Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 25 2010, 08:04 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11076674

WTF - So hang on. You have a convicted person who is a known MENTALLY ILL VIOLENT CRIMINAL. I know what we'll do - Let them out to mix with all and sundry but hey at least we will know where they are when they strangle / murder / rape some innocenet member of society. This may have been 'successful' to start with but its only a matter of time....

Posted by: DrPepper Aug 25 2010, 08:35 AM

Yep, that'll work and even better we wont infringe their human rights.

Posted by: Iommi Aug 25 2010, 10:39 AM

I don't understand the idea of releasing violent mentality ill people either! I think Newbury have some that are yet to noticed as well!

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 25 2010, 11:04 AM

A great many of these people are only able to maintain a degree of acceptable stability because of the drugs that they are taking. Once away from a disciplined environment where their drug intake is monitored many of them will decide not to take the drugs anymore because either they don't think that they need tem anymore or to see how they get on without them. Either way at that point they become a threat to the "normal" people around them.
It is a recipe for disaster and a very niave decision.

Posted by: Bofem Aug 25 2010, 12:22 PM

Suggest you read this, before you start trying to outdo the Daily Mail. This woman was locked up 25 yrs ago for stabbing someone, but goes on shopping trips in Newbury.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mental-health-i-feel-robbed-i-thought-id-die-in-there-574351.html

If the only way she could go out was with a tag, would you honestly feel endangered?

Mind you, this is a little out of date, as Thornford Park is transferring all female inmates.
http://healthdirectory.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/S1-21937536_IR_190110_Thornford%20Park%20Hospital.pdf

Posted by: Iommi Aug 25 2010, 12:28 PM

What is your point? None of this changes mine.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 25 2010, 12:50 PM

Me neither. Good lord iommi we are agreeing on something.

Posted by: HeatherW Aug 29 2010, 06:51 PM

Releasing criminals back into the community is cheaper than keep them in. If he should recommit then back inside. That is always going to be the cheapest option.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2010, 11:07 AM

Not convinced that keeping them inside needs to be an expensive option. It is today, granted but it depends on the regime.

Posted by: user23 Aug 30 2010, 01:06 PM

Putting a roof over someone's head and giving them two or three meals a day is always going to be reasonably expensive.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2010, 01:12 PM

A cost agreed, but balanced against the cost of correcting what petty criminals do over time its often justified. I know this will cause some misgivings but a prison regime which is really harsh - i.e. cells with concrete floors and just basic bedding, and three meals per day comprising of repetitive basic rations wouldn't be particularly costly. Heating to base HSE standard and a heavy work plan. Would get rid of the idea that prison is a rest camp and would also reduce the cost of building them - ex army camps would be ideal.

Posted by: Bloggo Aug 31 2010, 07:46 AM

This makes a lot of sense and I have no misgivings about it.

Posted by: user23 Aug 31 2010, 07:56 PM

I think you'd be surprised how much it costs. Then there's the cost of buying the land and building new prisons to accommodate all these petty criminals.

Of course once inside it gives small time crooks a chance to mingle with others and those further up the food chain helping them perfect their art and giving them a valuable network of contacts once back on the outside.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 31 2010, 09:42 PM

Once things got underway on the basis that it should work, the costs would fall - wouldn't need as many. Very basic construction and a diy approach by inmates could keep cost under control. Mingling with others - Reading prison was actually built on the 'solitary system' designed to avoid that. Hence the treadmill there had separate compartments to stop any association. Treadmill needn't go to waste these days if it was connected to a generator. Again, not nice, but that's what its all about. Not inhumane but very very tough. We often forget the prime purpose of punishment isn't to rehabilitate. More as retribution to avenge the wrongdoers deeds and as a deterent to others.

Posted by: user23 Sep 1 2010, 06:25 AM

Let's say for example I didn't pay a parking ticket or my council tax, I'm not sure locking me up for 23 hours a day is going to make me want to contribute to society any more, in fact it might make me want to learn from my fellow inmates how to contribute less.

You're probably going to reply "I didn't mean that sort of crime" however if you're going to operate a zero tolerance approach to wrong doing it has to be across the board.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 1 2010, 07:34 AM

Well if you didn't learn that respecting the law is what the requirement is and re-offended then you would go back inside for another term. I'm sure you would learn in the end.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 1 2010, 08:07 AM

Quite agree Bloggo. Perhaps we should build a few of these to distinguish between violent crime and non payment of fines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors'_prison

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 1 2010, 08:20 AM

Great idea. But I'm sure there would be plenty of space available after a few years as the crims won't want to go back after a spell of hard labour.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 1 2010, 04:19 PM

Its a final penalty, yes for both criminal and civil matters after due process. You can go to gaol for non payment of Community Charges as a final action for instance. Again, nothing wrong with that and might bring a bit of discipline to the financial services industry and its customers. As for the 'university of crime' concept - that's why I mentioned the 'separation system' which was in place 1840s onwards - once inside, you didn't talk to anyone save the warder or the chaplin. So you'd have a fair time to contemplate the error of your ways!

