Justice
 

Interesting (long) article

Re: Justice
 

Guess who's going to disagree with this...!!

Which has, at its core, the idea that punishment is more important than rehabilitation. Let's look at some of the things it says:

Excuse me? What is this *obligation*? And what gives the author the right(!) to say that someone else does not have a particular "moral right"?

The woman involved says: †œI want them to stop robbing people, thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the bottom line . . . In an ideal world I would like them to be made aware of the impact theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve actually had on my daughter and, ideally, apologise.ââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

Now is this *that* far removed from the "retributive justice" that Charles Murray proposes? He suggests that, eg graffiti artists should be made to clean walls and benches, well that's fine by me, society benefits from it.

But, as I've mentioned before, some criminals, when faced with their victims (with, of course, the victim's consent) realise that it's not just "a victim", it's a *real person* that they've hurt and someone who, in other circumstances, could be their friend/ sister/ partner whatever.

Being made to do this and apologise (and not just a simple "oh, sorry..." dismissal) can be a very effective way of putting them off committing further crimes.

If Mr Murray wants "just desserts" maybe he should arrange for a mugger to be mugged themselves, or have their cell phone taken away etc

He continues:

Because the "criminal justice elite" in England have heard plenty of these "get tough" noises from governments before, be it "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" or "short, sharp, shock" and they have seen that whilst political slogans are all very well, these policies just *don't* work.

We have *more* people in jail than ever before, yet violent crime is still rising. So *something* isn't working.

However he advocates a system of "just desserts" that seems to rely on someone being "smart enough" to get it right so it is "just" but not excessive! He carries on by saying how Judges have very little time to decide what is a "fair sentence" but then he appears to want a "blanket sentencing policy" that will give someone their "just desserts"! Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it!

(Kant's "thought experiment" he gives is, IMO, nonsensical. *Why* is this island society going to "disband tomorrow"? Spurious logic states that if you start from a fallacious premise you can prove anything you want to. That assumption sounds fallacious to me!)

More nonsense. *Everyone* is a citizen. They are *all* entitled to the same protections otherwise we have a divisive society be it one law for the rich, one for the poor, or how about one law for the whites, another for the blacks?

If we call ourselves civilised we should *act* civilised, even to those who don't act according to our civilisation's tenets, otherwise we are no better than them and, at worse, hypocrites.

Oh dear, he's trying to put words into other people's mouths! By his argument I am in favour of a "progressive view of justice", but I don't think that "we're all sinners" nor do I justify my arguments with this! More spurious logic.

(I note later how he favours the "Tony Martin" system of justice, something I've written much about elsewhere, so I won't do again here.)

Well, first of all he'd have to completely re-write the English legal system, because it is *not* a "search for the truth", but requires that the prosecution *prove* guilt.

He then goes on, however, to suggest that this "solemn search for the truth" should allow previous convictions to be mentioned *before* sentencing which is an open invitation to subjectivity not objectivity! "If he did it before, he's likely to have done it again" thinks the tabloid reading juror.

Do I trust "juror's good sense"? Hell no! I wish everyone could be as objective as I try to be, but the baying mobs outside courthouses when someone is about to be tried for paedophilia, or those who want to hound Maxine Carr when she didn't have anything to do with the murders that Ian Huntley committed, or those who beat up a paediatrician show just how little "good sense" too many people have.

A "virtue"? It matters not whether the defendant *committed* the crime, it matters only that *someone* is punished for it! (Of course it also means that the person who *actually* did it has just got away scot free!!)

Which is, regrettably, very often the case. Unfortunately the system that he advocates will most likely only make things worse, not better.

It is not simple in concept, it is *SIMPLISTIC*. It seems to think that by casting a big enough net you can catch anything you want and, somehow, by that token, it is "fair". The word "naiive" comes to mind.

Really? So why doesn't he quote figures from *before* 1954? Should we just take it as read that he's right? Well I'm not going to.

The fact is that, even up until the middle of the 20th Century, we lived in a society that was very different from the one we live in now. For him to compare that with the start of the 21st century and try to draw conclusions is about as sensible as comparing apples and oranges.

And here we have the classic conclusion: things were better in the "good old days" so, to make things better now we need to turn the clock back.

Well, Mr Murray, to quote Omar Khayaam:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

You may wish for the "good old days" back again, but your solutions have to deal with the world *now* and the world has moved on, so either join with the rest of us who are looking for answers for the *future* or be fossilised with the dinosaurs.

Re: Justice
 

*graham* have_you_met_erolz? *you have* a disarmingly *similar* though_different way of *punctuating* your_missives on here

Re: Justice
 

No, as I've explained before it's just a style I've developed over a decade of various discussion groups and forums.

Re: Justice
 

.. and that has what to do with Justice? ;) Keep that to PM please:)

Re: Justice
 

It is. Justice isn't rehab, it is punishment for the guilty. It would be nice if the person in question rehabilitates, but swift and heavy punishment is the most important part.

Re: Justice
 

A very good point Jerrek.

Actually Jerrek, as you're that side of the pond, you may know better than us, but how has NY's zero tollerance policy affected crime in NY?

