My view is: doing nothing but making prison a worse place to be, will in all likelihood make little difference to how safe people feel.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. We have is a practicing academic criminologist in the family - shame she won't contribute here. As I mentioned earlier - deterrent is multi faceted - liklihood of detection is simply one aspect. With regard to violent crime - motive has a massve part to play. Ever wondered why the old bill always deep question the husband if a wife dies. Real violence - i.e. the Krays - its often down to conditioning; parents, teachers and society not saying no hard enough.

That's an opinion granted - but evidence and many others differ.

I'm not sure what justifies the roll-of-the-eyes. A short search and read of various websites seem to support my theory. You have said yourself: why people are criminals is a complex thing. It stands to reason that it would take more than one thing to change for there to be a wholesale change. In other-words, there's not a catch all cure. Moreover; there is little likelihood of some of the suggestions being implemented for the foreseeable future.

To me it seems logical that the chances of going to gaol would serve as a greater deterrent than the conditions in gaol if caught.

The OP was about violent psychiatric patients being released and that does truely seem to be an appalling idea.

But the discussion has moved on to the correlation of mainstream crime and punishment, and while the thought of scrotes suffering in victorian dungeons satisfies the need for vegence, I think you have to balance the discussion with some thought about why people offend.

There was a recent thread that gave smack heads little sympathy, but if drug dependency gets people into trouble then it really does make sense to invest money in treating their dependence, and that almost certainly means providing them with free diamorphine.

And you've also got to think about the whole social exclusion and disenfranchisement thing to get to the bottom of why people offend, particularly the grubby little scrotes who affect us most directly. I'm not claiming to know anything about the subject because I don't, it's just my hunch that the answer isn't with prison and how crappy or otherwise it is, but it's about how crappy society is. And sorry to bang on about it, but that is central to the Big Society.

But its really all about choice. No one who has been through the state education system will be in any doubt as to the effects of drugs. You take them - your choice. However, in making that choice please be fully aware that if you choose to interfere with anyone else's freedom and choice then Society should come down on you like a ton of bricks. I'm not alone in finding it incredible that we still have people arguing that offending drug addicts who are imprisoned aren't simply given controlled 'cold turkey'. Social exclusion and disenfranchisement are all about individual choice. You choose; even after the event, there is much help on offer, if you elect not to accept, up to you. We have concentrated far too long on 'individual rights and freedoms' which in most cases translates into curtailing them for others. Lets hear less about me and far more about we.

The issue has more than one dimension and needs more than one solution. Harsh prison regimes are only part of the answer. Concentrating police resource on dealing with crime, rather than doing other things, is another - oh but that's another thread!

Very well crafted. You're absoloutly right, people have to take responsibility for their own action and the results that spring from them.

While the principle is sound, it is easy to be critical about something that one is not inflicted by. We are all individual and we all have personality traits, some we can control, some we can't. Unfortunately, there are also a number of things that we cannot control that can affect the way we live.

Yes, but it's a choice that you make.

True, but denying that the majority of us have the ability to make choices on how we live our lives within the constraints that nature, family circumstances etc put upon us simply offers a weak excuse for people to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to themselves and those around them.

Like I said, it is easy to be critical about something that one is not inflicted by. To you it's a simple choice; to someone else, it is a way of life; survival.


It does offer a 'weak' excuse, but at the same time it can also be a profound one. All I'm saying is this is not black and white in my view.

Life is all about choices and decisions. Everyone make bad ones at some time. The trick is to learn by that and don't make it again.
The people you seek to excuse continue to make the wrong decision out of choice.


An analogy for the position that you adopt is that if I saw a man coming towards me with a gun my thought would be that he may want to kill me. You would wait for him to fire at you before coming to that conclusion.

People deliberately make wrong choices?

I seek to excuse no-one; those are your words, not mine. My point is not everyone starts from the same point, as indeed no one is the same person.


What are you talking about? In trying to make sense of your confusing 'analogy'; I'd seek to prevent him from having a gun. You would seek to make sure he is punished for using it.

You and others, make the mistake in that if I disagree with your arguments, it must mean I'm a left-wing 'do-gooder', whatever that means.

We all know you get the Morning Star and your hero's are Lenin and Karl Marx.

Shoosh...everyone'll hear!

Quite right and the choices that we get offered in life ie to either be good or evil are the same across the spectrum.



How do you prevent someone from doing something bad if they are intent on doing it? Answer, you make the penalty tough enough to be a deterent.



Iommi, you write the words. you can't be upset for them being translated that way.
Maybe you need to phrase your argument differently?

I'd have thought Groucho Marx was a better comparison

No they are not and demonstrably you don't understand what I mean.


That is one approach, but I am not sure there is substantial data to prove this. Someone who is intent, doesn't often worry about the consequences; especially those that have little to lose.


Maybe.

Perhaps, one shouldn't jump to conclusions; often ones that are groundless. Or perhaps one should read what is written, rather than seek to interpret the way they wish it.

My disagreeing with Bloggo's arguments for, say, hard punishment, doesn't mean I disagree with hard punishment; it just might mean I disagree with your rationalé.

Yes they are and I understand completely. You find it difficut to have someone disagree with your opinion.


Oh well, never mind.



Quite right and that is why I don't.


Sounds to me like you disagree with hard punishment why else champion the soft option.

I do when I think their argument is weak.


Your replies contradict this.


Again, clearly you haven't understood what I have said and please point me to an example of my championing a soft option?




Amuses you does it? I suppose trying to belittle someone who has a differing opinion is your method, eh?