We need this guy to run the country.

[G UK]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Round and round we go making reasons to do nothing something we in the UK have become experts at we see a problem and debate it to death until the point where there should be some action then we find another excuse and debate that and so on and so on. While all the time the cause of this problem that segment of society that feels it has a right to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants goes about doing exactly that laughing at us all for being so completely ineffective at stopping them. Oneday you will wake up after pondering the rights of all these people and find that one person you care about has been their latest victim.

Pardon,

I have suggested a change, a change to make prisons a place to be feared and which most of the rights of the prisoner are thrown out of the window. What would you rather have done? Your convicted therefore you either die or live with no rights forever more. Punish the person but give them a chance if they can work under the harsh rules of the prison they serve there sentence and are released, if they rebel against the rules they are kept inside. If after there release they re-offend make the punishment worse, longer/life sentence in which they work and contribute to society but are isolated from it.

The costs for this are minimal as the prisoners are paying for themselves, if they arn't willing to pay for there own upkeep they die, that is the choice, that is a choice that most of mankind has to make. Sentences arn't reduced for good behaviour, you do the crime you do the time. You are only released when you can follow the rules and have served your punishment.

G UK i wasn't directing that at you sorry if you thought that. You can always say "oh no were not having that it might be a bit too hard" trouble is the thugs don't think like that when they beat people to a pulp but rely on you me and every other decent person thinking like it when it comes time to get their punishment.

G UK is right prison is way too soft some of you might not agree but everyone i know including some that work in a local prison think it is a joke how comfortable life is now for prisoners. please don't trot out the old "a society can be judged by how it punishes the guilty" line as you could also say how a country is judged by failing to protect the innocent and vulnerable as this country patenly is at the minute.

If i have a choice between someone in custody getting a hiding or some truly innocent person in the street getting a hiding from a thug i know which way round i want it. You speak of those incidents in america as though they were never investigated which they were and in a documentary the county admitted it was easier to pay off the case then fight it it was all down to cash involved.

Either way you could have someone like him over here and rest assured our "rights for crims" system would never let anything happen to the poor little sweethearts once they have been captured as it is amazing how many of these real hard people become sweet little souls when it comes time to go before a court.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

G UK i wasn't directing that at you sorry if you thought that. You can always say "oh no were not having that it might be a bit too hard" trouble is the thugs don't think like that when they beat people to a pulp but rely on you me and every other decent person thinking like it when it comes time to get their punishment.

G UK is right prison is way too soft some of you might not agree but everyone i know including some that work in a local prison think it is a joke how comfortable life is now for prisoners. please don't trot out the old "a society can be judged by how it punishes the guilty" line as you could also say how a country is judged by failing to protect the innocent and vulnerable as this country patenly is at the minute.

If i have a choice between someone in custody getting a hiding or some truly innocent person in the street getting a hiding from a thug i know which way round i want it. You speak of those incidents in america as though they were never investigated which they were and in a documentary the county admitted it was easier to pay off the case then fight it it was all down to cash involved.

Either way you could have someone like him over here and rest assured our "rights for crims" system would never let anything happen to the poor little sweethearts once they have been captured as it is amazing how many of these real hard people become sweet little souls when it comes time to go before a court.

We're not trying to say that they all innocent and should have access to everything they demand. We are saying they should not be beaten to death, and then have people who claim to be concerned about crime defending it.

I am not against harsher punishements, I am against these kind of abuses.

[G UK]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

G UK i wasn't directing that at you sorry if you thought that.

-snip-

.

Its OK, I was a bit quick in my response, I apologise.

Prisons are to soft. The problem lies with the fact that the closer you get to the moral line of what we should and shouldnt force upon prisoners, the more difficult it is to police those that enforce our will.

As the saying says "Who watches the watchmen" that is where the nub of the problem lies. If we could guarentee that what is prescribed to happen will happen then the issue is very much simplified as those that want to relax the restrictions have very little recourse.

Unfortunately this will not happen as such we withdraw from that which we need in order to accomodate human stupidity and vindictiveness.

I one hundred percent trust one persons morals and limitations, that person is myself. If you cannot trust the person you are putting in control of such things you need to back off the rules in order to ensure that your own morals are not compromised.

Then again that would work fine in a Dictatorship, things are further complicated by replacing your own morales with the majority morals of the electorate in a Democracy.

Anywho I drunkenly ramble. My initial point stands as a target, the rest is merely discussion on how that is applied.

---------- Post added at 22:18 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

We're not trying to say that they all innocent and should have access to everything they demand. We are saying they should not be beaten to death, and then have people who claim to be concerned about crime defending it.