Re: Justice
 

I thought you might jump in on this one Graham.....an energetic rebuttal there.
Leaving aside the point by point approach for once, do you, or do you not think that criminals should be punished for their crimes?

Re: Justice
 

I, of course, agree.

Re: Justice
 

The punishment should also act as a major deterrent to others who are thinking of committing the same crime.

When people keep committing the same crime it's an indication that they feel a) that the chances of being caught are negligible and b) that if they do get caught the punishment won't be that bad anyway.

Justice depends on ensuring that there are high rates of detection and swift and heavy punishments for the convicted.

Re: Justice
 

agree there , i think a lot of the problem is that the crims see ppl getting off with ludicrously lenient punishment and think if they got off lightly then so will i , bring back public flogging down the high street , now i wonder if the humiliation would deter them :)

Re: Justice
 

Law makes everyone equial,but Justice goes to the highest bidder :eek:

Re: Justice
 

Re: Justice
 

there was a policy of zero tolerance in middlesbrough for a while , all the decent ppl were well happy with it and it was producing the goods so to speak , then they removed the man ' ray mallon' , total and utter stupidity in my book , nip things in the bud when they are young and it will given time filter in and reduce more serious crime :)

Re: Justice
 

Hence my clause, "swift and heavy punishment." If you're going to tap someone on the wrist, it won't work. Sentencing someone to 10 years for rape is wrong. You might as well release him back into society.

Exactly.


So here is justice for me, and if I'm on the jury panel, this is what I'd want:

- death penalty for: 1st degree murder, rape, kidnapping, treason

- no sentence over 15 years. If it exceeds 20 years, sentence to death instead

- prisoner loses the right to vote for the rest of his life

- all prisoners will pay their own room and rent for as long as they have assets to do so, if they can't, they can be put to work

- unlimited self-defense. End-of-discussion. If the thug ends up dead, so much better. No need for lengthy, crappy appeals to protect the criminals.

Re: Justice
 

Wish it was that easy :D
Now we have them going in for the weekend and back out for the week,or you can have the weekend at home :rofl:

so now we have part time crooks :eek:

Re: Justice
 

And if it *worked* all would be fine and dandy and the world would be a better place.

BUT IT *DOESN'T*!

Death penalty as a deterrant for murder? Doesn't work.

Three strikes and your out policies? Don't work. And you end up with people serving long jail sentences for stealing a piece of pizza.

Zero Tolerance? Doesn't work. It just results in harassment and moving the problem elsewhere instead of solving it.

The *only* realistic way to stop people re-offending is rehabilitation, but that just doesn't sound so good for politicians and the majority of the public fall for the rhetoric, rather than looking at the facts.

Re: Justice
 

Why? Because it brings up points you'd rather not address? (Just wondering...)

I think they should be educated and rehabilitated so they are not likely to re-offend.

Re: Justice
 

i was thinking of avoiding the usual style of argument that we have but if you want me to I will :D


Admirable sentiments (and ones that I share) but....since you haven't said (in answer to my question) that you think criminals should be punished are we to take it that you think they shouldn't be punished?



...as an aside, I have just treated a criminal barrister who had also read the article in question. He was wholeheartedly behind it :D

Re: Justice
 

Mostly motorists !!!! Whilst the real criminals walk away with a slapped wrist (assuming they ever get caught in the first place) !!

So...yeh.....*something* definitely isn't working !!!! :rolleyes:

Re: Justice
 

It *does* work if your punishment is swift and hard. Your judicial system is ****ed up: they sentence the wrong people to prison (the person that defended himself, instead of the criminal), and they give you a tap on the wrist for felonies.

It worked in the early 1900s. It is with this new "modern" approach that crime is escalating.

Saudi Arabia and Singapore say otherwise.

Re: Justice
 

not being funny my mate , but could you quote properly please as it makes it very hard to follow you , like i said i wasnt being funny :angel: , and yes i would like to see the death sentence reintroduced

Re: Justice
 

Not in the sense that some (especially some in this and other threads) mean by "punishment", no.

I'm in favour of putting them into a situation where they can be educated and rehabilitated rather than "punished" ie (or eg) "made to suffer" for what they have done.

I'm sure he was. But so what? I'm sure you could find other barristers who would completely agree with my viewpoint.

Re: Justice
 

Like, say, chopping off someone's hand for theft? If it works so well, there would be *no* more amputations after the first one...

Prove it! Oh, you can't, because you have no idea what would have happend had we done it a different way.

And let's see what some people have to say about that:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/deathpenalty/singapore.html

And what about the good old US of A...??

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=12&did=168

Re: Justice
 

Why don't you think that criminals should be punished for their crimes?

Re: Justice
 

Because "punishment" on its own, in and of itself, does little to prevent or discourage re-offending. Education and rehabilitation have a better chance of achieving this IMO.

Re: Justice
 

So what is your problem with this:

Re: Justice
 

How do you say sorry to a corpse if you find out later on that they were innocent ?

Life is much more of a punishment, than death. Again you can say sorry to a corpse. Besides life means that if you make them work their Debt off to society, you have longer to get a return.