Posted by: user23 Sep 1 2010, 06:58 PM

Or plot how you're going to get back at those that put you inside.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 1 2010, 07:45 PM

I do that anyway - without being inside - every time I get the Water rates.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 07:38 AM

If they are given the correct treatment for their misdemeanors the last thing they will consider is the possibility of going back to jail.
The soft options in jails have to stop. You can't teach a man that crime does not pay when he has 3 good meals day, TV, games, mobile phones, etc etc.
Until society learns that it has to get tough for the sake of the public and the criminal then crime will increase year on year.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 2 2010, 08:13 AM

You won't win that argument with a lot of the users of this forum. They would rather pat them on the head, give them benefits and therapy and wonder why oh why they could reoffend when released. They don't get the fact that some people are just 'bad'.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 08:18 AM

...and some people aren't.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 08:22 AM

You know TDH, it isn't an argument. It is a reality.
You will only stop people commiting crimes by making the result of that crime very uncomfortable for them and if they reoffend you make it worse. Human nature.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 2 2010, 08:22 AM

Quite agree Iommi. But my argument is that some people seem to think there is good in all and that there must be a reason for the way people behave. I think it's too simplistic a view. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink....

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 08:23 AM

and some are.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 2 2010, 08:26 AM

Watch out Bloggo. We'll be accused of being right wing extremists soon... By the way I'll see you at the Klan meeting on Saturday if not before.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 08:27 AM

That, is already understood and is implicit in my statement.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 08:29 AM

Some on here already realise you are that.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 08:31 AM

...but surely that is true. Nothing happens without a reason.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 2 2010, 09:46 AM

Right Wing - yes.............Extremest - No.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 10:30 AM

...unless you had your way!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 2 2010, 11:39 AM

Well the way I see it some right wing policies have to be adopted if we are to get ourselves out of the social mess we are in.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 11:41 AM

Could be a case for deformation of character

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 11:44 AM

I agree. Some people have their head in the sand.
If you have suffered a break-in or been assaulted and robbed you may think differently.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 11:50 AM

Only if it were directed at anyone in particular who could be identified in public and if it were untrue!


This all happened in the 'good old days' of hanging and slopping-out as well. This isn't new phenomena.

Posted by: Andy Sep 2 2010, 11:51 AM

Like?

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 11:57 AM

You are quite correct but one must exercise care when making inflamitary statements.


And you point is what exactly?

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 12:20 PM

It was a joke (wink smilie), but never mind.


When prison was 'tuff', people still broke the law as they do today. You are implying by going back that it would fix the problem.

Bloggo: "I agree. Some people have their head in the sand. If you have suffered a break-in or been assaulted and robbed you may think differently.".

I'm not sure it would.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 12:24 PM

Really, I'm absoloutly sure.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 2 2010, 12:25 PM

Unless you are talking from experience, you can't really comment on what 6 months in a prison is like.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 2 2010, 12:26 PM

Quite agree. It would make ME feel better though as a law abiding citizen to see individuals who break the law be made to pay for it in terms of infringements on liberty and a tough regime. Not what we have at the moment....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11156972

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 12:48 PM

What an foolish thing to say.
Are you really saying that if one has not physically experienced something then you have no understanding of it?
What about reading about it, watching a TV documentary, discussions with people who have been in jail or being at a lecture where a reformed criminal gives his account of being in prison.

Posted by: Andy Sep 2 2010, 12:53 PM

Those mediums help form an opinion, but unless you actually experience prison your perceptions of it will always be flawed to some degree.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 01:08 PM

One's own experience is the best informant that there is however since there has been so much information and visibility in the public domain regarding the conditions in prison the fact that I have not actually stayed in one does not denigrate my opinion.
Anyone who denies my brief but accurate description of the luxuries bestowed on prison inmates is sadly totally misinformed.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 2 2010, 01:13 PM

So, you have done all the above have you? Even if you have there will be bias & hidden agenda.

And, yes I am saying that reading someone else's account of something is not the same as experiencing it oneself.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 01:22 PM

No, not all.


Quite so. Bias can be applied for and against an argument.


I agree. See my post 46.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 01:30 PM

Despite history as proof you might be wrong?


As a person is in a gaol, you wouldn't 'see' justice done. As for the link, that isn't about life in prison.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 01:32 PM

If the punishment is strong enough then yes I am sure.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 01:37 PM

But history says you are mistaken!

I cannot get to the data now, but my understanding is that the biggest effect on crime (other than hard crime) is the likelihood of gaol, not the conditions in gaol.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 01:47 PM

OK, I understand if you wish to disagree with me based on whatever statistics you have seen.

I believe that today the fear of prison has been wholly undermined by the justice system that consistantly allows offenders, and worse still serial offenders, to avoid jail sentences.
Those jail sentences that are awarded are totally inadequate in their duration and above all the conditions in prison is totally inappropriate to send the message to the offender that they have done wrong.
I would change all of these and make the whole system a salutory lesson that crime does not pay and you would want to avoid prison at all costs.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 2 2010, 02:12 PM

It's not an argument you will win with some folk Bloggo. They would rather go for 'care in the community'. Lets face it - You are punished for your burglary by doing some community service where you get cups of tea and drugs delivered to you on site. What a punishment... That'll teach em!

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 02:19 PM

Yep, I know. It's a bit uphill isn't it.

Posted by: Jayjay Sep 2 2010, 02:45 PM

I do think prison sentances should reflect the crime, such as murder earning a life term that means the rest of your life. For lesser crimes I think society needs to bring back the shame element. One if the reasons your didn't commit an offence (or get pregnant) was the shame it would bring on your family. People nowadays seem to take pride in doing a stint in the big house.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 02:47 PM

I doubt ANYONE 'approves' of any of that, other than the crims themselves, but we can have a childish debate if you want; I'm good at them as well.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 2 2010, 02:49 PM

Well, we agree again

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2010, 05:04 PM

My experience suggests the opposite. Regrettably, trawling through numbers you might see online doesn't help because of significant differences in the way the numbers were created. Similarly, the context needs to be understood. However, learned studies (which are 'pay for searches') will tell you otherwise. The deterrent effect is multi faceted, but penal conditions do play a large part.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 05:12 PM

My information came from a thesis, not just a random site of data. People are not very fearful of a punishment, if the likelihood of being caught, or the likelihood of the punishment being metered out, is small. Also; it seems the deterrent effect is low for violent crime.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2010, 05:14 PM

Quite accurate however, it we all took that attitude we might as well just give up - on everything! If we had to 'experience' something before we thought it was right - then there would be no innovation! In this particular case, I think we can all work out what it would be like 'on your own in harsh conditions' for six months. We have moved away from hard penal conditions and the reforms came in over time, ironically generally at periods when the crime rates were low.