I am not against harsher punishements, I am against these kind of abuses.

I believe we agree

[cimt]

I'd love him to run the prison system. Ours is totally screwed up. These days prisoners are taken out on activity days and are allowed TV in their cells with Sky. The majority wouldn't even have Sky at home, or go out on activity days. The prisons are basically a life of luxury now compared to in other countries. Prisons should be hated and horrible, not have pool tables and everything for people to play with.

[Jon T]

I think some people need to read the links to articles about the other side of the regime.

You really want a situation where disabled, defenseless people are immobilised more than they are already and subjected to horrific injuries(or even death). A regime where evidence of their cruelty and illegal activities is supressed and destroyed toprevent a fuyll investigation. They are commiting crimes that are worse than those commited by the people that are incarcerated under their care.

Some people are looking at this with a severe case of rose coloured glasses, looking at one side that suits them but not the other.

If that system works so well, why do so many offenders reoffend again quicky and repetitively?

We need a tougher penal system in this country, but the one being discussed is not only overkill, it's illegal, and if somebody could get hold of the evidence, I think this gentleman would probably be serving time in one of his own institutions.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Jon T

I think some people need to read the links to articles about the other side of the regime.

You really want a situation where disabled, defenseless people are immobilised more than they are already and subjected to horrific injuries(or even death). A regime where evidence of their cruelty and illegal activities is supressed and destroyed toprevent a fuyll investigation. They are commiting crimes that are worse than those commited by the people that are incarcerated under their care.

Some people are looking at this with a severe case of rose coloured glasses, looking at one side that suits them but not the other.

If that system works so well, why do so many offenders reoffend again quicky and repetitively?

We need a tougher penal system in this country, but the one being discussed is not only overkill, it's illegal, and if somebody could get hold of the evidence, I think this gentleman would probably be serving time in one of his own institutions.

<RizzyKing/Nidge/cimt mode on> Oh stop being a bleeding leftie liberal Jon. Next you will be saying that anyone in a position of power is nto allowed to destroy evidence if someone dies as a result of a beating by his officers. As for disabled defenceless prosioners, well they must have been evil so and sos to end up in prison and deserve all they get. Please stop defending these **** and keep your nose firmly in the Guardian. <RizzyKing/Nidge/cimt mode off>

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jon T

If that system works so well, why do so many offenders reoffend again quicky and repetitively?

Out of interest, do you have the reoffence rate for those who've been to his prison as well as the detection rate?
The latter is quite important as if people believe they won't get caught, no matter how harsh the penalty, they'll not care because most of the time they can get away with their crimes.

We need a tougher penal system in this country, but the one being discussed is not only overkill, it's illegal, and if somebody could get hold of the evidence, I think this gentleman would probably be serving time in one of his own institutions.

That would be quite fitting.

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

<RizzyKing/Nidge/cimt mode on> Oh stop being a bleeding leftie liberal Jon. Next you will be saying that anyone in a position of power is nto allowed to destroy evidence if someone dies as a result of a beating by his officers. As for disabled defenceless prosioners, well they must have been evil so and sos to end up in prison and deserve all they get. Please stop defending these **** and keep your nose firmly in the Guardian. <RizzyKing/Nidge/cimt mode off>

We clearly have different views on this. I'm not a liberal by any means. In cases where the crime warrants it, I think we should re-introduce the death penatly, as well as sterilisation and castration. I also think that on being found guilty a person should lose the certain(if not all) of their so called "human rights".

It's Human rights law, and sentancing appeals that we need to change. Too many times we hear that people have been given lengthly sentances only for them tob e be reduced to something silly on appeal.

Another thing, dangerous/uninsured/careless/drunk drivers, don't just give them a few years ban, take their rights to drive a motor vehicle away permenently.

I could go on.......and on......and on.

I'm not a Liberal, I just have a balanced and reasoned view point. Infact I don't think my political beliefs fit into anyone slot.

I purposefully don't take part in these types of discussion because I feel people are too quick to judge other people based on a few posts about a particular subject.

Don't label me please, you don't know me.

Obviously on second reading(and the reply from saaf-laandon_mo), I realise that the post i've qouted was meant to be taken sarcastically and as an indication of what possible replies I may get.

Sorry Saaf_laandon_mo for any mis-understanding.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Jon T

We clearly have different views on this. I'm not a liberal by any means. In cases where the crime warrants it, I think we should re-introduce the death penatly, as well as sterilisation and castration. I also think that on being found guilty a person should lose the certain(if not all) of their so called "human rights".