[/QUOTE]

Losing the right to vote, the problem with that is that you run the risk that once you've been convited once the criminal has nothing to use. How many rights do you take away. An old teach of mine said that there are only 2 things that cannot be taken away from you are your qualifications and the right to vote.

The only issue that I have with the making the prisiors working is that we should remove the assets first and then make them work all the time that they are in. otherwise, you run into the problem that serial criminals (the ones that nick your cornflakes) will have enough to avoid doing anything while on the inside.

Are you sure that you want to open that door ? picture this, a burgler enters you house. You go at him with a crowbar, you scuffle, during this you end up with your head caved in with the crowbar... you die 2 hours later in hospital.

His defence team offer one defence for your killer, self defence. They are able to show that you must have bought the crowbar to the fight and he was not armed. there fore he acted in self defence and would have run had you not come at him with a crowbar...

That's a dangerous door to open...

Re: Justice
 

Well they wont do it again, I guess that's the nearest you going to get on that one.

What about the guy in America who was convicted of a crime that he didn't commit and escaped (and was caught) 3 times, by the time they actually heard his appeal and he was cleared of that crime but because he had tried to escape 3 times and was caught, he was due to be locked away for life because of the three strikes and your out policy...


And turns our Policemen in to Jobsworth's because they WILL go after the minor stuff because it is 10 times easier to prove and also they are more likely to catch the law abiding citizens who will pay up and keep quiet rather than contest the issue.

And just what did they do to the Govenor of the prision that really went in for rehabilitation in a big way (and it worked VERY well, the re-offend rates were way below the average) They drummed him out on trumped up charges and put a much harsher govenor in his place. After the offical report was released, it was reveiled that there was nothing untoward happening but by then it was too late, the work that he had done was destroyed. If you read Private eye then this really wont come as a surprise.

Re: Justice
 

Even thugh I agree with Ramrods subsequent post. Im getting onto the soap box again (three times in one night* must be a record)

I think the issue is that the system makes no distinction between hard core criminals and somone who has 'slipped' on to the wrong side of the rails.

It appears that current system of Justice is designed to bring everyone convicted down to the same level and quite simply, They seem to be trying to reach the lowest common denominator. As they say, the IQ of any mob is the lowest IQ of any person involved divided by the number of people in the mob*.

In response, yes I do believe that people should be punished but there are many ways to do that.

You should look to make sure that they have oppotunity to a) repay there debt to society and b) that we try to reform them into valuable members of society.

After all what would YOU prefer;

1) The crimnal who has nicked a couple of cars and ends up in prison for 6 months where he learns a lot more than how to force locks on a toyota and comes out to reoffend.
2) The criminal who has nicked a couple of cars and ends up in prison for 6 months where he learns how to repair cars and leaves after 6 months to work in garage and spends the rest of his life there paying taxes and being a good citizen.

*Smut - sorry, couldn't help myself.

Re: Justice
 

as per the article....

Re: Justice
 

You couldn't possibly be refering to certain measures suggested by Tonys cronies whereby we all pay and extra £5 if we get caught speeding to help compensate the victims of REAL crime...

Nothing to do with the fact that its easy to catch car drives, what with the fact that its a criminal offence to not tell the DVLA if you own your car and if you sell it/move.

Just like the extra money (another £60 next year) that we have to pay to insurance companies to pay for all those uninsured drivers on the road.

Re: Justice
 

From my stint of Jury Service I found the most common reason that 'justice' is not served is because the CPS are crap at prosecuting (from my experience).

A broad statement and if it offends then I appologise. However, the 4 cases I sat in the evidence was nearly non-existant and generally we could not see what relevance it had to the case. One of the cases was quite seriouse yet the farcical/carry-on and disorganised approach did little to convince 100% of guilt.

The defence was so much better and were organised.

I am unsure as to how the CPS barristers are paid but if it's not done on won cases (piece rate) then they do not seem to put in the effort that the defence appear to.

If this is so of major cases (possibly to a different degree) then 'justice' would probably not happen to the level appropriate.

This is just my limited view but it was a real eye opener and can understand how rapists burglars etc get away with a relatively little sentence.

Re: Justice
 

I think that this bit said it best:

Re: Justice
 

"Nothing about rehabilitation, remorse or socioeconomic disadvantage. Nothing about the bad effects that the punishment might have on the offender or, for that matter, its good effects. The purpose of a sentence is punishment."

Anything that declares itself as the "One True Way" is short-sighted and blinkered and *that* I have a problem with. The rest of it is window dressing.

Re: Justice
 

Which is a classic "nonsense" argument as you're well aware since you demonstrate you're well aware of the other such "nonsenses" that relate to the other policies I mentioned.

Re: Justice
 

Unfortunately that "mob" in this case are our MPs most of whom want to be "The Party of Law and Order". Politics shouldn't interfere with justice.

I agree entirely and, of course, I prefer the scenario you mentioned where the prisoner learns a useful skill instead of a criminal one.