Prison reform was also pushed by many people who were satisfying their own personal concience needs - rather than considering society as a whole; always very dangerous! i.e. Elizabeth Fry, a prominent Quaker (nothing wrong with that in itself before fingers hit keyboards!!!)

I also accept that if wanting to live in a safe society and protect my neighbours from wrongdoers rather than worrying about the individual needs of someone who clearly doesn't care about others is extremist - then hands up - that's me!

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 05:34 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2010, 05:59 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2010, 06:00 PM

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

Posted by: Iommi Sep 2 2010, 06:08 PM

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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 2 2010, 07:17 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2010, 08:45 PM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2010, 08:48 PM

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!

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 3 2010, 08:06 AM

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

Posted by: Iommi Sep 3 2010, 09:32 AM

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.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 3 2010, 09:44 AM

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.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 3 2010, 10:03 AM

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.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 3 2010, 10:17 AM

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.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 3 2010, 11:06 AM

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.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 3 2010, 11:13 AM

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

Posted by: Iommi Sep 3 2010, 11:17 AM

Shoosh...everyone'll hear!

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 3 2010, 11:19 AM

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?

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 3 2010, 11:20 AM

I'd have thought Groucho Marx was a better comparison

Posted by: Iommi Sep 3 2010, 11:44 AM

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.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 3 2010, 11:56 AM

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.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 3 2010, 12:02 PM

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?

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 3 2010, 12:11 PM

You're right of course. You are very difficult to understand as rather than make a point and stand by it you would sooner, and probably enjoy, the opportunity to wriggle and weave a tortuous path around the argument exercising your ego.
I'm done.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 3 2010, 12:27 PM

I take that as a no then!

The point I make, and without fear of contradiction. Gaol without privilege does have a place in our justice system. I do-not think, however, that it is the single solution to the feckless and feral youth, the young men (who make up the the majority of law breakers), and notwithstanding the mentally ill and other disadvantaged people in society.

Posted by: user23 Sep 3 2010, 05:13 PM

History says otherwise.

We used to have the death penalty for theft, yet that didn't deter everyone from stealing.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2010, 06:51 PM

I don't think anyone else had suggested it was the single solutionof course it isn't. This is a multi faceted issue! To solve this problem the whole chain needs attention. However, it is a fundamental element in solving the problem. I suspect society's issue is that many are only capable of focussing on one particular issue at a time - disregarding the effect of everything else. In this case, modern society has concentrated simply on rehabilitating the offender - nothing else. Hence the mess!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2010, 06:55 PM

Really??? That's not how I read it. The reason for stealing when such penalties were rife was to prevent starvation. In other words the possibility of death in either case. Have a look at the published works on victorian prisons.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2010, 07:00 PM

That is simply incorrect - we have control over everything we do in this context. I choose if I am to take drugs, I choose if I want to give them up. Yes, its difficult but it can be done and is done. Some people are weak, of course they are and Society has recognised that as well - hence all the help avaliable. So we can control ourselves. Goodness, if that wasn't the case, no woman could walk down the street and we'd all be permanently p*****.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2010, 07:02 PM

Quite so!

Posted by: user23 Sep 3 2010, 07:11 PM

And some people stole to avoid starvation, despite the threat of death if they were caught.

Proof that no matter how tough the penalty some will still commit crime.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2010, 08:03 PM

Absolutely! Nothing is 100% - that's why religion is quite popular with some sinners. Of course starving people are likely to steal - dare I even suggest steal to feed their families as well. However that's not really the issue here is it? Crime has increased steadily since 1945 and the measures we have in place today manifestly do not work. Don't expect a 100% solution - simply a significant reduction. Its time for a change.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 4 2010, 12:10 AM

Published works on Victorian Prisons?

Far better to look at the Calendar Rolls.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2010, 06:20 AM

Look at what you like. The difficulty we have is that the construct of society, the reporting of crime and the calculation of the deterrent effect changed significantly over time. However, certain conclusions can be reached.

The key issue here is the regime - soft v harsh. Today, we adopt a soft approach. From the inputs to this forum - which supports the contemporary view crime has risen. That means our soft approach is ineffective. The alternative is a harsh one. The definition of 'harsh' here I'd suggest does not mean cruel.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 4 2010, 08:02 AM

If you did look at the Rolls you'll see that crime, in all manifestations, was just as common 500 years ago - when the sentences involved physical & capital punishment - as it is today. There is no deterent to crime, soft or hard.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2010, 08:42 AM

I bet it did!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2010, 08:43 AM

So the solution is.....................?

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 09:05 AM

People have a hang up about 'deterrents,' as if it is the reason such punishments exist (such as the death penalty and other such severe punishments), but the truth of the matter is, punishments are there to punish for crimes that have been committed.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2010, 09:47 AM

How true! Thats the bit we've conveniently forgotten these days. Its meant we've ended up with a wholly inadequate and ineffective criminal justice system. Why? Because its so much easier to 'be nice' and concentrate on rehabilitating the offender. The easy option for the system. One of the latest wheezes is called 'restorative justice' where having a serious adult conversation with an offender apparently solves the problem. Part of the concept is to confront the offender with the victim! How humilliating.....for the victim. Saying that it could work; but we'd need stocks coupled with the usual absence of Police in the Market Place!

