The Human Rights of Child Killers.

[IAN 2411]

Some 18 months ago I started a thread IE: - The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

The question has come up in my head once more but since that thread I have changed my views slightly. I don’t for one minute think that the death penalty will ever be re-introduced in the UK but something has to be done as a real deterrent. The human rights act is thrown in our faces by just about every do gooder and Liberal on the planet, and I for one am fed up with it being used out of the context that it was written for.

I believe the reason the Human rights act is there is for the multitude of oppressed that have no right of fair play and speech. Countries of peoples that are put behind bars for saying or doing something that is not politically correct with their governments thinking or ideal. However in recent years the act in the UK and in Europe is being bent to serve any purpose that a person needs to get his/her desires. The worst one that I have heard so far is a male life prisoner requesting a sex change while in prison under the Human rights law. It just goes to show how far a person will go just to have sex in the proper fashion while incarcerated for 35 years.

I have been reading the stories about the Murders for greed and child murders for the whole of the 18 months, and there is not a day that goes past when I don’t get sickened by this filth that walks among us on the street.

I am now in the belief that if there is going to be justice for these children whether boy’s or girl’s, or for that matter an adult, then justice has to be seen being done. If you sentence a killer of anyone to death then he in my opinion has not paid for his crime, he has been given an easy get out. The reason being, that after the moment of death the guilty feels no pain. It is not right for the family of the person he/she killed, to go the rest of their life relying on a mythical Devil to look after their loved ones killer.

Is it time now to say enough is enough, and in the case of a convicted killer/or paedophile the human rights act should be scrapped. It is my opinion that because they have taken from a person the human rights to live a peaceful and normal life, they too should have theirs taken away for the remainder of their prison sentence or life, whichever comes first. [I can already hear the screams of protest].

Life meaning life with hard labour, and I really do mean hard labour. Work in the open in all weathers regardless of conditions, and twelve hours a day seven days a week. No Sunday let off for religious purposes, because if they really were that way inclined they would not have broken Gods commandment. Wooden huts in compounds to live in and with bare heating essentials, quarries were their menial task helps pay for their incarceration. Wholesome food to keep the body alive but not to satisfy the pallet, a doctor as the only right they have but only to lawfully keep them alive. Give them a minimal show of hell that through their warped minds they have given their victims loved ones.

Killers and terrorists that carry out murder for greed, and short term and long term sex and child killers alike, the short term would not want to reoffend and no one would wish that punishment to come their way again. The guilty persons of these murders should be sent before special judges to receive their sentences. Not in front of the soft liberals that have soft attitudes with no heart to give the rough justice needed for these crimes.

I know there are other murders that are carried out that do not justify this treatment but that is the job of DPP. It is not rocket science to work out who needs different punishment for murder.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Ian,

Sounds to me like something has happened to turn you around. I hope it was nothing personal, to you or yours. There are plenty of bad things happening in this world, and I wouldn't wish them on anyone.

But I agree, in principal, with your comments. Criminal DO need to be held accountable for their crimes, and for the pain and suffering, both physical and emotional, that they have caused their victims, which includes the families of those who were actually harmed. The work camps which you describe, however, seem more like concentration camps or gulags than prisons. A far more effective punishment would be keeping them in confinement, with little to do but think about why they are there.

It's my opinion that convicted criminals should have almost all of their rights rescinded, except for certain basic rights. Adequate food, of course, to maintain their physical health, as well as BASIC healthcare when required. Mental health care, in appropriate institutions, for those so in need. Other PRIVILEGES may be earned, perhaps, through good behavior, including the option of performing some kind of useful labor. I don't claim that modern prisons are nice places, but when prisoners are given cable television and internet access, or access to unnecessary medical procedures (such as the sex change operation you mentioned) then something is seriously wrong.

And I still maintain that some people, the very worst, most incorrigible criminals, should be subject to the possibility of the death sentence. Not as a deterrent to others, as I don't think that kind of person would be deterred by another person's suffering. But simply to insure that, no matter what happens, no matter which political party is in power, that person will never, ever be released into society again. And death is the only sure guarantee.

While a certain part of a criminal's punishment is intended to help ease the pain and fear of the victims, the primary purpose of the justice system is, in my opinion, to protect society from such criminals. In some cases prison will do that. Few will want to risk returning to prison after being released. But some people are so defective, so evil, they should not, EVER, be allowed to interact with others again. Killing them may not make their victims feel any better, but knowing that they will never threaten anyone ever again makes ME feel better.

[Snark]

Gulag is exactly what he described. And a suitable environment for those who truly deserve it. The concept of rehabilitation is fine...for those who were once suitable for public interaction. I know from familial experience that people do make mistakes...actually they fuck up. They do something stupid. They recognize what they did and don't want to go back to prison. These are not the habitual felons; not the sociopaths that fill our prisons. No weight piles, no air conditioning, no cable TV. Just hard work and an incentive to never return. For the incorrigible murdering rapists, child killers, cop murderers...they forfeit their "human rights" because they have demonstrated that they are not actually human. They are organic debris that needs to be removed. Lethal injection...with something that hurts like hell for an hour or ten, depending on the crime. Inject them, leave them locked in a dark, soundproof room in a straight jacket. Drag them out the next day and pressure wash the room. The true sociopaths won't be deterred, but a few of the "wanna be's" might be.

[IAN 2411]

Rapist pleads guilty to teenager's sex murder, Monday, 8 March 2010

Convicted sex offender Peter Chapman was jailed for life today after admitting the kidnap, rape and murder of a teenager he ensnared on a social networking site.
Judge Fox passed a life sentence on Chapman and said he would serve at least 35 years imprisonment before being considered for parole.
"For it appears to me that you are, you were at the time, and have been for some considerable time, a very great danger to young women and, for what it is worth, I cannot foresee your release," he said.
"In my judgment, your killing was of such seriousness on its own, and in conjunction with other associated offences, that it falls clearly into the category of being particularly high."
.................................................. ..........
Good call by the Judge, but the surprising thing is the previous of the man, for the life of me I just cannot understand how the police let this filth get away with his crimes for so long.
.................................................. ...........
Chapman, a convicted rapist, has a long history of sexual offending.
At 15 he was accused of sexual assault and four years later he was accused of raping a girl he had befriended. Both these allegations were discontinued.
But in December 1996, aged 19, he was jailed for seven years at Teesside Crown Court after being convicted of raping of two teenage prostitutes.
After his release, he was arrested by Cheshire Police in 2002 for the rape and kidnap of a prostitute in Ellesmere Port. Again the case was discontinued.
.................................................. ...............
Now this guy was a murder waiting to happen. I am not sure how the mind of a kidnapper and rapist goes, but I have always been led to believe if this particular crime is committed then the victim usually ends up dead. This person is the disgusting filth I have been talking about, and they do not have the rights to claim human rights, as they lost that right when they became a predator. You could go as far as to say if a person kidnaps, rapes and the victim ends up dead it is premeditated.

Here in the UK this guy will end up in a soft jail getting three meals a day, television, a games room, a library, and gymnasium. He/she will more than likely get a visitor once a month that sympathises with his hardship, and probably a liberal social worker telling him the law was a bit harsh. The real kick in the teeth is that all this will be paid for by the child/victims - parent’s/loved ones taxes. Well that is just not good enough because for me that is not paying for his crime, because everyone that he touched by taking away their loved ones is paying for it including his good health.




Sounds to me like something has happened to turn you around. I hope it was nothing personal, to you or yours. There are plenty of bad things happening in this world, and I wouldn't wish them on anyone.
Not me personally but someone that is a very good friend of mine, and it brought home just how close we all are from the next pointless murder about to happen.


The work camps which you describe, however, seem more like concentration camps or gulags than prisons. A far more effective punishment would be keeping them in confinement, with little to do but think about why they are there.

I would not go as far as to say concentration camp but Gulag fits the crime, harsh yes but so too is murder. The trouble with locking them away as you said is the mental health act in the UK, and after a few months it would be played on by his/her lawyers. Then where would they go? Oh yes a nice secure mental asylum gardening outside, with another bunch of psycho’s saying he is fit once more for mixing with the public after a couple of years.

It's my opinion that convicted criminals should have almost all of their rights rescinded, except for certain basic rights. Adequate food of course, to maintain their physical health, as well as BASIC healthcare when required.
With you all the way.