Of course then you'll get people screaming "I have to pay for my education! I should have just committed a few crimes and I'd have got it for free!" :rolleyes:

Re: Justice
 

Scarlett:

How do you say sorry to a corpse if you find out later on that they were innocent ?
Irrelevant. We're talking justice here, not the judicial process. It is society's job to make sure only those that are guilty are sentenced. I don't know why liberals always like to assume it is more acceptable to sentence someone falsely to life than to sentence someone falsely to death. Both are equally unacceptable.

Losing the right to vote, the problem with that is that you run the risk that once you've been convited once the criminal has nothing to use.
Then so be it. I have no desire to see such **** vote. They will only vote for those who will release them earlier and put them on welfare (which is why 97% of child molestors vote liberal / Democrat), which will be BAD for society.

How many rights do you take away. An old teach of mine said that there are only 2 things that cannot be taken away from you are your qualifications and the right to vote.
I believe I quite clearly stated that you loose your right to vote.

Are you sure that you want to open that door ? picture this, a burgler enters you house. You go at him with a crowbar, you scuffle, during this you end up with your head caved in with the crowbar... you die 2 hours later in hospital.
Good example why you should have used a shot-gun or assult gun.

His defence team offer one defence for your killer, self defence. They are able to show that you must have bought the crowbar to the fight and he was not armed. there fore he acted in self defence and would have run had you not come at him with a crowbar...
No. You cannot claim self-defense if you're already in the wrong. I would have thought that this would be a logical first-step, however, it seems your judicial system has brainwashed you to such a level that I can't even assume such a basic principle. (No offense intended.)

That's a dangerous door to open...
Only for the criminal, and if you're interested in protecting his rights to rob you.



Graham:

Death penalty as a deterrant for murder? Doesn't work.
As far as I remember, no one has ever commited a crime after they've been executed. As for providing a deterrance to other criminals, I don't care. I'm dealing out punishment, nothing else.

Re: Justice
 

So, in one place you claim you're "talking justice" and in another you're talking about "dealing out punishment, nothing else" yet it seems that you *can't* see the problem with taking an *INNOCENT* person's life *BY MISTAKE*???

I really see *NO* point in continuing to debate this with you.

Re: Justice
 

Because it is the same thing in criminal cases.

Clearly, either your brain lacks the neurons needed to understand what I'm saying, or, you just don't *want* to understand. What I said was,

I don't know why liberals always like to assume it is more acceptable to sentence someone falsely to life than to sentence someone falsely to death. Both are equally unacceptable.

Notice the part that read, Both are equally unacceptable.

Also notice that I said that there is no difference between falsely sentencing a man to death or life imprisonment. Both are WRONG.


GET IT?

Re: Justice
 

the only deterrent for common crime is the belief that you'll be caught and exposed, unless that exists punishment, no matter how severe, is irrelevant.

violent crime though, well, i'm not sure there is a detterence for it, the people who commit it don't rationalise or think the way the rest of us do. they are insane as far as i'm concerned. a lot of people like to blame alcohol or a bad upbringing, something like that. all alcohol does is lower inhibition,it doesn't make you want to hurt people. a bad upbringing can cause you to be angry, but violent ? ... i think thats due to the individuals core character or brain function.

people who repeatedly commit violent crime should be steralised, and have thier brains operated on or permanently medicated. either that or permanently locked up or killed.

Re: Justice
 

I don't see anywhere in the article where it's author claims or implies that his is the 'one true way', I think you are putting words into his mouth.
....So are you saying that you don't have anything against the ideas (that I have highlited) expressed in the article, it's just that you don't like it because you believe it is setting itself up to be 'the one true way' ?

Re: Justice
 

Obviously you dont want to try and make amends when mistakes have been made.

I agree that both are wrong but if someone is still alive, then at least you can attempt to make things up to them, pay compentsation, let them start to rebuild their lives not much I know but...

Of course if they're dead, the best you could do is appologise to the widow and children for the state sponsered murder.

Re: Justice
 

Well put.

Re: Justice
 

It might be societies job to make sure that only the guilty are punished but what about those who have a large amount of money and can afford good Lawyers ? If its a high profile crime i.e. rape or Murder, then the police are under a lot of pressure to show results and at that point, mistakes can be made (and have been made)

And we don't vote for the party that is most benificial to ourselves ? I know that I vote for the party that most closely matches my philosophy.

Well cannot just be taken away from you, you have to effectivly surrender it by taking part in criminal activity and then getting caught. What I am saying is that maybe you lose the right to vote when inside but once released it is restored to you. i.e. it is not for life.

and have a nation of Tony Martins... What happens if the person coming in is your home help but she forgot to tell you she was coming in today...

In a country where the criminal generally knows more than the victim about what the law is this is exactly what the situation is. I witnessed a shoplifter and gave pursuit and managed to hold them until the shop staff can got there. All the girl was shouting, in between her 'I'm innocent' speech, was that she would do us all for assault, that shop staff said that all they can do is to stand in front of the people and keep your arms at you side. and get in there way as they run.

I believe that there should be a right to defend youself with reasonable force and to take actions to make his task considerably more difficult. i.e. barbed wire.

But how does killing someone really punish them ?, they're out of it but there are other people life, friends and relations etc. who are also punished (by having someone removed from there lives) for the crime of the criminal.

