WTF is wrong with Society?

[yorkie_chris]

More than 3 ASBO's and lose the knackers.
Sounds fair to me, would also lift a massive burden from the benefits system.

This lunatic in the OP should never be allowed out on the streets again, no matter how much of a lovely cuddlebug he's been in prison.
Don't know the figures, but keeping people in prison costs money, lots of it, year on year.
A 12g shell is around 12p at the moment (price of lead quite high) but steel shot is becoming competetive in price.

Anyone see the logic here?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

More than 3 ASBO's and lose the knackers.
Sounds fair to me, would also lift a massive burden from the benefits system.

Yep, I would like it to be visible. No vasectomy, full-on removal.
Okay, only sterlise the women though - cutting off the baps as well is probably a bit risky and expensive

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

This lunatic in the OP should never be allowed out on the streets again, no matter how much of a lovely cuddlebug he's been in prison.
Don't know the figures, but keeping people in prison costs money, lots of it, year on year.

Cuddlebug?!! that's my new word now

Prisons are costing money, and now they may be building bigger ones up and down the country to contain all the offenders. Yey.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7216143.stm

"This breathtaking report shows Britain's prisons are on the brink of disaster. "This isn't a problem we can simply build our way out of...Instead we must get people with mental health or drug problems out of prison and into treatment."

Treatment, yes that's the way forward. Miracles happen in rehab, obviously every single lowlife who is transferred will go in as a criminal and come out a saint, and will never want to touch/smell/look at drugs again

Good luck with that.

ooo look, a bit of proof. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7219626.stm

Oh god, I feel I'm going down a familiar path here And here was I having a bit of fun with Pedrosa and I'm going to spoil it by going all serious

Soo, am I correct in believing that the consensus is folks would like less crime and more criminals locked up for longer? Well, guess what - you've got your wish already. Independent crime figures show that crime has steadily dropped over the last 30 years. And, as has been referred to, the prison population is at it's highest ever. Ergo, crime is down and criminals are imprisoned for longer.

As for all the folks who advocate state sponsored mutilation and butchery of offenders I've hardly got the time or patience to argue with you. I'll say one two words - "wrongful conviction". It happens all the time, not frequently thankfully, but consistently. You might say "well, all for the greater good". That's fine until it's you that can't have kids anymore because the state hacked your knackers off with a rusty knife because someone messed up the forensics.

It constantly baffles me that the same folks who call for state sponsored brutality at home are exactly the same who denounce third world dictatorships as barbarians when they want to chop off some white tourists hand when they mistakenly insulted the Emporer's favourite goat.

I don't advocate brutality at all, I think as a taxpayer I'd be happy to fund the anaesthetic for the operations.

Wrongful conviction is why I don't support the death sentence. My jury is out with regards to eugenics - in theory the application of medical science in order to improve quality of life.

Those crime stats nicely fit in with the economic improvement and relatively prosperous times enjoyed since the mid 80's. So I'm not surprised, it just means there were less "crimes of need". You can be sure crime rates will increase if our economy does go into a downward spiral.

I don't want criminals locked up for longer. I want a deterrent to stop them ending up there in the first place.



It is often claimed that Britain sends too many people to prison. It is true that Britain sends more people to prison than any major European country, measured by head of population. But this statistic is misleading since it does not take into account the relative level of crime in this country. Except for Sweden, Britain has the highest rate of recorded crime (per head of population) in Europe, and it would be expected to send more people to prison.

A more revealing measure of a country’s imprisonment rate is therefore the number of prisoners for every 1,000 crimes committed. On this measure, Britain sends relatively few people to prison. In Britain only around 12 people are in prison for every 1,000 recorded crimes. The lowest in Europe is Sweden, with 4.7 per 1,000. Spain imprisons 48 people for every 1,000 crimes and Ireland 33 people for every 1,000 crimes.

A comparative study of the crime rates of US and England between 1981 and 1996, carried by Prof David Farrington of Cambridge University, showed that as the risk of being imprisoned rose in the US, the crime rate fell. Conversely, as the risk of being imprisoned fell in England and Wales during the same time period, the crime rate increased.

The New York experience in the 1990s is one of a rising prison populations and a falling crime rate. Not only did sentencing reform lead to higher imprisonment, but the policy of incarcerating more convicted criminals was supported by a large prison building programme and the contracting out of detention services to other jails in New York state. It was only after there had been a period of a high prison population, did incarceration rates in conjunction with stricter sentencing and better detection begin to reduce the crime rate. If crime in England and Wales had fallen at the same rate as in New York since 1995, crime would now stand at just under 6.4 million offences (on the British Crime Survey measure), with the effect that 4 million fewer crimes would have been committed last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7221147.stm

He was sentenced to 16 years, but with Northern Ireland's 50% remission sentencing policy he was released in eight.