Mental health care, in appropriate institutions, for those so in need.
Sorry that’s a no, no, read above because in the UK it is a good get out clause.


Other PRIVILEGES may be earned, perhaps, through good behavior,
No privileges as that comes under human rights, his/her victim had their privileges taken away the moment they died, the main one being the privilege of life.


And I still maintain that some people, the very worst, most incorrigible criminals, should be subject to the possibility of the death sentence. Not as a deterrent to others, as I don't think that kind of person would be deterred by another person's suffering. But simply to insure that, no matter what happens, no matter which political party is in power, that person will never, ever be released into society again. And death is the only sure guarantee.

While a certain part of a criminal's punishment is intended to help ease the pain and fear of the victims, the primary purpose of the justice system is, in my opinion, to protect society from such criminals. In some cases prison will do that. Few will want to risk returning to prison after being released. But some people are so defective, so evil, they should not, EVER, be allowed to interact with others again. Killing them may not make their victims feel any better, but knowing that they will never threaten anyone ever again makes ME feel better.
Yes, I will agree you hit the nail on the head there.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Good call by the Judge, but the surprising thing is the previous of the man, for the life of me I just cannot understand how the police let this filth get away with his crimes for so long.
Don't know that I'd blame the police. Seems at first glance they did their jobs by arresting him. It's the court, the judges, the lawyers, which set him back on the streets again.

Now this guy was a murder waiting to happen.
Obviously, his previous stints in prison did not "rehabilitate" him. Gee, THAT'S a surprise!

I am not sure how the mind of a kidnapper and rapist goes
It's quite simple, really. "You've got what I want, I deserve it, and you're no better than a piece of shit on the sole of my shoe." Fairly typical of most criminal minds.

You could go as far as to say if a person kidnaps, rapes and the victim ends up dead it is premeditated.
A pretty valid generalization, but there have been a couple of high-profile cases here in the US where the victim has turned up alive and more-or-less well.

Here in the UK this guy will end up in a soft jail getting three meals a day, television, a games room, a library, and gymnasium. He/she will more than likely get a visitor once a month that sympathises with his hardship, and probably a liberal social worker telling him the law was a bit harsh.
Yeah, this is exactly the kind of prison time I'm advocating against! Hard time should, indeed, be HARD time.

Not me personally but someone that is a very good friend of mine, and it brought home just how close we all are from the next pointless murder about to happen.
I'm sorry to hear that. You, and his/her loved ones, have my condolences. I've been fortunate in this regard. I know of no one, personally, who has suffered in this manner.

The trouble with locking them away as you said is the mental health act in the UK, and after a few months it would be played on by his/her lawyers.
I'm not sure why this would matter. If the criminal has been deemed sane enough to stand trial, he's sane enough to pay for his crime. If he's been locked up for life, what difference does his mental health have? Just another one of those human rights he's given up by not being human.

Sorry that’s a no, no, read above because in the UK it is a good get out clause.
I think I'd have to stand pat on this one. Perhaps the laws might need to be changed, but there are some who are truly mentally ill when they commit their crimes. And some of them could be treated to have that mental illness controlled. You can justify institutionalizing someone who is ill, either physically or mentally, but I don't see how you can justify withholding treatment for that illness, or for maintaining him in an institution once his illness has been cured, or at least controlled. Yes, the restrictions on this issue would need to be tightened down, a lot, but the attempt at healing such a person should be made.

No privileges as that comes under human rights, his/her victim had their privileges taken away the moment they died, the main one being the privilege of life.
Yes, I realize that. Still, allowing limited privileges for specific behavior, such as attending rehabilitation courses, undergoing treatments, even just for good behavior, shouldn't be cast aside so easily. For one thing, the promise of gaining some privileges can greatly reduce problems within the prison. The threat of then losing those privileges can help keep the criminal on the straight and narrow. Except in the cases of the most hard-core, incorrigible criminals I can't see unilaterally withholding at least the possibility of earning privileges. And those kinds of criminals are the ones who should be at the top of the list for the death penalty anyway.

Yes, I will agree you hit the nail on the head there.
You needn't act so surprised! ;)

[Ozme52]

Here I disagree. I don't think we need to indulge in "revenge" by making the criminal "pay" for their acts, for the suffering they caused, by making them suffer in kind.

Just do away with them so they can't offend again. I favor the death penalty, (with loads of "make sure you have the right person" because we still see science-based exonerations, and even occasional confessions by others, long after incarceration.) I don't need to see them suffer, or tortured for a confession and repentance, ala the inquisition.

We need both, the civil rights act to protect the individual from out-of-control governments, and the death penalty to protect the masses, from out of control individuals.

[IAN 2411]

[QUOTE=Ozme52;929510]Here I disagree. I don't think we need to indulge in "revenge" by making the criminal "pay" for their acts, for the suffering they caused, by making them suffer in kind.
QUOTE]

It is not making them suffer in kind, neither is it revenge. It is justice seen to be done. Taking a life of a murderer is not justice for the loved ones, it is a fast get out for the killer from a life time of guilt if they have any.

Be well IAN 2411

[Ozme52]

[QUOTE=Ozme52;929510]Here I disagree. I don't think we need to indulge in "revenge" by making the criminal "pay" for their acts, for the suffering they caused, by making them suffer in kind.
]/QUOTE]

It is not making them suffer in kind, neither is it revenge. It is justice seen to be done. Taking a life of a murderer is not justice for the loved ones, it is a fast get out for the killer from a life time of guilt if they have any.

Be well IAN 2411

Seems to me you're splitting hairs with the definition of revenge v. what you described as proper punishment. (I looked in merriam webster but though I read it that way, it's not necessarily clear cut.)

But as I said, I'd be happy just to be rid of them.

[thir]

I must admit I have trouble with the whole 'make them suffer - revenge' idea. It's - just not important.

First, I think that the focus should be on the victims: to give them whatever help they need.

Second, I think as Ozme that the point it to protect society. That means several things.

One is that they cannot escape. But another is that most sentences are not for life. So, as I see it, society is best protected by trying hard to rehabilitate the prisoners.
It is proven over and over again that harsh punisment (including death the sentence) does not scare people from committing crimes. But rehabilitation might stop them from doing it again, and that is what is important.

To lessen the amount of crime - and the number of suffering viticms - is much more importent than revenge.

For that reason also working for preventing crime is more important than revenge.

And finally, if we go too far into the revenge tracks, we end up becomming what we fight. We've seen draconical treatmen during the ages: burning, dismembering, impailing, starving to death - should we have those back, and how long would it be before those punishments were not only for the worst crimes?

I am fortunate enough to not be able to imagine how it feels to loose something under dreadful circumstances. And it is possible that I would think that making people suffer would help. But does it? The loss is still there.

I think there is a reason why it is the judges meeting out punishment, and not the victims. You cannot expect the victims to keep an even head.

[Thorne]

I think there is a reason why it is the judges meeting out punishment, and not the victims. You cannot expect the victims to keep an even head.
Yes, that's very true. And the justice system is not (or is not SUPPOSED to be) about getting revenge. It SHOULD be about protecting society. Sometimes, though, it seems that lawyers and judges are more interested in protecting the criminals.

Nothing the justice system can do will make the victims feel any better. The pain and loss will still be there. Over time, sometimes, it can grow less, but killing the criminal, or putting him in prison, or using him for slave labor will not ease that loss. What those things WILL do is keep the criminal from hurting society again, at least for the time he's in prison.

Of course, the judges can do more damage to the victims by not sentencing (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12969163/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/judge-rules-sex-offender-too-short-prison/)criminals.

The only reason why I support any kind of death penalty, and only for the most violent criminals who cannot be rehabilitated, is to eliminate the possibility (http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html) of them ever being able to kill again. If you check out that list you'll see quite a few convicted killers who were either paroled or escaped and killed again. There is no parole, or escape, from death.

