Justice

[luftys]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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

so now we have part time crooks

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Leaving aside the point by point approach for once,

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

do you, or do you not think that criminals should be punished for their crimes?

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

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

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

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

[basa]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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 !!!!

[Jerrek]

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

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.

BUT IT *DOESN'T*!

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

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

Saudi Arabia and Singapore say otherwise.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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 , and yes i would like to see the death sentence reintroduced

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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?

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Jerrek

It *does* work if your punishment is swift and hard.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

So what is your problem with this:

Society not only has the right to punish culpable offenders; the moral responsibility of the offender imposes on society the duty to punish.

Thatâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s it. 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. When a system fails to punish culpable offenders, it has failed, full stop. It is unjust.

Before rejecting retributive justice out of hand as far too harsh, you should realise that you can be a retributivist and still be against disproportionate punishments. You can oppose the death penalty, for example, or think that the appropriate punishment for painting graffiti on a park bench is not a jail term, but being forced to scrub graffiti from 10 park benches.

Being a retributivist does not mean you must give up on rehabilitation. Add all the educational and therapeutic services you want to the sentence, as long as the sentence itself constitutes a punishment.
You can be a retributivist and still be a civil libertarian of sorts. A just system requires that culpability be judged correctly, which means that criminal justice procedures should protect the innocent.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

[/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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

- 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

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

- 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.

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...

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.