Fair enough this case is in Ireland but still, its sickening.

Originally Posted by missyorkie_chris

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7221147.stm



Fair enough this case is in Ireland but still, its sickening.

emm...
ok, just so we are clear, that is the United Kingdom you are talking about there, you know, The Queen, all of that stuff. They are exactly as British as you are.

And, so what if its Ireland? Does that change something?

Originally Posted by Xan173

I'd be happy to fund the anaesthetic for the operations.
.... My jury is out with regards to eugenics...

Amazing.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

More than 3 ASBO's and lose the knackers.
Sounds fair to me, would also lift a massive burden from the benefits system.

...
Don't know the figures, but keeping people in prison costs money, lots of it, year on year.
A 12g shell is around 12p at the moment (price of lead quite high) but steel shot is becoming competetive in price.

Anyone see the logic here?

Amazing.

Oh I see the logic alright.

When did SV650.org become a hangout for the extreme right?
Was it always this reactionary or did I just not notice?

WRT the OP, if that is not the definition of mental illness, I dunno what is.
He obviously needs help, and to be kept out of society for the foreseeable future.
If I was the child's parent, I would want to make sure this occurred.
Its extremely sad, but vengeance debases society more.
People maybe dont believe that mental illness is a real thing, which is sad. Believe me though, it exists. And by definition, someone who does that is extremely ill.


Or there's : Eugenics. Castration. Execution.

And with them come consequences.

Rehab, re-integration, they're nothing new. As approaches to the problem they appeal to politicians because it's a very middle of the road position. Nice and safe.

Liberals like it because it appeals to the notion that we're more evolved than we are, that their comfy little Guardian reading world is not really at risk and that defending themselves means "having a good lawyer".

I think a lot of people are just fed up hearing how this approach keeps failing. Does that make them intolerant, or is the governments approach too tolerant?

We need change. Zero tolerance.

Oh god, once more unto the breach dear friends...

Ok, final attempt.

So, we need severe and physical punishments to deter crime? Ok, of all the countries in the world, where would you like to live? There has to be one country on this planet where you see your ideal form of justice meeted out. So, where you going to live? I'm going to guess you'd like a 1st world country, one where, perhaps you could have free speech? Let's go for Australia, where they cut peoples hands off for stealing; no... wait.... they don't do that. Ok, why no emigrate to the USA where they have the "three strikes and you're castrated" approach to deter crime; oh, wait.... they don't do that either. How about France, where convicted murderers are executed in exactly the same way they took the lives of their victims; hmm.... no... they don't do that in France either.

I've got it, I know where you can live, this country is obviously getting it so wrong, you're going to have to emigrate to a country with the right idea - Rwanda! Yes, machetes are a proven deterrent to crime! Saudi Arabia! Public stonings! That keeps criminals off the streets there! Zimbabwe's policy of beating to death criminals has really sorted their crime problem!

No? Name me a country then? Name me a country where crime is handled in the way you'd like where you'd like to live. Name me one where crime is substantially lower than in the UK and where punishments are swift severe and permanently disfiguring? Seriously, you can't tell me that of all the 194 countries in the world, of all the six billion people in the world YOU are the only person who has the right idea of how to run a country? Wake up, you're not that important, you're not the visionary you think you are, there are six billion people on the planet, none of them have come up with the perfect solution, but you're egotistical enough to think that YOU have all the answers.

But it was all so much better back in the golden days wasn't it. Never any crime when we had such short sharp swift and severe deterrents to crime. Being hung, drawn and quartered would surely make any potential terrorist stop in his tracks. Well, apart from Guy Fawkes of course. The threat of public hanging soon put a stop to all armed robbery. Well, with the exception of D1ck Turpin, naturally.

You probably know all about Guy Fawkes and D1ck Turpin from history. I'm willing to bet most people know a bit less about James I, and George II (respective monarchs at the time of our two more illustrious criminals). You see, history works in exactly the same way as TV does today - the bad bits get more attention. Everyone knows what Guy Fawkes did, most people don't hear about James I's success in bringing about an end to hostilities with Spain. Similarly D1ck Turpin was a highwayman, everyone knows that, less know of George II's reign is how it saw the introduction of the Gregorian calendar.

In modern media, as with history, crime sells. Don't read the Daily Express and think that everything in it is a common every day occurence. It makes you no better than "the comfy liberal Guardian readers".

Originally Posted by philipMac

emm...
ok, just so we are clear, that is the United Kingdom you are talking about there, you know, The Queen, all of that stuff. They are exactly as British as you are.

And, so what if its Ireland? Does that change something?

I only stated it was in Ireland because we've mostly been talking about the state of prisons etc in England. I wasn't saying anything in particular about Ireland let alone slating it, you're right it is no different so of course it doesn't change anything. Sorry if you took offence but think you got the wrong end of the stick there.