[Snark]

Part of the problem in the US is that it is the CRIMINAL Justice System, not the VICTIM Justice System. Thus all of the emphasis is on whether the criminal's rights are protected, not the victim's. Too often the ones who perpetrate the worst crimes have no sense of moral compass. The criminal may intellectually know of the difference between right and wrong, but don't care. They consider that little nicety to be someone else's concern. Thus WHEN they get out; because most of them do, they simply go back to doing it again. This is a growing problem; this behavior is learned at a young age by those whose parents (or parent) did not instill it in while they were very young. Thus there is no mental connection between bad behavior and the societal consequences that will result. The revolving door keeps spinning; more and more enter the system. The victim is left injured with no recompense; worse after the perpetrator is released he may return to finish the job but being even more pissed off than before. Again, how do you RE-habiltate someone who was never habilitated to begin with? The worse of these are the pedophiles who have the added twist of hormonal pressure as well as the criminal desire. The recidivism rate for child molesters is in the high ninety percentages, likewise high for rapists. Rape is a crime of violence, rather than just sex, but the sexual aspect feeds the hormones that fuel the rage. A vicious circle that is inflicted upon the unsuspecting victim. But she has little opportunity to find closure short of executing the perpetrator. Castration as a part of the punishment is feasible; but unconstitutional. Ted Bundy blamed porn for his crimes, some people actually believed him. He was a sociopath, a congenital liar, a self obsessed egomaniac, yet people believed his bullshit about it all being the fault of reading the Playboy mags he found under his father's bed. I agree with Ian - at that point they have forfeited all "human" rights; they have abandoned their humanity. They are rabid. There is some evidence that public executions will turn around youthful offenders who are both aware and intelligent enough to recognize that they don't want to end up there. It also feeds the prurient interests and excites the mentally twisted who wish to have their 15 minutes of fame by performing in a similar role. Two legged animals are remarkably intriguing.

[IAN 2411]

I must admit I have trouble with the whole 'make them suffer - revenge' idea. It's - just not important.
Where o where have I mentioned “revenge,” let’s get things put in the right context. Harsh punishment is not revenge, it is justice.



One is that they cannot escape. But another is that most sentences are not for life. So, as I see it, society is best protected by trying hard to rehabilitate the prisoners.
It is proven over and over again that harsh punishment (including death the sentence) does not scare people from committing crimes. But rehabilitation might stop them from doing it again, and that is what is important.
If a man at 25 imprisons, rapes and then selfishly kills a child, or for that matter anyone, with the only reason that killing is to escape justice and incarceration? Then the fact is that he has not picked up in that 25 years the basic principle that all mortals have the human right to live. I would very much doubt that after another 25 years in prison he is going to be installed with, thou shall not rape and kill in his/her warped and twisted brain.

Be Well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

And finally, if we go too far into the revenge tracks, we end up becomming what we fight. We've seen draconical treatmen during the ages: burning, dismembering, impailing, starving to death - should we have those back, and how long would it be before those punishments were not only for the worst crimes?
No one is saying bring those back, what I am saying is the punishments do not fit the crime.


I think there is a reason why it is the judges meeting out punishment, and not the victims. You cannot expect the victims to keep an even head.
In the UK nearly all the judges that came through the old boys club have no idea what justice is, because they are too busy worrying about contravening the human rights act. The problem is that the UK judges have not got the balls to give the sentences that the public is demanding. The harshest of crimes should warrant the harshest of punishment.

Be Well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Let’s put things into perspective. In the UK there is no death penalty for Murder, it was voted for by the people. So we are now left with the only other alternative incarceration for those that murder.

I understand that not all murders warrant harsh punishment, that some between arguing couple was a death waiting to happen. We all know what they are, wife beating and husband beating, and it was murder because of the straw that broke the camel’s back. There are many other examples and you all know what I am talking about.

There are however a hard core of people that just don’t give a damn, not hard hearted because there is no heart IE: -

They rob banks and kill because the tiller looked at them funny. The customer was not fast enough getting down on the floor.

They rape and kill because they do not integrate with society.

They kill their partners/parents/neighbours for money and jealousy, for their own enrichment and greed.

Paedophiles that rape babies as young as 18 months and discard the bodies like rag dolls.

Paedophiles that rape infants and children, scaring not only the child for life but the parents asking themselves if they could have been better.

Gang related killings.

Children at school getting murdered because of their race, colour, intelligence, and again jealousy.

These people I have named are just a few of the disgusting filth that is among us. So let’s cut the crap, if you can only imprison them and some like the young, then you have to install in them murder is a capital offence not petty crime. It deserves harsh punishment and as the death penalty in the UK is out of the question, hard labour is not. Hard work never killed anyone if they are properly nourished and cared for. For taking the human rights to live, off of another person, they too should then lose their human rights until they serve at least three quarters of their allotted time. No parole that is a human right for those people in prison that are still humans. People that I have described above are basic animals and animals do not have human rights.

It costs in this present day in the UK £102.74 a day....£719.18 per week and for 25 years it would cost £937.502 not including inflation. This prisoner is getting more to live on over 25 years than the parents or the family of the victim could earn in the same amount of time. Now please tell me is that justice?

This is one more reason why they should work, now I will say this only once more....”It is paying for their crime and not revenge.” I am not talking about senseless work with no reward to the authorities, I am talking about pay back. Meaningful work that gives the tax payer back some of their cash, so I would appreciate it if the Gulag and concentration camps were not mentioned because they were not what I had in mind.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I am not talking about senseless work with no reward to the authorities, I am talking about pay back. Meaningful work that gives the tax payer back some of their cash
So basically, you're saying employers should hire prisoners (at markedly reduced rates, of course) to perform labor instead of hiring law-abiding citizens? Won't that lead to higher unemployment and, by extension, more crime?

[IAN 2411]

So basically, you're saying employers should hire prisoners (at markedly reduced rates, of course) to perform labor instead of hiring law-abiding citizens? Won't that lead to higher unemployment and, by extension, more crime?

Not really i was thinking more on the fact that this is 2011 and enterprise is the thing. I know that there are factories that because of the Chinese market have had to close down in the UK because they could not compete. If these factories were turned into work houses, [yes i do know they went out with the prison reforms and look at mess we are in.] the prisoners could still make these products, and if the goods sold at the competitive price the Chinese throw at the west, it could be a useful to bring down the cost of keeping them. It could be controlled by government and independent watch dogs, so that there is no exploitation of the system. Ok it would not happen overnight but there has to be a safe way to introduce this, if anything it would only be more reform.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

if the goods sold at the competitive price the Chinese throw at the west, it could be a useful to bring down the cost of keeping them.
Wouldn't it be better to place higher tariffs on imported goods? And even higher tariffs on domestic companies who ship their production overseas? Make it easier for companies to produce in country? But that's getting into economics, not prison reform.


It could be controlled by government and independent watch dogs, so that there is no exploitation of the system.
Oh, sure, that would work! Everyone knows government bureaucrats and "independents" appointed by them would NEVER exploit the system!

Sorry, but I don't trust politicians or the bureaucrats they appoint.

One thing which I have repeatedly heard from former prisoners is how important it was to them to do some kind of meaningful work. That's why I feel it should be held out as a privilege, not as a punishment. And there is plenty of work that can be done within the prison system itself, thus helping to reduce the costs of running the prisons. Plus there is outside work, in emergencies, which can be further incentive for inmates to try to reform themselves. Right now in the US Midwest there are dozens of communities trying to dig out from either tornadoes, floods or both. Those prisoners who have shown themselves to be trustworthy and working to better themselves can be used in those kinds of jobs, but as a reward, not a punishment.

[leo9]

Harsh punishment is not revenge, it is justice.
I'd like to be clearer about the distinction as you see it.

If someone breaks my arm, and I break theirs, I call that revenge, and I guess you do too.

If someone breaks my arm, and I take them to court and the judge orders that a policeman should beak their arm, is that what you call justice? Or just state regulated revenge?

[leo9]

REHABILITATION

There are a lot of issues mixed up here, so I'm going to try to tease the threads apart and make it clearer, and I'm going to label them to keep them separate. One of the most important ones, which so far as I can see everyone has breezed past so far, is the oft repeated factoid "rehabilitation doesn't work." People who advocate the sort of policies described here have to believe that, or their arguments break down, but that doesn't make it true.