Re: Justice
 

I think we are agreed that if a crime is committed that justice can only be seen to be done if the criminal is caught and punished.

It's also true to say that in a crime where a murder takes place, the execution of the criminal concerned is only acceptable when we can be 100% certain that there is no chance of mistaken identity and no chance of the offender being re-habiitated, because in the event a mistake is made the State has violated the rights and extinguished the life of an innocent person, which is unacceptable.

In the case of imprisoning correctly convicted criminals, there is the issue that when they leave, they will not be in a position to take advantage of job opportunities because of their criminal record and their lack of training. The result therefore is that they go back to crime and re-offend.

I think a balance could be drawn by sending convicted criminals to prison as punishment, but also by having a compulsory post-prison organisation, which deals with their rehabilitation and training.

In that way criminals can see that the State is on the one hand punishing them for their crime, but on the other hand is preparing them for their re-entry into society as a productive citizen.

I think it would also be useful if the government ran small businesses, which solely employed ex-criminals to give them the opportunity to make a positive contribution. Hopefully in this way we could prevent them re-offending and get them out of the habit of committing crime.

Re: Justice
 

Yet another example of how the law and it's application needs to change :rolleyes:

Re: Justice
 

Top idea!
I am, contrary to what some might think, in favor of re-rehabilitation but I strongly believe that crime should also be punished. That is the way that (stupid/short sighted/impulsive) humans are educated, just think about how children are taught right from wrong- rewards and punishments- if rewards don't work then you try punishment. Many criminals are no different to children, they are impulsive, irrational and have a short 'horizon'.
Before anyone says that we should then 'reward' criminals with re-hab only, I would point out that they, unlike children, are adults and while you can 'con' kids with rewards to get them to behave, adults cotton onto that kind of thing very quickly-so we need punishment to go before reward in that case.

Re: Justice
 

Scarlett:

I agree that both are wrong but if someone is still alive, then at least you can attempt to make things up to them, pay compentsation, let them start to rebuild their lives not much I know but...
Come on. Both are equally unacceptable. Who is going to pay compensation anyways? *I*? Because you sure as hell have no right to use MY taxes for that. Perhaps the jury? Perhaps the judge? Come on. You're debating the judicial process now. It is the judicial process' responsibility to make sure they don't sentence anyone that is innocent. I'm not about to let the fear of sentencing someone that is innocent do so much harm by keeping violent criminals that should be dead, alive. It simply does not justify it. If you're THAT scared, or if it happens THAT often, then you *seriously* need to re-evaluate your judicial system, because there is *major* flaws in it.

what about those who have a large amount of money and can afford good Lawyers ?
Yeah, what about them?

then the police are under a lot of pressure to show results and at that point, mistakes can be made (and have been made)
Then you need to really fix your judicial process. You're trying to solve problem A by applying a totally irrelevant solution to problem B.

And we don't vote for the party that is most benificial to ourselves ? I know that I vote for the party that most closely matches my philosophy.
Right, but WHY EXTEND THAT RIGHT to those that are HARMFUL to society? MAn, don't you guys want to PROTECT yourself and your families? What the hell is wrong with you? /banghead

Well cannot just be taken away from you, you have to effectivly surrender it by taking part in criminal activity and then getting caught. What I am saying is that maybe you lose the right to vote when inside but once released it is restored to you. i.e. it is not for life.
Certainly not. MAYBE after you've been good for 25 years AFTER your release. I do NOT want someone that has harmed society to say how society should be government. They've demonstrated once that they are a harm to society, and revoking their right to vote for life really isn't causing me sleepless nights.

What happens if the person coming in is your home help but she forgot to tell you she was coming in today...
Then shooting her wouldn't be self-defense, would it? Unless she attacks you, or you feel threatened. Then it is quite justified.

In a country where the criminal generally knows more than the victim about what the law is this is exactly what the situation is. I witnessed a shoplifter and gave pursuit and managed to hold them until the shop staff can got there. All the girl was shouting, in between her 'I'm innocent' speech, was that she would do us all for assault, that shop staff said that all they can do is to stand in front of the people and keep your arms at you side. and get in there way as they run.
And that is why your laws are ****ed up. And, that is why I would keep a shot-gun or a hand-gun with me. You come into the store and try to rob me, I'll give you the money, wait for you to turn around, and then make some circulation holes in some vital organs. We don't need these trash in society. (And watch: now some will defend the criminal again)

But how does killing someone really punish them ?, they're out of it but there are other people life, friends and relations etc. who are also punished (by having someone removed from there lives) for the crime of the criminal.
Oh please, it is universally considered a punishment. If you now want to sound some nutty professor and debate the meaning of life, by all means. I'm not interested.



Liberals, understand this: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, I will always win the decision.

Re: Justice
 

Yes, but the thug is also thinking that

Re: Justice
 

But they are already thinking that while (atm) we are hamstrung in our dealings with them.

Re: Justice
 

Rephrase: When there is a question whether I or some other thug will survive, "I" will always be the result of the decision when I'm making it.

Re: Justice
 

And if you think that you judicial system is so perfect that it will *never* make a mistake then IMO you are talking about something that doesn't exist. One state sponsered murder of an innocent person is one too far.