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 09:55 AM

And punishment is designed to serve as a deterrent. That is what punishment is meant to do. Otherwise, what you are talking about is vengeance. I am not motivated by vengeance. I'm more interested in not becoming a victim of crime than worrying about what happens to the criminal afterwards.

Another point to bear-in-mind. I think, the more severe the punishment, the less likely a jury is going to convict.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 09:58 AM

Nothing I have read on here; in my opinion.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2010, 10:00 AM

Not sure I follow your logic here.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2010, 10:04 AM

So does that mean you feel that this is a fuss about nothing and crime simply isn't an issue. If you do feel it's an issue, what do you think should be done? Other people have given suggestions so not quite sure the facts support your opinion.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 10:12 AM

That is true, but the priority should be punishment over deterrent. If the punishment deters then great, but if not then it is still serving its purpose.



There is always an element of vengeance in punishment.... in fact by its nature it is vengeance.




unless it was a member of your family, then your attitude will/ might change.



We are all the same; not becoming a victim. But society should care what happens to the criminals afterwards.



You think that a child abusing murderer might get off by a sympathetic jury because his guilt might get him or her hanged?

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 10:14 AM

I've been through that where you talk to the offender; 10 years later he is still committing crimes and being anti social... so it works, but not the way we wanted

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 10:26 AM

As vengeance, yes; but for me, pointless.


In your view (and probably other's), yes.


I doubt it. Even if I did, that is a good reason for me not to be involved in the resolution process.


Please read what I write. I said I am more interested in prevention. That doesn't mean I am not interested in what happens to a criminal.


I said that I think a jury is less likely to convict, the more severe the penalty. That doesn't mean for any given single scenario, but as a whole.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 10:35 AM

A necessity. But would you rather they got off free? Something has to happen.



And what about your view?



Under the law if you were involved; i.e. victim or a member of the victims family then they wouldn't let you be involved.



I always do, otherwise I would find it difficult to respond to you.



Well, the death penalty would prevent somebody doing it again, and spare other victims.



Oh, I do... I do



I give the jurors more credit than that.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 10:57 AM

I care little about anything other than my being put back in the same position I was before hand, as well as solutions that would prevent my being a victim again.


I've already said that I am not motivated by vengeance.


As has been mentioned before, there is 'restorative justice' (victim meets the criminal).


Yet when you do respond, it is like you haven't comprehended what I have written!


Yes it would. Although it would prevent some innocent people from doing things as well.


I have also read that jurors are less likely to convict attractive people.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2010, 12:15 PM

So that works then!

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 12:19 PM

Conclusions should be based on one example?

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 01:44 PM

As i said, nobody wants to be a victim.



I was hoping for a little bit more, but never mind



Only in a very small percentage does it work, if that.



Don't let my cool demeanour fool you




Not if it is done properly. There are those we definitely know murdered (Moors, Dahmer, Neilson etc) and those that we are not 100% sure. If in doubt don't hang.



That is brilliant... now I shall start my life of crime knowing that there is a good chance I won't get convicted

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 01:46 PM

I am one example, but I've read about many others and according to the statistics for the majority it doesn't work.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 01:46 PM

Brilliantly.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 08:27 PM

What statistics? I suspect you cannot point to any.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 08:30 PM

Well,that is what I read. Are you saying that is an impossibility then?

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 08:38 PM

No, only that you sometimes propose opinion as fact.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 08:41 PM

I only say they are facts if I've read them that way.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 4 2010, 08:47 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 09:05 PM

Exactly what? According to the article I read awhile back and through research it was so.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 4 2010, 09:41 PM

I'm kind of with Iommi on this one, there is a lot of posts from you that start as "this is a fact" and end with "such and such told me". I don't care as much as he does though.

Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2010, 09:53 PM

Actually that isn't true. And if I say 'such and such has told me' then I don't add the word facts to it (they are two different things). You should read what I say, not what you wished me to say so that it impressions your audience.

Posted by: user23 Sep 5 2010, 08:25 AM

If it deterred everyone from stealing there would be no theft whatsoever, which isn't the case.Very true. Imprisoning more people for lesser crimes isn't doing something new, it's returning to an old system that didn't work and would cost us a lot more.

They'll always be people that need locking up for society's protection however the real way to cut crime isn't to change what we do after someone has committed a crime, it's to look at what caused them to commit the crime in the first pace.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 5 2010, 08:32 AM

My understanding, contrary to your point of view, is that 'restorative justice' can work.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/RJ_full_report.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/15/restorative-justice-expansion-report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8439297.stm

I have also seen articles on TV about it, although they are anecdotal evidence, rather than statistical. My view though, is 'RJ' can form an effective part of the justice system and can rightfully take its place along side other initiatives, such as gaol without privilege.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 08:52 AM

You can always find articles that give the opposite view, but that doesn't mean what another group of professionals say isn't true.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 5 2010, 09:04 AM

I agree, but I'm inclined to be persuaded more by argument that can be backed-up, than simply from a person who can't, or doesn't.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2010, 09:08 AM

Got any facts to back that up or is it just another ungrounded opinion?