The fact is that there are well established systems of rehabilitation which have been trialed many times over many years with a wide variety of subjects in many different institutions, and they work. They don't claim to turn a villain into a saint, but they do reliably show a massively lower rate of re-offending than any purely punitive regime. In other words, if the object of a judicial sentence is to prevent crime by preventing criminals from re-offending, rather than to make people feel better by making someone suffer, rehabilitation works better than anything except punishing every crime with death or life imprisonment.

The reason these methods have been successfully trialed so many times but never applied is that they involve such things as treating convicts like people, talking to them sympathetically, rewarding them for good conduct, and a range of similar things that Ian would call "being soft on villains." So despite the many proofs that this would be the best possible policy for reducing crime, no politician would dare to even suggest rolling it out over the prison system, because they know the storm of tabloid outrage that would sweep them from office long before the benefits of the reform could be seen.

Unfortunately, the result of this official cowardice is that we now have the worst of both worlds, with a system that is too brutal to be reforming and too lenient to be punitive.

[leo9]

Child Killers

The thread has drifted away from the original subject, probably because child killers are such a useful source of outrage to fuel a general rant about prison policy, but true predatory paedophiles are a special case because they are arguably insane. The most immediately obvious corollary is that increasing the gravity of sentences will not have any deterent effect, because the decision to commit such a crime is not the result of rational calculation. (Besides, given that child-related offenders in normal prison conditions have the choice of solitary confinement or daily risk to life, it could hardly get much more severe.) In fact, as Ian has pointed out, more extreme sentences simply increase their motivation to kill, since it can't make their fate much worse.

And the next corollary is that using them as the basis for general prison policy is as unhelpful as basing your treatment of murderers on people who chop off their neighbour's head because the demons from space told them to.

[IAN 2411]

Harsh punishment is not revenge, it is justice

I'd like to be clearer about the distinction as you see it.

If someone breaks my arm, and I break theirs, I call that revenge, and I guess you do too.

If someone breaks my arm, and I take them to court and the judge orders that a policeman should beak their arm, is that what you call justice? Or just state regulated revenge?
Leo9, I understand what you are saying, but what you suggest is revenge and brutality and has no place in society. Neither is it anything remotely parallel to what I suggested.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Child Killers

The thread has drifted away from the original subject,
You are correct because the OP was should Child Killers, or for that matter the murderers that I have pointed out have Human rights?

probably because child killers are such a useful source of outrage to fuel a general rant about prison policy, but true predatory paedophiles are a special case because they are arguably insane.

I disagree; the only people that argue that child killers and paedophiles are insane are their lawyers. However it is an arguable fact that it is easier to get out of an asylum in the UK when on an undetermined sentence, than prison if sentenced to 35 years without parole.

Be well IAN 2411

[leo9]

DETERRENCE

Assuming (whcih is not always clear from this discussion) that the object of a judicial policy is to reduce crime by deterring people from breaking the law, there are two main tactics, detection and punishment: "You will be caught," and "If caught you will be punished." There is a dangerous tendency to focus on the second as if it were the only one that mattered.

In fact, if we think about it, everyone knows that detection works: most people do not break the law if they know they will probably be caught, even if the sanction is only a slap on the wrist. That, after all, is why we all want more police on the streets, because people do not commit crimes with a policeman watching. And likewise, while few of us like cameras, it is a well established fact that where they are installed, crime goes down.

But there is a tendecy to imagine that punishment can substitute for detection - that if you don't catch many lawbreakers, you can deter them nonetheless by punishing more severely the ones you catch. Historically, this has never worked, for several reasons. Firstly, the most hideous danger isn't scary if you feel the chances of it happening are remote (otherwise nobody would ever drive a car.) Secondly, if only a few lawbreakers are punished but those ones are punished brutally, people will feel the system is unfair on both counts; and those who are punished will feel that they have been not unlucky but unjustly singled out. (They may be right, since a poor detection rate usually goes along with picking off the easy cases and ignoring the hard ones, as when drug squads focus on poor blacks rather than rich white coke-sniffers.) People who suspect a neighbour may have done something wrong will think twice about informing on him if the penalty seems absurdly harsh. Juries, too, will be loath to convict someone when they know he will be brutally punished while many equally guilty go free. And - I haven't exhausted the list, just the obvious points - ramping up the level of punishment blurs the distinction between petty and serious crime. If you drop the roof on someone for theft, how much worse can you punish a murderer?

Better detection does not draw the headlines that "getting tough on crime" does, but it actually works, where "getting tough" rarely does.

[leo9]

Leo9, I understand what you are saying, but what you suggest is revenge and brutality and has no place in society. Neither is it anything remotely parallel to what I suggested.

You suggested:

Life meaning life with hard labour, and I really do mean hard labour. Work in the open in all weathers regardless of conditions, and twelve hours a day seven days a week. No Sunday let off for religious purposes, because if they really were that way inclined they would not have broken Gods commandment. Wooden huts in compounds to live in and with bare heating essentials, quarries were their menial task helps pay for their incarceration. Wholesome food to keep the body alive but not to satisfy the pallet, a doctor as the only right they have but only to lawfully keep them alive. Give them a minimal show of hell that through their warped minds they have given their victims loved ones.

So now we know what you don't consider to be "brutality." Do you imagine that the discipline in this Gulag would be a sharp telling off? Or would you just appoint plenty of tough macho guards, tell them to keep order and keep up the output, and just not look to see how they were doing it? Because, after all, these people have no rights.

[IAN 2411]

You suggested:


Life meaning life with hard labour, and I really do mean hard labour. Work in the open in all weathers regardless of conditions, and twelve hours a day seven days a week. No Sunday let off for religious purposes, because if they really were that way inclined they would not have broken Gods commandment. Wooden huts in compounds to live in and with bare heating essentials, quarries were their menial task helps pay for their incarceration. Wholesome food to keep the body alive but not to satisfy the pallet, a doctor as the only right they have but only to lawfully keep them alive. Give them a minimal show of hell that through their warped minds they have given their victims loved ones.

So now we know what you don't consider to be "brutality." Do you imagine that the discipline in this Gulag would be a sharp telling off? Or would you just appoint plenty of tough macho guards, tell them to keep order and keep up the output, and just not look to see how they were doing it? Because, after all, these people have no rights.
To your question above, yes more than likely, because I certainly would not be going around wiping their tears or wiping their ass, like most liberal reformists. No I don’t consider that to be brutal I consider that to be fair punishment for taking another’s human rights to live, by murdering them. And in answer to this rehabilitation shit, it might be ok for a non violent prisoner but for a cold blooded killer? Not a bats chance in hell.

Why are you all quoting a Gulag, because if you knew the first thing about them there is no comparison?
In a Gulag, there was little or no health coverage for the inmate.

In a Gulag there was very little or no healthy food to eat to keep the inmate alive, because the whole point of being there was they were sent there to die.

So your argument is a non starter.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

If the killer died while doing his time in a working environment, while in prison that is ok too.

Be well IAN 2411

[Ozme52]

Where o where have I mentioned “revenge,” let’s get things put in the right context. Harsh punishment is not revenge, it is justice.

I'll bow out... can't have this conversation if you don't agree on the definitions of words. You describe vengeful punishment and choose to call it justice. In-so-far as I disagree with your definitions, all we can do is go round in circles.

[IAN 2411]

I'll bow out... can't have this conversation if you don't agree on the definitions of words. You describe vengeful punishment and choose to call it justice. In-so-far as I disagree with your definitions, all we can do is go round in circles.

REVENGE... Wikipedia,
Although revenge resembles some conceptions of justice, vengeance is usually depicted as more injurious and punitive as opposed to being harmonious and restorative. Whereas justice implies actions undertaken and supported by a legitimate judicial system grounded upon a foundation of ethics and morals of the authority recognized by the victims and usually the wrongdoer, revenge implies actions undertaken by an individual or narrowly defined group outside the boundaries of acceptable judicial or ethical conduct whose goal is to force a wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain or loss than that which was originally inflicted to the victim(s).
.................................................. ..

Now are we all happy with Justice.


BE well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Prisoner given right to father baby

A prisoner is being allowed to father a baby from behind bars following a decision based on human rights laws.

According to the Daily Mail, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke approved the inmate's request to have the child with his partner by artificial insemination.

The decision was based on the prisoner's "right to family life" under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

It comes after convicted criminal Wayne Bishop used the act to successfully appeal against an eight month prison sentence for burglary and dangerous driving.

