be punished that is not much of a choice - so no wonder it was not a deterrent. These days majority of people have enough to eat and somewhere to live, what we are talking about is that some people just want more, even if some of the 'more' belongs to someone else.

Likewise death penalty probably did not prevent murder ( but how does anyone know) because murder is normally a last resort and probably not many thought about the consequences at the time.

[littleoldman2]

Originally Posted by Bibio

being in prison should not just be about incarceration it should be about punishment as well.

It should be but's not unfortunately

[Craig380]

Originally Posted by SV650rules

Likewise death penalty probably did not prevent murder ( but how does anyone know) because murder is normally a last resort and probably not many thought about the consequences at the time.

A book I'd recommend to anyone is Albert Pierrepoint's autobiography, 'Executioner: Pierrepoint' (he was the UK's main executioner for several decades up to the early 60s, before quitting the role over a dispute about expenses).

As well as being a utterly fascinating (and grimly sobering) read, in the book's epilogue he writes that, in his opinion, the death sentence is ineffective as a deterrent: every person he hanged for the crime of murder was fully aware of the consequences they faced if they were caught.

I'm a woolly-minded-liberal-with-a-small-'l' Guardian reader, but in terms of scooter thieves, I have no problem with the police knocking them off the scooter if they won't stop when pursued. If someone decides to try and flee arrest after committing a crime, then the police should use all means necessary to stop them.

[Talking Heads]

Originally Posted by Bibio

if there were more consequences to the actions then there would be less crime

Originally Posted by Bibio

morels stop people from killing not the consequences.

Make your mind up.


Looking at reoffending stats from other countries and comparing them with the prison / law enforcement policies in those countries would give you a far better idea of what actually works than reading the Daily (hate) Mail etc.


https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...4-12?r=UK&IR=T

[shiftin_gear98]

Originally Posted by ophic

Deterrents are really complicated things. Severe ones often have unintended consequences. You'd think the death penalty would be a great deterrent but plenty of evidence shows it's not to the case.

Prisons should use this, if the death penalty isn't enough.

Solitary confinement with Barry Manilow on constant loop.


I'd kill myself after a few days.


Problem solved.

[timwilky]

I have friends (and family) that were teenage scroats and rode the system. But in that time the system had an end. Borstal. None went back.

[Bibio]

yup i had a mate when i was younger that went to the jaggy jumper hame. he was a different person when he got out.

[keith_d]

I'm not sure we want to turn this thread into another 'Crime and Punishment', but I can't resist the prison question. In our society prison has many functions, some contradictory.

1) Punishment - a penalty for breaking the law
2) Deterrence - the need to deter people from committing crime
3) Detention - keep the scrotes off the streets so they can't commit crimes
4) Rehabilitation - turn them into functional members of society
5) Retribution - for the victims or for society??

Take your pick of which is most important !!

[littleoldman2]

Deterrence. Because if deter them, say using aversion therapy then you have less need of the other four. Or am I being taking a to simplistic view.

[maviczap]

Originally Posted by littleoldman2

Deterrence. Because if deter them, say using aversion therapy then you have less need of the other four. Or am I being taking a to simplistic view.

It's probably the cheaper of the 4