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 09:10 AM

You don't have to rely on me. unlike you I read real magazines and books to get my information. As one professor of Economics once said "99% of what is on the Internet is rubbish. Never trust anybody who refers to it." The trouble with today's technological age is that everybody is a genius by referring to the Internet, rather than doing the hard slog and actually read books or magazines on the subject by well know authors/ professionals on the subject.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 09:11 AM

The trouble is the old system worked a lot better than User23's imaginary new system.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 5 2010, 09:17 AM

I point to Internet links because that is the medium with which I can cite easily. If your opinion was sufficiently credible, it would be easy to do the same as me. Due to the apparent paucity of evidence, I'm inclined to be sceptical of your view.

I feel you often shoot from the hip with opinion and draw from anecdotal, rather than statistical evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong, only that sometimes I cannot see the evidence of that you propose, or is contrary to what I have read and watched.

I resent, however, your line: "unlike you I read real magazines and books to get my information" How the freak do you know?

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 09:46 AM

To be honest it is no skin off my nose what you believe. As Maulder said to Scully "The evidence is out there, you've just got to look for it." Also; disbelieving me for the sake of it isn't very intelligent. Nobody should believe anybody, what they should do is search out the facts for themselves. We rely too much on what other people say on forums, instead of doing the real donkey work and finding out the facts for ourselves. Whatever you believe or don't believe I have said doesn't change the facts that are out there.



That is an emotional response; what you feel. You should do what I do read a bit more and search out the facts for yourself. If you told me such and such a thing I wouldn't just take your word for it but research it for myself. Personal experience is not the whole picture. As i have said; we refer to the Internet to help us out, instead of doing what we used to do years ago; research, read it up, look at all different sides of the argument and their analyse it, with that knowledge we then draw our conclusions.

The truth is the truth, no matter what you or I say. No matter what your personal feelings of me are.

Galileo said "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered, the point is to discover them."

On a more positive note; this tete-a-tete does sharpen the brain (to a point) and serves a purpose. And of course the viewers who are observing and hopefully learning (including yourself )

Live long, prosper and observe, that is only the true way to become wise.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 5 2010, 09:54 AM

The internet is choc full of peoples opinions, papers and written statistics. The very same ones that get published in books and magazines, it's just a different medium. To suggest that reading a report on paper is any different to reading it on a screen is ludicrous, you should use the tools that are available to you, the internet is one of them.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 5 2010, 09:56 AM

GMR, I'm impressed with your apparent obfuscation, but I resent the assertion that I don't perform due diligence. It seems to me you are saying that, because I disagree with you, I have failed to find the truth; I think that is arrogant. I am not saying you are wrong, only that I disagree and have found evidence to support it. It would be a matter of faith on my part, to believe you have read and comprehended correctly, all that you claim to have done.

Just because something is on the Internet doesn't make it false. Equally; why should a book or magazine you have read be considered any more a credible source than mine, or the Internet? I would like to think that I do apply a reasonable amount of scrutiny when I read anything in particular. This discussion is evidence of that.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 09:59 AM

That is true to a point. Nevertheless, with a book you can trace the source, the Internet you can't (or not that easily, and the ordinary punter wouldn't know how). I could create my own link and say I am professor such and such and then say something outrageous, you can't do that with a book (or you can, but it will get ridiculed quite quickly).

It is not ludicrous but back up by the professionals. What have you got to substantiate that claim?

Posted by: Iommi Sep 5 2010, 10:03 AM

There are many open forums and official sources on the Internet.


You could do that, and it does happen, that includes book reviews.


I have yet to see any direct reference to any 'professional' source you claim, so I think it unfair to ask of others, that you are not prepared to do yourself.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 10:09 AM

Thank you.

My point is not whether you agree with me or not, but finding out the truth yourself. You focus on me, when you should be focusing on what I said and then researching it yourself. That is all what I was saying. It is always easy to shoot the messenger. I am neither here nor there, but what is important the is the truth.



That is true. It could be totally true. However, have you done research to find out whether it is? Or do you take it at face value?



That is easy; magazine or paper sources can easily be traced. Editors wouldn't allow a non entity to claim such and such a thing. At least in a well respected magazine, say something like the Economist. Of course that doesn't make them right, but at least they've been correctly identified/ verified.



Excellent, that is all we can ask. But you must agree that a lot don't. And here lies the problem.

As I said; it is not a case of what you think of me, but the evidence that has been given.

Posted by: user23 Sep 5 2010, 10:12 AM

Yes, I read a book on it once.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 10:13 AM

And how do you know this? Because they've said so?




Exactly.





I can give you the name and author of a book and the name of the book if you wish to check it yourself; one of many.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 10:14 AM

I can't imagine you reading a book, not going on what you write

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2010, 10:21 AM

Enjoyed that!!

Posted by: Iommi Sep 5 2010, 10:23 AM

Which is no different to a book. Anyway, you cited The Economist as a credible source. Well, here you go...

http://www.economist.com/


Exactly what; it refutes your point?


OK.


You rarely give any evidence, but that is what I have done in this case. I have read your post on your view of RJ and I have done some research; coupled with my own experience of various programs and articles I have read, and have come to the conclusion your views are inconsistent with my findings.

I will always give greater credence to evidence that can be cited or referred to. Otherwise, people are mostly stating opinion and shouldn't be considered anything else.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 10:44 AM

Yes, but I am talking about actual magazines and not the link to it. Even links to well known brands can and have been forged.




Not the way I read it.




Excellent.




What evidence do you want? I go by what I've read, analyze it and then give you my conclusions. I've never read or seen your evidence, nor have I challenged you to prove it, I've did the research myself or had already known the answer through earlier search.



But that is all you've done, I've never seen anything from you that backs up what you've said. In fact I've never read anybody saying anything on most forums I've visited that backs up what so and so says.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 5 2010, 10:55 AM

You are talking nonsense now, so I will leave it here. I'm off to do something more constructive!