The father-of-five, 33, argued the judgment breached his human rights and not enough consideration was given to the plight of his children

Judges at the Court of Appeal in London last week agreed and ruled his prison sentence should be suspended so he could look after his family.

Tory MP Philip Davies said the combined impact of the two cases raised the prospect of criminals fathering children from behind bars simply to demand they be let out.

He told the newspaper: "The public are sick to the back teeth of the human rights of criminals being put before the rights of decent law-abiding people, victims and taxpayers. The whole point of being in prison is that your liberties are taken away from you. What's the point of locking people up if this pseudo-court, with the help of Ken Clarke, is going to give them all their rights back?"

A request under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that one prisoner was allowed fertility treatment this year. It is not known who is funding the treatment.

Another five applications are still being considered by the Justice Secretary.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/prisoner-given-father-baby-043152153.html Read the comments of the UK people that really matter.

This is Human rights of prisoners Ken Clarke and UK Gov style.

Yet again soft judges and its ridiculas that article 8 can be abused in this manner. Get rid of it for prisoners and do it before worse happens.

Be well IAN 2411

[thir]

[QUOTE=IAN 2411;931020]REVENGE... Wikipedia,
Although revenge resembles some conceptions of justice, vengeance is usually depicted as more injurious and punitive as opposed to being harmonious and restorative. Whereas justice implies actions undertaken and supported by a legitimate judicial system grounded upon a foundation of ethics and morals of the authority recognized by the victims and usually the wrongdoer, revenge implies actions undertaken by an individual or narrowly defined group outside the boundaries of acceptable judicial or ethical conduct whose goal is to force a wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain or loss than that which was originally inflicted to the victim(s).
.................................................. ..

So, the only thing difference between vengence and justice is that vengence is private, and justice is public? So all official laws are just, by definition? And always accepted?

I kind of feel that there is more to that word (justice) than that. It was a surprise to me when I first discovered that to many people 'justice' mean punishment. Or maybe rather 'just punishment'. To me it is wider concept than that, more about about a 'fairness', or a righting of a wrong.

You say that an action is 'justified' if you feel it is right, and 'unjustified' if you feel it is wrong. to get justice can also mean to have a wrong righted.

Any takings of a definition out there? It had a direct bearing on whether or not some kinds of crime should be punished harder or not.

[thir]

If I understand this correctly, the human rights we are talking about are those of the children, which makes everything more complicated.

[thir]

Yes, that's very true. And the justice system is not (or is not SUPPOSED to be) about getting revenge. It SHOULD be about protecting society. Sometimes, though, it seems that lawyers and judges are more interested in protecting the criminals.


It can seem that way. But it won't do to forget that also innocent people are accused. There has to be rules to prevent that as much as is possible.



What those things WILL do is keep the criminal from hurting society again, at least for the time he's in prison.


And when he or she is out? I with Leo9 on this one, to protect society you also have to try to stop people from repeating their crimes.



Of course, the judges can do more damage to the victims by not sentencing (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12969163/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/judge-rules-sex-offender-too-short-prison/)criminals.


Right!



The only reason why I support any kind of death penalty, and only for the most violent criminals who cannot be rehabilitated, is to eliminate the possibility (http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html) of them ever being able to kill again. If you check out that list you'll see quite a few convicted killers who were either paroled or escaped and killed again. There is no parole, or escape, from death.

But how do you know which is which?

[thir]

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of prison time I'm advocating against! Hard time should, indeed, be HARD time.


Well yes, isn't it weird that people do not quew up to get in jail?



I think I'd have to stand pat on this one. Perhaps the laws might need to be changed, but there are some who are truly mentally ill when they commit their crimes. And some of them could be treated to have that mental illness controlled. You can justify institutionalizing someone who is ill, either physically or mentally, but I don't see how you can justify withholding treatment for that illness, or for maintaining him in an institution once his illness has been cured, or at least controlled. Yes, the restrictions on this issue would need to be tightened down, a lot, but the attempt at healing such a person should be made.


I agree here. Am thinking of cases where people go crazy...for instance soldiers, suffering from post traumatic stress disorder or chemical poisening - which can affect the brain. People who have been tortured. People who grew up under draconian circumstances, for instance during wars or natural catastrophies. Or people who are simply born crazy because there is something wrong with their genes.

You hear of soldiers who get violents after wars, so what to do with them? Send them to harsh labour for the rest of their lives without treatment because they wanted to serve their country and go crazy in the process?

I have hard of cases where especially people from the latter category have repeatedly asked for help or treatment before they killed, but have been denied.

I am only saying this to point out that things can be rather more complicated than they seem.

[thir]

In the UK nearly all the judges that came through the old boys club have no idea what justice is, because they are too busy worrying about contravening the human rights act. The problem is that the UK judges have not got the balls to give the sentences that the public is demanding. The harshest of crimes should warrant the harshest of punishment.
Be Well IAN 2411

I understand your feelings, but have to protest against public mob rule or the press meeting out justice.

[Thorne]

One thing the criminal justice system is NOT is just. A father shoplifting from a grocery store to feed his starving family should NOT be treated worse than a Madoff who ripped off millions, if not billions, of people's hard earned money. Yet Madoff gets a country-club prison while the dad gets hard time. Putting someone away for 10 years for possession of marijuana while a DUI who runs over a kid gets a suspended sentence isn't justice, either.

To my mind, justice means making the criminal repay the victim, where possible. This doesn't necessarily mean going to prison. It also doesn't mean letting those who can afford it get away with crime. And sometimes it means killing the criminal to protect society.

[Thorne]

But it won't do to forget that also innocent people are accused. There has to be rules to prevent that as much as is possible.
Absolutely. And one thing to protect against the conviction of innocent people is to minimize the effects of eyewitness testimony. Studies have show that this is the absolute worst kind of testimony, as far as accuracy is concerned, and yet it seems to have the greatest influence in trials. One of the advantages of having so much CCTV around is the ability to not only convict the guilty parties, but to protect the innocent.


And when he or she is out? I with Leo9 on this one, to protect society you also have to try to stop people from repeating their crimes.
I agree, too. But you don't do that by coddling them. You reward them for good behavior and punish them for bad behavior. If a prisoner wants to try to better himself, I'm all for it, provided his desire is real and not just a put-on for the system. Sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference.


But how do you know which is which?
That's why they have experts. To know just that. And not just one person's opinion, but a consensus among professionals.

[IAN 2411]

If I understand this correctly, the human rights we are talking about are those of the children, which makes everything more complicated.

Those rights should not be included. Yes i know what you're saying but a third party outside of prison should have no bearing on the person paying for his/her crimes. It is hard I admit, but shall we bring all our troops back from Afghanistan because their children miss them?

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

REVENGE... Wikipedia,
Although revenge resembles some conceptions of justice, vengeance is usually depicted as more injurious and punitive as opposed to being harmonious and restorative. Whereas justice implies actions undertaken and supported by a legitimate judicial system grounded upon a foundation of ethics and morals of the authority recognized by the victims and usually the wrongdoer, revenge implies actions undertaken by an individual or narrowly defined group outside the boundaries of acceptable judicial or ethical conduct whose goal is to force a wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain or loss than that which was originally inflicted to the victim(s).


So, the only thing difference between vengence and justice is that vengence is private, and justice is public? So all official laws are just, by definition? And always accepted?
We all have to abide by the same laws of the land, and yes laws are just by definition. We might not like the way they are thought out, but if everyone is judged in the same manner and sentenced with the same punishment then that is what it is all about. There has to be a line drawn between justice and revenge or we revert to anarchy and mob rule.


Be well Ian 2411

[MrEmann]

This looks like an interesting thread. I will read it in it's entirety in the days that come. However I do have one thing to say after reading the initial post. Well a couple of things. First not only do I believe in hard labor as Ian has described it, I believe that when a judge hands out a sentence of three consecutive life terms, or 490 years it should mean that. Does that mean I expect to keep a person alive for that amount of time? No of course not. However when the criminal expires from natural causes, a plexiglass box is built. The corpse is then placed in that box for public display. That person's estate pays for this, and the storage until 490 years (or whatever) is actually over. Then the remains are released to whatever family they have, that may want them. I think that prisoners can build these boxes as well.

