Justice

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Scarlett

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.

as per the article....

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by basa

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 !!!!

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.

[soniz]

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.

[Ramrod]

I think that this bit said it best:

When a system fails to punish culpable offenders, it has failed, full stop. It is unjust.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So what is your problem with this:

"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.

Originally Posted by Scarlett

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

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.

Originally Posted by Scarlett

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*.

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.

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.

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!"

[Jerrek]

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

[Jerrek]

So, in one place you claim you're "talking justice" and in another you're talking about "dealing out punishment, nothing else"

Because it is the same thing in criminal cases.

yet it seems that you *can't* see the problem with taking an *INNOCENT* person's life *BY MISTAKE*???

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?

[xaq141175]

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

"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.

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' ?

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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?

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by xaq141175

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.

Well put.

[Scarlett]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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. Therefore 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.)

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.