Posted by: Sarah Sep 5 2010, 11:44 AM

Everyone deserves a second chance, especially youngsters who fall foul of the law.

Many teens offend just the once, they learn a hard lesson and go on to become law abiding citizens, not hardened criminals.

Shouting 'lock them up and throw away the key' does nothing to help. Ironically many of the people who claim RJ doesn't work are the very ones who expect mercy and understanding from the courts when their own offspring offend.

GMR quotes one case he knows of personally, I can quote four, two of which failed miserably but the other two were a success. IMO even one success would have been worth the effort.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2010, 11:44 AM

What bollocks.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 5 2010, 11:58 AM

I couldn't agree with that more.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 12:29 PM

That is ok saying 'what bollocks' but all that achieves is it shows your limits. What you should have said; "I don't agree, and this is why I don't agree." What you've shown is your ignorance. If you can't say anything constructive then go back to bed. We are on an open forum; let us debate, not show the viewers which one of is still being nurtured by Neanderthals.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 12:31 PM

That is a cheap way of replying and not answering.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2010, 12:40 PM

No matter how I say it, it still does not change the fact that for anyone to say "99% of what is on the Internet is rubbish. Never trust anybody who refers to it" is bollocks.
printing something does not make it true.

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 12:43 PM

I only quoted what I was told. It is then for the reader to take what they want from that. Personally I wouldn't know what percentage it was. But hear lies another problem; which is good and which is bad.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2010, 12:57 PM

So you didn't check to see if what you were told is true?

Posted by: GMR Sep 5 2010, 01:01 PM

Who said i didn't? I told YOU what to check and that that was one of my sources. I didn't mention what other steps I took to verify what was said. So you shouldn't have drawn that conclusion with what I wrote to you.

Posted by: Sarah Sep 5 2010, 01:45 PM

What exactly are you debating?.

You have ruined a good debate with your attempt to prove that you are well informed and intelligent, now you are contradicting your own posts.

Any chance you could put your ego aside and get back to the topic?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 5 2010, 07:05 PM

Absolute rubbish!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 5 2010, 07:08 PM

It doesn't deter everyone but it deterred a great many.

Lack of deterrent is what caused them to do it.

Posted by: user23 Sep 5 2010, 07:32 PM

Not true. Would everyone steal if there was no penalty for doing so? Probably not.

Is it the fact you might be punished if you were caught that stops you from stealing or it something else?

Posted by: HeatherW Sep 5 2010, 07:37 PM

There are many reasons why one would not steal. Conscience, risk of getting caught or appearing in front of a judge. Then there are those that do not really care. The rewards, if they get away with it, are far greater.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 5 2010, 08:05 PM

I'm for one realise there is no 100% solution - is there ever? With many others I simply want to see a significant improvement. Again I'm not alone in thinking the criminal justice system needs to raise its game massively - today it costs too much and delivers too little. What does good look like? Sainsbury's think it unnecessary to employ a uniformed security officer and keep him on display. The door staff at various pubs in Newbury are trying to entice custom, any custom. My mother looks forward to a late evening stroll throiugh the town. The offenders many of us know go through the system quickly and the majority don't reoffend. Cost too much? It didn't in the dark days of tye 1930s

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2010, 12:21 AM

Nope.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2010, 12:22 AM

Rose tinted spectacles eh?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 6 2010, 07:18 AM

I'm glad you are happy with how things are. Another mark of success will be when the rest of us feel the same way. With rose tinited lenses or otherwise - at least I can see

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 07:47 AM

Sarah, there are some posters on this forum that give their honest opinion of events that are happening in the town and on a broader scene, the country. They are interested in making their point and commenting on others.
You will of course have noticed that there are also some that just like to prove that they are better debaters than others regardless of what the subject is and their real opinion of it. IE they like to hear their own voice and exercise their ego.
They don't actually appreciate that they bring very little to the debate other than their overbearing and arrogant presence.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2010, 08:13 AM

No, I'm saying that things were no different in 1930. Ever read Brighton Rock?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2010, 08:26 AM

Usually, on internet forums, those who post such ridiculous and outrageous statements such as yours are on a wind up.

So I will assume this is so in your case and respond no further!

"No such thing as a deterrent to crime" indeed!!

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 08:35 AM

I think your argument was becoming incoherent. You were waffling, so I with-drew my interest. Sorry if that is cheap, but in any case, I had better things to be getting on with.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 08:55 AM

Now you understand how I felt.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 09:25 AM

I can't be blamed for your lack of comprehension...how egotistical is that? Just because someone disagrees with Bloggo, GMR, TDAH, etc, doesn't mean they are egotistical and vacuous and haven't done their homework.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 09:38 AM

There are quite a few more names you could add to your list. Everyone is out of step except you eh.
You response is true, but in your case it is a very good indicator of those faults.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 09:55 AM

No but you all are unofficial members of the 'everything is bad; hang 'em high' club. Should any one doubt or question your views, you recoil in horror and start spouting that we are a soft touch.


I would ask you again to back up your claims, but I suspect as you did last time, you have nothing to show.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 10:11 AM

This is a typical sweeping and inaccurate exageration. As usual.


Your posts consistantly demonstrate your inability to accept anyone elses view without the need to try and trivialise the others argument. You delight in your belief that you are intelectually superior to those that disagree with you.
Sometimes less is more. It is the debate which is important not those taking part.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 10:21 AM

An argument will fall or stand on its own merits. I don't feel the need to trivialise arguments if they are well thought out, but I will question those which I feel are flawed. As for not accepting others point of view; this is something I frequently see in your posts.