I don't think we can be too tough any one one that goes to prison.

Also I think instead of three strikes and you in, every one gets one chance. Say ya get arrested for theft. Alright you get hauled into court. The rules of society are explained to you. You are asked if you understand the rules of society. You answer yes, and sign a paper stating you understand the rules. You get five years probation, (or whatever society deems is reasonable). You ever get caught again, for any crime what so ever, you go away for life.

Also if it were up to Me it would work that way for DUIs. You get caught a second time Loss of license forever. Even stricter if you get caught DUI as a teen driver (i.e. under the age of 21) you lose your license forever. Part of one's driver's education would be drunk driving is against the law. So you would know before you did it, you were breaking the law.

Why so harsh on teen drivers? Because they are breaking more than one law. They cannot buy alcohol under 21, (though to be fair I do favor back to 18) and you are endangering the lives of others.

I am sure My opinions are going to be laughed at. I'm pretty right wing all things considered.

[Thorne]

I am sure My opinions are going to be laughed at.
I have to admit, your idea of keeping deceased prisoners in a box for the duration of their terms brought a chuckle. All I could envision was Lenin, and wondering just WTF he'd done to deserve HIS fate?

But I don't like that idea, I'll admit. It seems to me to lend an air of martyrdom to the criminal. I can picture people making heroes of them, filing past their boxes and leaving little tokens of respect or something. Or I can see some "right-wing" redneck singling out the guys kids and harassing them because their father's on display like some freak show. No, I say just bury them in a pauper's grave, or better yet cremate them and scatter their ashes. At the prisoner's expense, of course.


I don't think we can be too tough any one one that goes to prison.
I think in some cases they might be too easy on them, but there have to be gradations of punishments, just like there's gradations of crimes. You don't treat some shmuck who got caught selling pot the same as the guy who shoots up a school.


Also I think instead of three strikes and you in, every one gets one chance. Say ya get arrested for theft. Alright you get hauled into court. The rules of society are explained to you. You are asked if you understand the rules of society. You answer yes, and sign a paper stating you understand the rules. You get five years probation, (or whatever society deems is reasonable). You ever get caught again, for any crime what so ever, you go away for life.
I can see someone getting a harsher sentence for a second offense, but I do like the three strikes laws. If you haven't got your shit together after two terms in prison you probably aren't going to.


Also if it were up to Me it would work that way for DUIs. You get caught a second time Loss of license forever. Even stricter if you get caught DUI as a teen driver (i.e. under the age of 21) you lose your license forever. Part of one's driver's education would be drunk driving is against the law. So you would know before you did it, you were breaking the law.
Again, I think that might be too strict, and it shouldn't be so cut and dried. Somebody who just barely blows the limit shouldn't be treated as harshly as someone who's 3 or 4 times over the limit. But in general, I agree: repeat offenders should be treated as felons, and spend time in prison, and lose their licenses.


I'm pretty right wing all things considered.
Well I'm glad you told me! I never would have figured that out for myself! ;)

[thir]

However when the criminal expires from natural causes, a plexiglass box is built. The corpse is then placed in that box for public display. That person's estate pays for this, and the storage until 490 years (or whatever) is actually over. Then the remains are released to whatever family they have, that may want them. I think that prisoners can build these boxes as well.


What is the point? The prisoner doesn't care, and who'd want to go look at them anyway? You'd be punishing the family, which is not the point. We all only answer for ourselves.



I don't think we can be too tough any one one that goes to prison.


Well, lets just kill them the first time, yes? It would be so much cheaper.
For the money saved, we could buy haloes to all the rest, and polishing cream.



I am sure My opinions are going to be laughed at. I'm pretty right wing all things considered.

Well, laughed at or not, we all have a right to our say.

[thir]

I can see someone getting a harsher sentence for a second offense, but I do like the three strikes laws. If you haven't got your shit together after two terms in prison you probably aren't going to.


Or else you do not have any other way.

I am baffled by this in some ways - don't you realize that 'the criminals' are all of us? We could ALL commit crime, depending on circumstances. What's with all this self-rightousness?

I see the point of the original thread - some crimes are too terrible for words and beyond understanding to anyone except perhaps a psychiatrist. Very heavy motivation for protection must come in, the safety of others must come first, and thought of revenge (sorry Ian) are understandable, if useless and pointless since they do not deter.

But there is so much other crime which is at least understandable - provocation, need, stupid temptation, thoughtlesness - the criminals are mostly ordinary people who do something wrong. Apart from the hard core ones.

[thir]

Part of the problem in the US is that it is the CRIMINAL Justice System, not the VICTIM Justice System.


Then shouldn't we all have a victim justice system and a protecting society system? Seems a lot more useful.


Too often the ones who perpetrate the worst crimes have no sense of moral compass. The criminal may intellectually know of the difference between right and wrong, but don't care. They consider that little nicety to be someone else's concern. Thus WHEN they get out; because most of them do, they simply go back to doing it again. This is a growing problem; this behavior is learned at a young age by those whose parents (or parent) did not instill it in while they were very young. Thus there is no mental connection between bad behavior and the societal consequences that will result. The revolving door keeps spinning; more and more enter the system.


So, short of killing them, I can only see working with them as an option to prevent repetition. As Leo9 pointed out, it is in fact the only way that actually works.
People keep seeing that as being easy on the criminals, instead of perhaps seeing it as in society's interest.



The victim is left injured with no recompense;


And that is more important than punishment. What I mean is, the interest of the victim should come first.



worse after the perpetrator is released he may return to finish the job but being even more pissed off than before. Again, how do you RE-habiltate someone who was never habilitated to begin with?


I guess you have try to teach make them citizens in all aspects of the word. At least with the first timers.



The worse of these are the pedophiles who have the added twist of hormonal pressure as well as the criminal desire. The recidivism rate for child molesters is in the high ninety percentages, likewise high for rapists. Rape is a crime of violence, rather than just sex, but the sexual aspect feeds the hormones that fuel the rage.


Surely here, more than in any other circumstance, help is vital. For all future potential victims, I mean.



A vicious circle that is inflicted upon the unsuspecting victim. But she has little opportunity to find closure short of executing the perpetrator


Why will that bring more closure than seeing the peretrator in jail?



Ted Bundy blamed porn for his crimes, some people actually believed him.


I agree that is amazing!



I agree with Ian - at that point they have forfeited all "human" rights;


A very dangerous line of thinking - 'human rights' are only for the deserving.



There is some evidence that public executions will turn around youthful offenders who are both aware and intelligent enough to recognize that they don't want to end up there. It also feeds the prurient interests and excites the mentally twisted who wish to have their 15 minutes of fame by performing in a similar role. Two legged animals are remarkably intriguing.

Too much like becomming what you fight I think.

[Thorne]

Or else you do not have any other way.
Not being able to think of a way out of your problems does NOT justify performing criminal acts which cause OTHER people problems.


I am baffled by this in some ways - don't you realize that 'the criminals' are all of us? We could ALL commit crime, depending on circumstances. What's with all this self-rightousness?
To a certain extent you're right, anyone could commit a crime, given the right circumstances. Most of us wouldn't commit a violent crime, at least, unless the circumstances were dire. But the large majority of those sent to prison commit crimes of opportunity! They see the chance to get something they want and they take it, with no regard for the consequences. They generally only show remorse when they are caught.


But there is so much other crime which is at least understandable - provocation, need, stupid temptation, thoughtlesness - the criminals are mostly ordinary people who do something wrong. Apart from the hard core ones.
It's hard to think of a provocation to commit a violent crime. Someone calls you a name so you shoot him? Sorry! Not understandable to me. Need, yes. I can understand, if not necessarily condone, a parent stealing food or money to feed her children. But if that same parent attacks an innocent victim my understanding goes right out the window.

Ever watch those bait car programs, where the cops leave a car unlocked with the keys inside? I'm generally fascinated, repulsed, angry, in varying combinations, by the attitudes of those stealing the cars. They KNOW they're doing wrong (many will make a conscious effort to prevent leaving fingerprints), yet they think they are somehow justified in stealing someone else's property - until they get caught! THEN they're remorseful. If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

[IAN 2411]

That person's estate pays for this, and the storage until 490 years (or whatever) is actually over.

