lozgti

I just wonder if the death penalty would be a good deterrent for certain crimes and assist ease the crisis they are all on about.

Also,bigger sentences for most crimes would be a good deterrent as opposed to the same people doing a few months inside,coming out,same crime committed,back inside for more playstation time.

We are too soft.Community service,tagging.It's all pathetic wishy washy stuff.Even prison life does not seem to deter many would be crims.

I wish this society would get back on its feet and stop pandering to the grotbags .

Be scared of the consequences of your act= less chance you will do it

PeteBrant

Well, we know the death penalty doesn't work as a detterent. We only need look at anywhere in the world that has the death penalty for that. Also, the cost to the taxpayer of the average death row inmate of approx 2.5 times what it is for other prisoners.

In addition to this, what if you are falsely convicted - not much point of a retrial if you are dead.

And, as anyone who has been inside will tell you, it is not the holiday camp the press would have you beleive. It is a ****ing nightmare.

The purpose of prison is to punish and rehabilitate - to turn you back into a useful member of society. The reoffending levels suggest that the rehabilitation part is not working - I.e. locking people up for years on end does not turn them away from a life of crime. Therefore new approaches are needed in order to try to convert some of the career criminals.

As well as this, the root causes need to be addressed. It's all well and good locking up people, but you need to look into the reasons behind criminal acts and do something about it. Be it investing in poorer areas, training people better, giving them a way out of a vicious circle - whatever.

PeteBrant

Are married heterosexual people less likely to commit crime, then? Do married heterosexual people inherently have more respect for others?

In other words - what the **** has your marital status or sexual oreintation have to do with criminal behaviour?

jimimac

yep death penalty and first in line should be the corrupt poxy war mongoring politicians that allowed things to get in such as state.

PeteBrant

Ah ok - I see where you are coming from now.

Not entirely sure I agree with it - But I can appreciate the idea. I think as long as both parents take an active role, then being married or even living together isn't a necessity.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

Would it not be better to pay developing foreign to house our prisoners. It would be a lot cheaper than housing the scum here, and ill doubt they will be having as much fun if they are sharing a cell with a 23 stone turk who wants to play daddies and daddies

davegtt

I dont agree with that theory either. Although it sounds logical Im pretty sure that when I say alot of serial killers etc had very happy childhoods according to research. I may be wrong though.

richs2891

Would not lose any sleep if all the permament lifers - eg the Ian Huntleys, or Peter Sucliffe of this world got the death penalty. Would clear up a little space in the prisons.
Agree that prisons need to be a real deterrant, Which they dont seem to be at the moment - Would be interested in the countries that have the 23 to a cell have better rehabilation rates or not !
Always liked the idea of the prison ships and weekly food drops myself !

Richard

KiwiGTI

Who cares if it doesn't, I'm quite happy to have the dealth penalty used as a punishment for the kind of filth that shouldn't be in society. Now that may not include all murders but certainly where there is 100% evidence or confessions to "proper" rape, paedophilia, serial killers, pre-meditated murder and torture , drug dealers, terrorists etc.

As I've said before, 6 billion+ people on this earth, so whatever we think a life isn't that valuable, especially if that person has chosen to abuse their privilege to live within an ordered society.

What kind of civilised society allows murderers and rapists live and eventually walk free?

MattW

However, the two you have mentioned are in Broadmoor as mental cases and would therefore probably escape a death sentence.

Tidgy

bring back death penalty, kick out imegrants that commit crime (kick them out before they serve prison sentance), remove TV's from prisons, remove pool tables etc etc (that should save a fortune), make them do manual labour to pay there way.

RMA26

Remove all modern luxuries

TV,/DVD, Videos, Play Station, Pool Tables etc.

Place dangerous criminals in High Security prisons & have a UK “Death Row”

Deport the Immigrants back to their country, rather than Jail them & letting them re-offend at their first opportunity on being released


Or put them in Army style camps & let them learn discipline

SWRTWannabe

There was a photo of Venezuelan justice in the London Lite freebie paper yesterday. Some guy had been caught stealing, and he'd been stripped, tied to a cross, and had his legs set alight. Maybe that's the way forwards

I wonder how successful the National Service treatment that the crims got on Bad Lads Army was - maybe that sort of approach could be a solution - maybe it would cut down on reoffences if the process sets them on the straight and narrow.

PeteBrant

By definition, any case that is proven guilty is "100%". There is no middle ground; you are either guilty or you aren't. Gerry Conlon and the rest of the Guildford four signed confessions to say they had done the crime. Under the death penalty, four innocent people would have been murdered, leagally, by the state.

Of course 99.9% of guilty cases are correct. But is a 0.01% error rate when it is a human life at stake acceptable? Personally I think not.

Tidgy

people wouldn't be so quick to take credit for action other people had done they ended up dead.

Leslie

I agree with Lozgti and Hutton.

Prison should be a dreaded place tp go to so that it has a maximum deterrent value. This has all but disappeared now since life is pretty soft in prison comparatively speaking. Also due to NL shortsightedness-deliberate I imagine-the lack of prison places means shorter sentences and the crims just laugh at all that and do it all again. A man with a criminal attitude to life is not going to take any notice of being soft soaped with a view to rehabilitation.