Are you saying that your perfectly happy with the idea of 'friendly fire' i.e. when some innocent people die needlessly.
Because you actually manage to kill 20 real criminals every day, its fine that you kill an innocent bystander a day as well ?

Have you looked at the racial makeup of Death row ? in general the white middle class American can afford a lawyer who, even though they cannot get the accused off the murder charge can at least keep them off death row. it tends to be that other classes of American Citizen cannot afford the good lawyers and therefore end up with the death sentence FOR EQUIVILENT CRIMES.

Isn't the Juditial process there to impliment justice ? Therefore, if justice is not being served then the judicial process need's to be resolved. There is not problem A and problem B. If the police make m,istakes then this needs to be addressed by the courts BEFORE we chop heads off.


I do want to protect my family and myself but I recognise that this cannot be done by exluding people from society. They may have done harm in the past but whats to say that we cannot reform them. The worst thing that I can think of doing is forcing them to look to criminal means to live because we have taken away their ability to funciton as a member of that society.


What else would you take away I wonder ? Where do you stop ? When does the line between fair punishment e.g. Justice. and excessive punisment lie ? lets face it, someone commits a crime for which they receive a 6 month sentance at HMP. they leave after 3 months (good behaviour) but are not allowed to vote for another 25 Years Thats IMHO goes WAY beyond the bounds of fair justice.


Unless you thought that she was a burgler or a rapist, whos to say, after all they wont be able to speak in there defence and if you've given the people that power through the law then how can you condem someone for using that power.


Against pre-meditated Murder ? which I believe that you have indicated that _you_ would do. Certainly I'd defend them, I believe that I have a few spare flak jackets here somewhere. Even if you did this, you would become no better than they are and then _YOU_ would become eligable for the death penilty that you are so keen on.


What is it that you have against Liberals ? Is it because we would prefer to ask questions BEFORE shooting ?

Re: Justice
 

It appears to have worked in NY.
By targetting all crime, no matter how "small", this sent a signal that if you commit a crime, you will be caught.
Because of this, police started targeting turnstyle dodgers on the subway, which in turn cut the number of muggings/rapes/crimes on the subway, because most of the people comitting these crimes, jumped the turnstyles.
Quickly the criminals realised that the subway was a police patrolled area and no longer committed those crimes.
These petty criminals were feeding higher up criminals and this simple action by the police helped reduce crime elsewhere.
They didn't go elsewhere because they knew "elsewhere" was also patrolled. Basically the police gave the criminals' too much "bother" by actually bothering to catch them, and made them realise it was pointless to carry on.

Re: Justice
 

Thankfully we don't have as bad a gun problem in the UK as you do over there.
If guns are freely available, and the criminal thinks you may have one. What's to stop them coming in and just shooting you first?
It's happening in South Africa on an increasing frequency. Rather than risk being shot, a criminal will break into your home while you are sleeping, shoot you and your wife, and your kids, then freely help themselves to your stuff, knowing you can't shoot them because you are dead.

That's one of the reasons why the police over here generally want to keep their guns to a specially trained unit. Because if the crims think a PC is armed, then he's more likely to arm himself and shoot first.

Re: Justice
 

I entirely agree that both are "wrong", but in *one* case the mistake can be *corrected*!

Can you figure out which one that is???

Re: Justice
 

I think you should read that quote again!

"The purpose of a sentence is punishment." Full stop. End of story.

I quote again:

"Nothing about rehabilitation, remorse or socioeconomic disadvantage. Nothing about the bad effects that the punishment might have on the offender or, for that matter, its good effects..."

If that is the foundation that these proposals are based on, then whatever other "good intentions" it may have, they will be tainted by this.

The parts you highlighted are, as I pointed out before, simply window dressing. They are a sugar coating to try to convince the reader that the core is more palatable in the hope that it wont stick in their throat.

But it sticks in mine, so excuse me if I spit it back out.

Re: Justice
 

Right Wing Reactionary Conservatives PLEASE try to COMPREHEND this...

If it comes down to a question between someone harming or killing me and my harming or, in the ultimate exingency, killing them, I will *also* win the decision!

However, unlike you, I will *NOT* do this as a deliberately pre-meditated act!

I will *NOT* "exact revenge" by kicking seven bells out of them!

I will *NOT* attack someone who is *running away*.

I will not lie in wait and set a trap to give me an *excuse* to remove someone from the world!

I will not calmly sit down and decide that the world will be a better place if *that person* is no longer alive in it!

I think that anyone who is *capable* of thinking in such a way is as much a danger to society as that "thug" whom they despise so much!

NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

Re: Justice
 

You're right. It *appears* to have worked in NY.

But have a read of http://www.atsic.gov.au/issues/Law_a...eport/2ztp.asp (there are several pages to the report, the "next" link is in the top right hand corner of the page).

Does that sort of thing *really* sound like such a great idea after all??

Re: Justice
 

Its interesting, the author writes as if arresting drug users and dealers etc is a bad thing...