I am not sure how it works in the States but in the UK the Wife and Husband have joint position of property and chattel. So what you are saying that when first married they both work like hell to buy a house between them, then have children. They both finish paying for the house a long time before he goes and commits his murder. He kills deliberately and pleads guilty showing no remorse, and he gets your glass box treatment. The estate is only half but what you are saying is that the wife and children have to pay for his murder as well as him. You ought to think about the implications of what you are suggesting because that is immoral and is a crime itself, to which is I might add in breach of her Human Rights as a free and God fearing person. If we kill we are only answerable for our selves, to the law of the land and our God.

The rest I can live with.....The glass box? I think you have watching too many films....and the only one I could think of was Sleeping Beauty...LMFAO

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

...that is immoral and is a crime itself, to which is I might add in breach of her Human Rights as a free and God fearing person.
So, are you saying that we who are NOT god fearing do not have Human Rights?


If we kill we are only answerable for our selves, to the law of the land and our God.
Would this be the God who thinks nothing of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation"? By that measure, MrEmann's "justice" is justified!

Let's keep the gods out of this, and stick with the laws of humanity.

[IAN 2411]

because that is immoral and is a crime itself, to which is I might add in breach of her Human Rights as a free and God fearing person.
So, are you saying that we who are NOT god fearing do not have Human Rights?
NO. I am saying the key words are : -FREE and God fearing, so take your pick.




If we kill we are only answerable for our selves, to the law of the land and our God.

Would this be the God who thinks nothing of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation"? By that measure, MrEmann's "justice" is justified!
I don’t know as I don’t read the Bible, but it seems as though you do.


Let's keep the gods out of this, and stick with the laws of humanity.
I will go with the majority.

Be well IAN 2411

[Austerus]

I disagree. I don't think 'hard time' should necessarily be 'hard'. If someone isn't safe enough to have on the street then locking them away for ten or twenty years causing them pain and suffering isn't going to make the person any more sociable. The time a person is locked up should be spent actively trying to rehabilitate the person: education, job training, counseling, medical care, the kinds of things that may actually lead to the criminal becoming a useful member of society when he gets out. Currently jails are Lawbreaking School, with prisons as the master class in Organized Crime. I know people who went into juvie, county jail, or state penitentiaries for making a dumb mistake and came out as hardened criminals. We should be trying to reverse that trend rather than further it.

I'm also very leery of stripping more rights than necessary away from criminals. It's a slippery slope from child murderers to murderers to carjackers to thieves to vandals. It's very difficult to define a fair line between the "you should be punished" crime and the "you're fucked forever" crime. And what about fairness? Do we really want to say that punishment should be more severe for killing a 17-year-old than an 18-year-old?

[thir]

Not being able to think of a way out of your problems does NOT justify performing criminal acts which cause OTHER people problems.


I disagree. let me try to explain, bear with me a bit.
In the very beginning people lived of the land directly, and it was up to them to get their food. The big difference is that now you have to have a job, which is a completely different thing, and depending on completely different conditions. In short, we have lost the direct line to food, and are now depending on things beyond our control. If the jobs aren't there, they aren't. It happens. We cannot just go further away to get what we need. This is simplified, of course, but maybe, for the sake of the argument I am trying to make, you can go along with it for now.

So, if you have a hungry child or a sick parent, what is most important: to uphold the law, or protect and feed your family?



To a certain extent you're right, anyone could commit a crime, given the right circumstances. Most of us wouldn't commit a violent crime, at least, unless the circumstances were dire. But the large majority of those sent to prison commit crimes of opportunity! They see the chance to get something they want and they take it, with no regard for the consequences. They generally only show remorse when they are caught.


Remorse is a concept that I cannot get my head around much..you pay for your crime and hope to learn better in the future, that is about it.

But yes, we live in a society where our main function is to buy, and so many temptations are placed before us and much prestige is placed on things, and we
are stupid enough to react just as the sellers want in having to have the last new gadget - whatever cost to budget or the world in general.

In my head it is understandable and at the same time stupid if people fall into temptation, but it only means that we are human, not Us the saved and Them the terrible criminals.




It's hard to think of a provocation to commit a violent crime. Someone calls you a name so you shoot him? Sorry! Not understandable to me.


What I was thinking of was need as in food, clothes, shelter, health care.

But I can think of reasons to commit violence that seems acceptable to people, revenge and mob mentality first and foremost, if you feel you have not got justice by the courts, or if you cannot wait for the system to convict somebody.

People seem to think it ok to kill a suspected child molester without the detal of finding out if that person is actually guilty, this has happened several times here in UK.

And I am thinking of the bad 60's where lynchings on a sunday aftenoon seems to have been a general entertainment with hundreds of spectators with lunch boxes and so on. Gay bashing seems to be among us in many societies.

Are these people - people? Or are they crazy by the thousands? I guess that is something I ask myself.



Need, yes. I can understand, if not necessarily condone, a parent stealing food or money to feed her children. But if that same parent attacks an innocent victim my understanding goes right out the window.


Same here, except I can condone the stealing if it really is neccesary.



Ever watch those bait car programs, where the cops leave a car unlocked with the keys inside?


No-? What on earth is that? Tempting idiots to commmit crimes and go to jail for amusements??



I'm generally fascinated, repulsed, angry, in varying combinations, by the attitudes of those stealing the cars. They KNOW they're doing wrong (many will make a conscious effort to prevent leaving fingerprints), yet they think they are somehow justified in stealing someone else's property - until they get caught! THEN they're remorseful. If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

Yes, that is certainly different.
But I can see no excuse for tempting people to commit crimes.

[Thorne]

So, if you have a hungry child or a sick parent, what is most important: to uphold the law, or protect and feed your family?
As I stated above, I can understand this kind of problem, and I can sympathize with the parent. I find it hard to believe there isn't some other way to get out from under, though. Something which doesn't involve sticking a gun in some poor store clerk's face. And, while I can sympathize, how does one mentally justify taking the food from someone else's kids?


But yes, we live in a society where our main function is to buy, and so many temptations are placed before us and much prestige is placed on things, and we are stupid enough to react just as the sellers want in having to have the last new gadget - whatever cost to budget or the world in general.
Again, this may explain some of the strains on people, but it does nothing to justify crime. People don't seem to learn to handle their finances anymore, seeming to believe it all right to buy the latest gadgets, then claiming they can't feed their kids to justify committing a crime.


But I can think of reasons to commit violence that seems acceptable to people, revenge and mob mentality first and foremost, if you feel you have not got justice by the courts, or if you cannot wait for the system to convict somebody.
Yes, these seem acceptable to SOME people. Other than self-defense, including defense of my property or defense of someone unable to defend themself, I can't think of a good reason to injure or kill someone.


People seem to think it ok to kill a suspected child molester without the detal of finding out if that person is actually guilty, this has happened several times here in UK.
Which is what the judicial system is supposed to prevent. But we are seeing more and more instances of suspects being tried in the newspapers or on the TV, and seemingly found guilty by acclamation before they ever appear in court. When people see these pseudo-celebrities making a mockery of the justice system and getting plenty of money for it, it's understandable that they will follow that same trail. Not acceptable, but understandable.


No-? What on earth is that? Tempting idiots to commmit crimes and go to jail for amusements??
But I can see no excuse for tempting people to commit crimes.
I think the entertainment value of it was incidental at first. The purpose was to place a tempting target in an area where a lot of cars had been stolen and try to catch the thieves in the act. They use hidden cameras in the cars to record the suspects and they can shut the car down completely by remote, locking the suspects inside until released by officers.

I don't know who decided to make a TV show about it. And as I said above, it can be fascinating to see how the criminal mind works, sometimes. But yeah, using it as entertainment is somewhat iffy. Of course, there's the idea that perhaps it will deter someone from falling into that trap in the future.

What's really remarkable, though, is that the suspects do have to sign a release to allow the network to show their faces on camera. So many of them are so eager for their 15 minutes of fame, I guess, that they willingly sign those releases. THAT'S the part that drives me nuts!