It's Human rights law, and sentancing appeals that we need to change. Too many times we hear that people have been given lengthly sentances only for them tob e be reduced to something silly on appeal.

Another thing, dangerous/uninsured/careless/drunk drivers, don't just give them a few years ban, take their rights to drive a motor vehicle away permenently.

I could go on.......and on......and on.

I'm not a Liberal, I just have a balanced and reasoned view point. Infact I don't think my political beliefs fit into anyone slot.

I purposefully don't take part in these types of discussion because I feel people are too quick to judge other people based on a few posts about a particular subject.

Don't label me please, you don't know me.

Sorry I think you misunderstood my post. I am definately not calling you a liberal/leftie, I was just posting how I'd think that some of the ardent supporters of this Sherrif on this forum will reply to your post - hence the mode on mode off etc etc. I was being sarcastic.

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Sorry I think you misunderstood my post. I am definately not calling you a liberal/leftie, I was just posting how I'd think that some of the ardent supporters of this Sherrif on this forum will reply to your post - hence the mode on mode off etc etc. I was being sarcastic.

My original post has been edited and an apology given to you. Let the post stand as a reply to anyone replying in a similar vein to what you suggested.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Out of interest, do you have the reoffence rate for those who've been to his prison

I think thats the most important factor. If the re-offending rate is significantly lower than more relaxed regimes it shows something is working.

Right now here re-offending rates are so shockingly high people are getting out after 1/3 of their sentences and there is so few spaces some people are calling for sentences of less than 6 months to be scrapped altogether.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Jon T

My original post has been edited and an apology given to you. Let the post stand as a reply to anyone replying in a similar vein to what you suggested.

Hey no worries mate...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Derek S

I think thats the most important factor. If the re-offending rate is significantly lower than more relaxed regimes it shows something is working.

According to TheDaddy (post #20) reoffending rates under this regime are as high as elsewhere. I don't know where he got his info from though.

Edit:

Some feel that Sheriff Arpaio's actions are based less on a desire to serve the public and to lower crime, but more on demagoguery and grandstanding that hurt the public welfare. Amnesty International issued a report critical of the treatment of inmates in Maricopa County facilities[10]. Criticism has resulted due to lawsuits filed against the sheriff’s office by family members of inmates who died in jail custody and in high-speed pursuits involving deputies. The lawsuits have cost Maricopa County more than $30 million in settlement claims.[11] By mid-year 2007, more than $50 million in claims had been filed against the sheriffs office and Maricopa County.

Furthermore, in a 1998 Arpaio commissioned study, Arizona State University Criminal Justice professor Marie L. Griffin found that Arpaio's policies did nothing to reduce recidivism in the Maricopa County facilities compared to his predecessor: "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989-1990 and those released in 1994-1995."[12]

wiki

[Derek]

Hmmm, whilst on a quick Google search to try and find out the re-offending rate (and failed miserably) I did come across this which is quite interesting.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...70328h0010.htm

I start with the familiar myth that we have a very high prison population. Only recently, the Minister himself was quoted in our local paper, the Bradford Telegraph and Argus, as saying that we lock up more people than any other country in Europe and that we have to look for alternatives.
.
If we consider the number of prisoners that we have for each 100,000 of population, we are nearer the average, but still quite high. However, those figures are meaningless; surely the only meaningful measure of the size of the prison population is how many prisoners there are in relation to the number of crimes committed. On that measure, the evidence is startling: we do not have the highest prison population in the western world, but the lowest. Compared with the US, Canada, Australia and the other EU countries as a whole, the UK has the lowest prison population of all. For every 1,000 crimes committed in the UK, we have approximately 13 prisoners, compared with approximately 15 in Canada and Australia, well over 20 in the rest of the EU as a whole and a whopping 166 in the US
.
The fact is that the country with the lowest prison rate, the UK, has the highest crime rate�more than 10,000 crimes for every 100,000 of population. The country with the highest prison rate, the USA, has the lowest crime rate: about 4,400 crimes for every 100,000 of population. Canada, the country with the second lowest prison rate of the western countries that I looked at, has the second highest crime rate. The EU has the second highest prison rate and the second lowest crime rate
.
However, a Home Office report showed that that was clearly not the case. The “Re-offending of adults� report, published in November 2006, concluded that
“re-offending rates are lower among offenders discharged from a custodial sentence of at least a year (49 per cent) than among those discharged from a shorter custodial sentence (70 per cent)...This suggests that custodial sentences of at least a year are more effective in reducing re-offending.�

How much of this is Conservative 'Hang em and flog em' hot air is up for debate.