Re: Justice
 

Ooo Ooo Ooo! I can! I can! :)

There's one hell of a difference between locking an innocent person up and killing them!
It's a bit hard to bring a dead person back to life when you find out they're innocent 5 years after they've been sentanced.

Re: Justice
 

Curiously I read it as the author thinking that using a blanket "arrest everybody and sort them out later" policy was a "bad thing"...!

Re: Justice
 

Well done, have a gold star!
:)

Re: Justice
 

But it's not like that, yes there are mistakes and bad handling things like not appologising after raiding a house to find it's not involved in any crime.

It's lines like a heroine user who'd never been arrested before was arrested 5 times. Wow! A heroine user actually arrested! Shock horror! You know I thought that's what is supposed to happen...

Do you think they should ignore drug users?
The statistics mentioned in the article show that arrests for all crimes had increased, so they aren't concentrating on the petty crimes at the expense of more serious ones


PS Thanks for the gold star :)

Re: Justice
 

exactly , start at the bottom with the petty things and work upwards , as soon as the crims realise they have nowhere to hide then the problem will disapear eventually :)

Re: Justice
 

I find it strange that you cannot see the need for punishment in a justice system. It is, after all, a criminal 'justice' system, not a criminal 'rehabilitation' system (not that I have anything against rehab).
How are we to have justice done if the criminal is not punished?

Re: Justice
 

Hmmm....one of the papers cited in that link as possible reason why zero tolerance dosn't work seems to actualy show that it does. As doesthis paper (and many others that I found)

Re: Justice
 

I think that is an excellent policy. Unfortunately we have something over here called the European Bill of Human Rights which means that there will never be any kind of punishment of these types. Even though criminals choose to live outside society and threaten society the toss pots in Brussels seem to think they should still be afforded all these lovely rights. But what about murder victims right to life? or burgulary victims right to defend his property - these, it would seem, are secondary.

Islam comes in for some heavy criticism but under Islamic law the criminal can be punished the same way he committed the crime "Eye for an Eye". I read about an Iranian man who threw acid in a womans face because she refused to marry him, causing blindness and disfugurement. So the court decided that he should have the same done to him. - Now thats justice.

Re: Justice
 

I think this rather defies the point of democracy. If the majority of people are criminals then technically the government should reflect that.
As mentioned the criminal KNOWS what he plans to do and therefore can have a bigger gun and the element of surprise. So it's more likely you would end up dead.

Re: Justice
 

If this was the case we would be in state of anarchy. Democracy should only be for the positive contributing members of society.

Not sure what your point is here, are you agreeing that as the criminal knows what he is doing if he is injured or killed in the act then he should not have any comeback?

If so - I agree

Re: Justice
 

I thought the government already did reflect it!! :) But do I do agree about your point about removing the votes of criminals.

As for criminals in general, work on the premise that if you have something of value they will want to take if from you and prepare accordingly. I find having a large dog works wonders with door-to-door salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses etc and the moment somebody strange appears within scenting range of the front door the dog tells me.

When the pizza man calls, he rings the door bell and retreats to the front gate until the dog has been put away.and that's only on the basis of the dog's bark.

No doubt others will have their own favoured way of dispensing with the unwelcome criminal intruder.

:)

Re: Justice
 

Well, in that case you could say dumb people can't vote, jobless people, homemakers etc. Kinda defies the point of a free democracy.

I'm saying.
If you carry a gun with you it would probably be small and pocketed because you can't expect to be jumped on 24 hours a day. When a criminal attacks you he KNOWS he is going to do it, so he can have a bigger gun and just shoot you in back and anyone around who might see. 1 on 1 you don't stand a chance because he can make the first move. And of course the larger the legal guns the more people he can kill quickly.

Re: Justice
 

No, my point is if people offend against society, they should not have a say in how that society is run. They have given up their right by being a criminal.

That hasn't really got anything to do with the point I was making. I was saying that if a criminal attacks you or enters your home to rob you. He should relinquish his rights because he is knowingly threatening you or your home. So that if you defend yourself or defend your home and he is killed or injured in the process he has no come back and cannot sue you as is the case today.

Re: Justice
 

Fair point, I lost sight of the issue
I think this would be dangerous, it would lead to people digging up dirt on people to destroy their political opinion. A corrupt government could easily manipulate this to reduce opposition.

Re: Justice
 

and how is that different to the situation atm? They do that already anyway. :D

Re: Justice
 

Yes but atm they can still vote and still talk, they just get ignored.

Re: Justice
 

And now imagine it was *YOUR* house. Being burgled is bad enough, but when it's not a criminal but the *Police* who rampage through your home, how would you feel?

Could you just say "oh well, it's Zero Tolerance and it's making the place better to live in, so it's ok"???

As has been mentioned in another thread, in Holland hard drug *usage* is treated as a *medical* not a *criminal* problem and that makes a lot more sense as far as I can see.

I've spoken elsewhere about my opinions on "target based" policies. Just because you're arresting more people doesn't mean that you're improving the situation, any more than school league tables or hospital waiting lists solve problems on their own.

Re: Justice
 

I find it strange that you cannot see that punishment does not necessarily, in and of itself, *stop* crime.