I think they should bring back hard labour in a quarry or similar and the birch for young offenders. I think that would create a lasting impression which would be more likely to deter initial or further crime.

PeteBrant.

Your post reads exactlky like a PC Plonker's offering, or an NL activist's contribution. You offer mostly appeasement which history proves just does not work with criminals or violent people. They just laugh behind their hands, say yes sir no sir, and then do it all over again. They are on a winner these days. Why is it that the prison places are all used up? Don't say much for the left wing ideas of stopping crime does it?

Prison is meant for teaching criminals that crime does not pay, about time that principal was revived before we slide into complete anarchy and violence!

Les

KiwiGTI

Just to add, I'm not a criminal at all, about the furthest from it but even I can see that I could start doing illegal things tomorrow, face virtual no prison and would be a lot richer than I am now. i can only imagine what the average hardened criminal thinks.

Torpid

You know that many victims of crime are actually more likely to be offended against,than someone who has experienced no crime whatsoever. I therefore propose a novel approach, kill the victims as well as the criminal. Thus resolving all the problems.

PeteBrant

I put it to you that you have never been imprisoned and therefore do not know the absolute nightmarish existance it is.

People on the whole, re-offend because they feel they have no choices - not because prison is a "soft" place. Of course you get people that are just "that way" and wil re-offend whatever, but they are a minority. But no amount of prison time is going to change that.

I havent offered appeasement, I am saying that unless you deal with the root causes of crime, rather than the after effects, then you will never, ever stop the problem.

jjones

force prisoners to fight to the death in bare knuckle fights, broadcast the shows on sky pay per view. everyones a winner.

Tidgy

i'm sorry but i don't agree, no one is starving in this country, so y have you not got a choice but to offend?

perhaps in some case it is a case of cercomestance but it will be a very very small minority of cases, and maybe they should be the ones considered for softer prisons?

I have no sympathy at all for burgelers, murderers, rapists, paedophiles, gang mebers etc etc. if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

pwhittle

prisons are full because crime detection is on the up, prosecutions are on the up (largely thanks to DNA), more crimes are becoming jail-able (race hate for eg), and the populatation is growing.

I do agree society is far too soft on criminals - if you choose to commit crime, whilst the rest of us work hard for a living, you should pay. And I think any convicted criminal granted assylum status should be deported (should be a deterrent if what thyey're escaping is so bad).
But, prison on the whole doesn't work well. Unless you put everyone in solitory confinement, they are going to mix with other criminals, and learn new tricks.

There are many successful re-hab schemes running for less serious crimes, and they need to be encouraged. Most ex-cons are homeless once out of prison. Stats show a huge increase in the likelyhood of re-offenging if they don't have housing. I work in supported housing, and the schemes working with ex-offenders have an uphill struggle trying to find a landlord who will accept them.

Locking people up hasn't worked, either as a deterent, or to stop re-offending. Whilst I don't think serious offenders should have any rights, I'm not in favour of the death penalty. I see preventing re-offending for low-level crimes, and 'proper' life sentances for more serious crimes as they only way forward.

Leslie

Pete Brant.

I do agree that the best way to combat it is to go to the root causes. In the case of persistent criminals it is a lost cause to try to appease and to try to appeal to their better nature-they just don't possess such a thing. They would only respond to real punishment by an organisatioin which is more powerful than they are, ie crime does not pay!

The best way as you say is to to bring children up correctly in the first place. That means teaching them the real need for self discipline and true respect for authority if you want to support living in a civilised society. That is going down the tubes at the moment, which is the real worry.

Les

Tidgy

how are they gonna get a respect for authority if they get away with things from an early age?

perhaps smacking of a child is an efective way of disaplining a child.

and i add there is a difference between smacking and beating

PeteBrant

Yup. I would go along with that.

One thing I would do is bring in law to ban knives. There is no reason whatsoever to walk the streets with one and they should be treated in the same way as handguns.

PeteBrant

It's not necessarily just a food issue. It you are en ex-con it is virtually impossible to get housed or a job. You find every door or avenue to you is closed. So what do you do?


It;s a tricky area. Personalyl I have never smacked withe rof my kids - And (touch wood) they have turned out ok so far. That's not to say I would object to someone else smacking thier children ina discplinary capacity - I just always tried to find a more positive way of doing things.

However - Kids get to an age where smacking doesn't work. It means nothing. Any sort of discipline will do the trick - grounding, taking away of phones/computers/games consoles etc. As long is there is some consequece to bad behaviour.

The problem is that some kids get no discipline whatsoever, and the fault for that lays squarely at the parents.

Tidgy

theres always job seekers allowance, and job centres can help find specific placments for ex cons, so i don't even think that is a large problem and just seems to be an easy claim to make.

the child disapline issue is a very very difficult one, children react in different ways to different punishments.

trying to solve the problem can be done in more ways than one though, diet has only recently been proven to affect a childs behaviour, sweets, crips, chips etc are know to cause children behavioural issue, and when the parents sneak crisps over walls to there kids cos the school wont let them eat crap then whos to blame?