Ah, I see what might really be at the root of your issue with me. You feel intellectually intimidated by me. Your puerile posts, recently, are testimony to that.

I agree, however, that the debate is more important than the debater, so on topic: I believe gaol without privilege and RJ both have a place in a modern justice system, but neither are a full and total solution.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 6 2010, 10:21 AM

I did tell you Bloggo......

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 10:27 AM

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 10:39 AM

You see this sort of pompous, sanctamonious remark encapsulates the tone of your arguments exactly. Every time you respond you prove my point. Keep it coming.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 10:40 AM

Yep, you were quite right.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2010, 11:06 AM

In the USA the death penalty is used in most States as a deterrent to serious crime. Not working though is it? So, even though they have the ultimate deterrent, people still murder others.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 11:18 AM

There will always be the individual who thinks that they can get away with it or that they have mitigating circumstances for their actions. So in one respect you are correct.
I think that it is also the amount of time that a criminal can spend on death row is also a factor why murderers still kill and think they can cheat justice.
If the process of trial and punishment was speeded up, say 6 months between sentence and it being carried out then I'm sure that would have the desired effect.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 11:26 AM

Very grown up.


I've seen and read nothing that suggests that is true. I believe 'fast justice' might work on the more trivial crimes, but harsh sentences have less effect on 'hard' crime.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 11:43 AM

No, you won't have done because it is not a fact or a tried and tested process.
It's my opinion. (That's if I'm allowed to have one of course.)

I've seen and read nothing that suggests this true either.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 11:53 AM

And on a forum I have the right to reply with an opinion.


There's quite a lot on the Internet that provides some information on this.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2010, 12:23 PM

Texas have done this. If three or more witnessess saw that you did what you did, you go to the front of the queue on death row. .

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 6 2010, 12:36 PM

Sounds like a plan but there is no reason why there has to be a queue. Unless it is for a protracted appeals process to be gone through.

Posted by: Sarah Sep 6 2010, 01:16 PM

That is certainly true of the person my post was directed at, but I can honestly say I haven’t noticed any others in quite the same league.

Back to the topic.

I‘m inclined to agree with Iommi. Just as there are different types and levels of crime and offenders, so there should be different ways of dealing with them.

There will of course be failures and deterrents will not work for all, but there will also be successes.

Knee jerk reactions based on one incident have no value in my book.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 04:03 PM

Bloggo, just in case you don't have auto notify PMs on, I have sent you a PM. Would you please acknowledge it?

Cheers

Posted by: On the edge Sep 6 2010, 06:08 PM

Which was fiction of course! Nevertheless, it's still a position. However, I don't think any Newbury pub resorted to 'door keepers' in the 1930's and I don't think any Newbury Grocery had to employ a security guard at the door. There were very few, if any, reports of assult to the person in NWN at the time either. Must admit, my research social historywise says I'd like to join you - albeit I wouldn't have wanted to join the Labour Party or one of the new fangled courses on the subject at LSE

Posted by: On the edge Sep 6 2010, 06:15 PM

No, its not 100% solution. As mentioned before, 100% isn't what is required and isn't possible anyway. As any insurance actuary will tell you. Just looking for better. Again, I'd simply ask are you happy with the situation today and if not what would you suggest to improve matters significantly?

Posted by: HeatherW Sep 6 2010, 09:02 PM

Who decides who brings what to any debate? Personally I thing most people, if not all, bring something in their own way. What you are saying is that you only tolerate those that you find acceptable to yourself. I thought only we women were bitchy, or is that just a myth spread by insecure men?

Posted by: HeatherW Sep 6 2010, 09:05 PM

If I am not mistaken do not most people on here waffle? Maybe we should have a waffle competition. any takers?

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 09:27 PM

We all can, but I wouldn't say all the time. I like to say, however, that no-one on here (including me) is prepared to admit to being wrong, or being persuaded by someone else. For me, if I have given someone pause for thought, that'll be enough.

Posted by: HeatherW Sep 6 2010, 09:33 PM

It would be nice if we can learn from each other and also admit when we are wrong. But I like that 'pause for thought' of yours. I will have to tell my boyfriend that one.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 6 2010, 09:46 PM

There have been times where I have seen a gaping hole in my argument, but I usually would try to throw people off the scent, when I could, or there have been times where I have misunderstood other's posts.

I accused GMR of shooting from the hip, but we all do that from time to time and this is where the arguments can start. People posting emotional responses is another area where arguments can start. At the end of the day, when we post, we all think we are right, but should I post something as established fact, that subsequently becomes clear that is flawed, I'd like to think that I would have the 'courage' to admit it.

There was a classic a while back where I took a chance with a speculative point of view and Biker1, or Bloggo, I think, called me out on it. I was caught, I had no reply other than to say I couldn't provide examples; because I had 'made it up'! Hoisted upon one's petard!

Generally speaking, in life, things tend never to be as bad, or as good as you think.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 7 2010, 08:18 AM

No, I don't think that is what I was trying to say as every one has a right to their opinion but never mind, I will try to be a little more coherent in future.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 7 2010, 08:20 AM

I've replied.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2010, 12:59 PM

Thanks for a fasinating insight. Its often suggested that Forums are a means to get views heard and debated. See the NWN encouragements. But it isn't really is it? Just a pub conversation between people who like arguing - no more no less. That's great and just as recreational as any other game or pastime! As for any intrinsic value; not really. Liked the last sentiment - the Great British view of life 'mustn't grumble'

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 01:55 PM

Yes. Few of us are truly learned on any given subject to give either a qualified opinion, or indeed, often skilled enough to persuade others who hold a contrary point of view.