If it makes you feel any better, let's redefine obliging someone to take part in a rehabilitation scheme as a "punishment". Does that help?

What good is "Justice" if the punishment just makes future crime more likely? It is well known that putting someone into a prison gives an inexperienced offender the opportunity to learn from the "experts" about how to not get caught the next time!

Re: Justice
 

I think you missed reading these parts from the report:

"The Independent Budget Office (IBO) for the City of New York provided comparative analysis to the City Councilââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s Committee on Public Safety, on differing rates of policing and crime rates in the 25 largest United States cities. The IBO found that many other cities achieved significant reductions in the crime rate with either much smaller per capita police staff levels or with actual reductions in police staff levels."

And:

"Based on the 1996 FBI Crime Index figures, New York had the third lowest crime rate of the 25 largest United States cities. However, it had the second highest (after Washington) per capita police staff levels. The two big cities with lower crime rates than New York are Indianapolis and San Jose. By way of comparison with New York, these two cities also have the lowest per capita police staff levels of the 25 largest cities. In Indianapolis there are 13 police officers for every 10,000 residents, and in San Jose there are 16 police officers for every 10,000 residents. In New York there are 53 police officers for every 10,000 residents. In San Diego where there was dramatic reduction in crime rates and a small increase in the policing levels, the per capita policing level is 17 per 10,000 - less than a third of New Yorkâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s (IBO 1998).

"The relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime in a community is by no means clear. Some cities have both low crime rates and low per capita policing levels. Others have high crime rates and high police staffing levels. In addition some cities have achieved significant reductions in crime without embarking on a zero tolerance policing strategy with the associated increase in police staff levels."

Note that last sentence well. It's easy to claim that the reduction in crime was due to Zero Tolerance, but if you're going to put a large number of extra Police on the streets, that, in itself, will have an effect!!

Re: Justice
 

At the moment, the police can have evidence that points to someone's property, get a warrent to search it, perform a raid and find nothing.
In such cases, the police arrange for the door to be replaced and appologise (this is in the UK).
As I said, for the authorities in the US to not appologise or make right any damage caused, it a mistake on the part of the policy makers.


And as I mentioned, look at how awful their "turning a blind eye to heroine" turned out.


I think you misunderstood what I said. The records show that people are being arrested for all types of crimes, rather than ignoring more serious crimes to concentrate on crimes that people "see" to make people feel safer.
Nothing in that part of the article said anything about targets, and I agree with you, targets are stupid when it comes to things like this.
A logical insighted review of the arrest records would show if the police are doing their job or not.

Re: Justice
 

If somebody gets falsely sentenced to life, that can be corrected. If they are sentenced to death (and the sentence is carried out), unless there has been some medical breakthrough of which I am unaware, that is pretty difficult to correct.

Re: Justice
 

So you are seriously saying that if we removed all punishments for crimes there would be no change to the ammount of crime commited? (since punishment does not stop crime)

I don't have a problem with a rehab scheme being 'punishment'-for certain crimes, but you seem to have a problem with accepting that criminals need punishment for their crimes.


"As the debate stands, citizens are in effect held hostage to threats by the outlaws (â₠¬ÃƒÆ’…“If you put me in prison, Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢ll just become a worse criminalââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�). "-from the article.
Maby the way to stop them becoming worse criminals in prison is to have them all in solitary....I don't know the answer, neither do you.

Re: Justice
 

It does not say that zero tolerance dosn't work does it? All it implies is that there may be other factors that can play a part in some cases.

Re: Justice
 

Did you actually bother to *READ* what I wrote??? :rolleyes: It seems not given the above and what you wrote after it.

Re: Justice
 

Like, say, putting large numbers of extra police on the streets?

If they did that and crime *didn't* fall, what would you conclude??

Re: Justice
 

Didn't one of the articles you link to say that in some areas more police on the street hasn't made a difference?

If the criminals work out that although there are police around, but all they do is give cautions, then the criminals will continue breaking the law.

Re: Justice
 

Which one? Where? Cite, please.

Re: Justice
 

Will do, just give me half hour or so :P

It was talking about the costing and police numbers by capita, saying that some cities have had reductions in crime by just getting more police, others had more police but it didn't make much difference

Here you go

"The relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime in a community is by no means clear. Some cities have both low crime rates and low per capita policing levels. Others have high crime rates and high police staffing levels."

Post 79

Re: Justice
 

I think from what you say the relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime IS clear.

In some cities they are able to keep crime rates down at a low cost because the police are being effective.

In other cities, crime is high despite high staffing levels because the police are ineffective.

Therefore having Zero tolerance doesn't necessarily require more police or greater spending, it just requires that the police employed are effective.

Perhaps some of the higher spending authorities could learn lessons from their more cost effective neighbours with regard to the management of crime and the methods and tactics used to control it.

Re: Justice
 

I would conclude that those extra police weren't effective in their job.

Re: Justice
 

I read it. The point that I am making is that nowhere have you said that punishment is a necessary part of dealing with crime,in spite of me asking you about this directly, you keep dodging the question, I find that strange.
From this I conclude that you believe that criminals should not be punished for their crimes. If I am wrong in my analysis please let me know.