[IAN 2411]

Ever watch those bait car programs, where the cops leave a car unlocked with the keys inside? I'm generally fascinated, repulsed, angry, in varying combinations, by the attitudes of those stealing the cars. They KNOW they're doing wrong (many will make a conscious effort to prevent leaving fingerprints), yet they think they are somehow justified in stealing someone else's property - until they get caught! THEN they're remorseful. If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

I have seen these programs and I am with thir by saying they are disgraceful shows of police urging people to steal, and just so they can justify the real crimes they have no idea how to solve. It is at best showing lazy police at their worst.

In the UK, have you ever wondered why sweets are on the low shelves in garages and shops? Well it is so that minors of three and four can pick them up with ease without their mothers/fathers noticing, and getting stuck into them. The crunch is the assistant saying you will have to pay for that sir/madam. That is under handed people teaching your children to steal, exactly the same as Thorn’s police bait programs.

Here is a good bait, drop a gold bar on the pavement and see the rush to pick it up from all those otherwise law abiding citizens. Then get the police to jump on them as the stick it in their pocket, and charge them with stealing by finding, yes that is a law in the UK and carries almost the same sentence as outright theft. I quote you again Thorn because it must apply by your law for people I have just mentioned in this paragraph.


If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

Cars, sweets or gold bars what the difference? Answer nothing, because the temptation to steal different items was deliberately placed there for a crime to be committed.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

US inmates' 40 years in solitary

Two US prisoners who have been held in solitary confinement for nearly 40 years should have their isolation ended immediately, Amnesty International said Tuesday.

Albert Woodfox, 64, and Herman Wallace, 69, have been held in solitary at Louisiana State Penitentiary ever since they were convicted of murdering a prison guard in 1972, the London-based human rights group said.

Their four-decade ordeal "is cruel and inhumane and a violation of the US's obligations under international law," said Guadalupe Marengo, Amnesty's Americas deputy director.

"We are not aware of any other case in the United States where individuals have been subjected to such restricted human contact for such a prolonged period of time."

The pair are suing the Louisiana authorities claiming that their prolonged isolation is "cruel and unusual punishment" and so violates the US constitution.

"The treatment of these men by the state of Louisiana is a clear breach of US commitment to human rights," said Marengo.

"Their cases should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, and while that takes place authorities must ensure that their treatment complies with international standards for the humane treatment of prisoners."

Amnesty said the men were confined to their cells, measuring two metres (6.5 feet) by three metres, for 23 hours a day, and have never been allowed to work or have access to education.

.............................................

This begs belief; I have been informed right from my OP that my idea of justice is warped. Tell me whose was the better my Justice or the real Justice of Louisiana Prison authorities? The above really is inhumane, even by my thoughts on justice.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

This begs belief; I have been informed right from my OP that my idea of justice is warped. Tell me whose was the better my Justice or the real Justice of Louisiana Prison authorities? The above really is inhumane, even by my thoughts on justice.
You're right. They should have been executed in 1973.

You did read the part where they KILLED A PRISON GUARD? What do you think should happen to them? Give them cake and Pepsi? They killed a man! The post doesn't say what they did to get into the prison in the first place, but killing a prison guard does not constitute good behavior! I have no sympathy for them.

[IAN 2411]

You're right. They should have been executed in 1973.

You did read the part where they KILLED A PRISON GUARD? What do you think should happen to them? Give them cake and Pepsi? They killed a man! The post doesn't say what they did to get into the prison in the first place, but killing a prison guard does not constitute good behavior! I have no sympathy for them.
I am in partial agreement with you Thorn at the moment, as the full story to how the prison guard was killed has not been talked about. All I am saying is you must have strange laws for your prisons in the USA. Your President has the bare face cheek to go to China and condemn them for an inhuman prison record and is own is not that much better. I think the key words are Prison Guard, if it had been anyone else say a con man doing the last year of a ten year stretch fuck all would have been said. That in my post, reference these two men was revenge justice, not real justice, [take note thir and leo9] and the justice the prison authorities meted out was worse that a person would treat a dog. If the crime was so bad....yes they should have been executed. Come to think of it did Louisiana have the death penalty then in 1973, and if so why was it never used?

For the prison authorities to take the law into their own hands is a dangerous road to travel, because that is now stooping to the level of the prisoners themselves. I would also think that it is against the American constitution as said in the post, and that is not a human right of the prisoner I am talking about, it is the laws that Americans live by, well it was up until now. I doubt very much if there is a Judge anywhere in America that would condemn a man/woman to 40 years solitary confinement, because they know the next step is putting straw hats on and pulling rickshaws. I’ll bet though that they would be falling over themselves to give the sentences I have suggested in my OP.

Be well IAN 2411

[thir]

[COLOR="yellow"]

This begs belief; I have been informed right from my OP that my idea of justice is warped. Tell me whose was the better my Justice or the real Justice of Louisiana Prison authorities? The above really is inhumane, even by my thoughts on justice.

Be well IAN 2411

I'd have to say yours, Ian.

[thir]

You're right. They should have been executed in 1973.
You did read the part where they KILLED A PRISON GUARD? What do you think should happen to them? Give them cake and Pepsi? They killed a man! The post doesn't say what they did to get into the prison in the first place, but killing a prison guard does not constitute good behavior! I have no sympathy for them.

Prison guards are not always better than the inmates.

[Thorne]

Prison guards are not always better than the inmates.
Doesn't mean it's okay to kill them, does it?

However, I googled Albert Woodfox, one of the two prisoners in question, and I have to say that, in this case at least, there may be some merit in the "cruel and unusual" comments. His original conviction was for armed robbery, bad enough but not worth a life in prison, much less in solitary. And it MAY be that the conviction for killing the guard was politically motivated, and he MAY not have committed the crime. There is probably justification in reviewing the conviction, and possibly in overturning it. Even the victim's wife doesn't think Woodfox did it, which is pretty unusual.

So yes, in this case, it's possible that the solitary confinement might be wrong. That doesn't mean it would be wrong in every case. The original post didn't specify what kinds of prisoners these were, whether they were relatively well behaved or basically animals in cages. Yes, sometimes criminals really ARE bad people!

[thir]

Yes, sometimes criminals really ARE bad people!

Ahr, you are just saying that because it is true

[Thorne]

Ahr, you are just saying that because it is true
No, really! Statistics prove it!

[IAN 2411]

No, really! Statistics prove it!

I thought it was you that is always saying that you should not trust statistics, because they are normally out of date before they are published.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

I thought it was you that is always saying that you should not trust statistics, because they are normally out of date before they are published.

I would NEVER (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=how+to+lie+with+statistics&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=14462775633151406858&sa=X&ei=9IzxTZXGG8Gv0AGJ3N2XBA&ved=0CDYQ8wIwAg)have said such a thing!

[IAN 2411]

I would NEVER (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=how+to+lie+with+statistics&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=14462775633151406858&sa=X&ei=9IzxTZXGG8Gv0AGJ3N2XBA&ved=0CDYQ8wIwAg)have said such a thing!

Ok keep your hair on, i said i thought and not that it was you....there is no need to shout either.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Yes, sometimes criminals really ARE bad people!

As a matter of interest, is there a case you know of where a criminal was not a bad person. I agree that a prisoner might not be a bad person, due to mistaken identity or the like, but a criminal in my book has to have committed a crime so he is bad by guilt.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

As a matter of interest, is there a case you know of where a criminal was not a bad person. I agree that a prisoner might not be a bad person, due to mistaken identity or the like, but a criminal in my book has to have committed a crime so he is bad by guilt.

Be well IAN 2411
I don't know of any specific cases off hand, but an example I've used in the past would be, for instance, a person who steals food to feed his children. Technically a crime, but a case of desperation in which a (probably) good person feels forced to commit a criminal act.

You also have to define your terms. Is a criminal someone who has committed a crime, or someone who has been convicted of a crime? We know there have been people in prison who were convicted wrongly, and later released. Are they criminals?

And there are cases of people being convicted of breaking unjust laws. In some states in the US a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with his 15 year old girl friend is committing a crime! Does that make him a criminal?

[IAN 2411]

Yes i do agree with you Thorn that there are a few grey areas that need adressing, but at the speed the criminal and justice system works in the UK it will not be in my lifetime.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Yes i do agree with you Thorn that there are a few grey areas that need adressing, but at the speed the criminal and justice system works in the UK it will not be in my lifetime.

Be well IAN 2411
LOL! At the speed justice systems work anywhere, I'm not sure there's enough time left in the universe!