I will say though, I do try to find out if what I post has any truth to it before I post, 'cause I never know when someone else like me, might call me out on something!

Emotionally; I often agree more with people than is obvious, but I like to test, even my own point of view, by using forums like these. I often sit on the fence, but that is often because I cannot make my mind up on some things. That's probably because I believe there is at least two sides to every argument, but the problem is, some people hold their belief almost with as much passion as a fan does of a sports team, or musician.

I suppose Bloggo is nearly right, but not quite. On some subjects, it is not that I think I am right and everyone else is wrong; on those occasions it is more a case that I think I am more right than others!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 7 2010, 04:21 PM

There is very little fact on here, just opinion. You can't be wrong when you express your opinion, hence the endless circular 'debate'.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 04:50 PM

I think an opinion can be both true or false, depending on the subject... in my opinion.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 7 2010, 05:14 PM

Expressing a strong desire to see crims punished and held accountable for their actions is perfectly valid, and you can take that argument quite a long way without being troubled for any evidence to support the position - that is after all exactly how politics works. It's only rationalists who find that kind of argument unsatisfactory, but then rationalism is also just a philosophical position so it's no more 'right'. But if you're to support an argument with evidence then it's not unreasonable to cite a reference. The http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Community_sentences_factsheet.pdf publish some facts and figures that show that community sentencing is a better deterrent than prison, and for balance there's always the http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308147/The-truth-community-payback-Criminals-sentenced-smoke-play-games.html?ito=feeds-newsxml.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 05:31 PM

It might be how politics works, but I believe that is one of the problems with politics.


I think the term 'right' depends a lot on what the end game is; what is it that is trying to be achieved. I would imagine effective problem solvers do their job because they think rationally, not necessarily emotionally.


The problems as I see it with your examples, is one appears to be based on statistical analysis and the other on anecdotal evidence. If you are trying to solve the incidence of crime; which one would you lend more weight to? If, however, your wish is to see justice done, you might look to the opposite report.

It comes down to what you want out of something.

***************

A lot of this comes also down to semantics. I think sometimes people either post text that doesn't quite match what they mean, or other times misinterpret what is written.

I don't think it is important to have to cite references with each given point, but people need to realise if they make a point of fact (especially sweeping statements) that others believe to be wrong, then there will be a conflict unless there is supporting evidence.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2010, 07:50 PM

Frankly the last few posts just confirm these Forums are simply a game for those who enjoy an argument for its own sake or the professional cynic.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 08:01 PM

What an utterly pointless and spiteful post OTE. In my view it was a straightforward exchange of views, what the freak is wrong with that I don't know.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2010, 08:26 PM

I can't see what was spiteful. Pointless perhaps.

I won't go to the extent of underlining each one, but reading this through some posters haqve suggested that they don't accept anyone else view without strict evidence, suggest others are 'not expert', or are making statements without foundation and even suggest they have made incorrect or misleading statements themselves just to see what people think. Also to condem those who are enthusiastic about their cause. So with attitudes like that debate is not possible.

There is nothing wrong with people who just like argument for argument's sake - but please don't confuse it with debate.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 08:49 PM

Spiteful because it was mean spirited. It was hardly constructive!


I'm sorry, but unless you can point to a few examples, my view is that this is utter trumped up rubbish.


So a debate to be legitimate it has to pass the OTE seal of approval does it? I think your point of view is totally wrong.

To think in a PM I was going to point to you as a good example of someone with opposing views whose methods I respected. You have blown that right out of the water with this bull!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2010, 08:56 PM

I don't think the above is worthy of you or a reply.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 08:58 PM

Regrettably, I'm not surprised by this post.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2010, 09:20 PM

Let my try to explain. First, I'd urge you to read the threads. Many are doubting other peoples credentials and simply just repeating what has previously been said. Indeed, even your last response did just that. I have clearly hit a nerve - something I didn't actually intend to do. However, I have to say I was a little distressed shall we say when I see comments suggesting that people here have little expertise or knowledge. Suffice to say, in the matters on which I comment - I have. I also do know many people enjoy arguing - in fact for many years my boss, respected in his field, would openly admit that. He found the chase of much greater interest and enjoyment than ths solution. I'm afraid I don't so endured a frustrating 6 years. We should be able to respect what people say without proof positive all the time which in itself is often based on unsound theory when put to test. People do think and so opinions matter - if they didn't we would not progress. Personally I am still not convinced Forums are of any real value, that is an opinion but its based on my assessment and experience. I am more than happy to accept you hold a wholly different view.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 7 2010, 10:03 PM

And that's the root of the problem. Being a social animal there's a tension between what's good for us personally and what's good for us collectively. Society exists because mostly we suppress the personal for the sake of the collective and when we see people profiting by breaking that fundamental rule we're deeply indignant - we couldn't feel otherwise and be the animal we are.

The paradox is that punishing people with a harsh penal system satisfies that indignation, but it anti-socialises the crims which makes them more likely to re-offend because it's social inclusion that they're missing. I suspect a complete theory of criminality is a bit more involved, but I think that's a start.

It's a difficult argument to make because you have to see past the fear and vengance, but it does come down to what you want: would you sooner punish, or have a safer society.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 10:29 PM

You hit a nerve because I think you have misinterpreted and embellished things I have said to justify your 'out-burst'. Like you suggested to me, first, I'd urge you to (re-)read the threads.

I actually suggested that few on here are leaned in the subjects we discuss. That doesn't mean that no one is, only that most of us are not. If you and one or two others are, that doesn't properly refute my claim and it certainly doesn't mean I think you are not.

I will argue, but I prefer a PROPER debate any-day, but sadly, I seem to spend more time correcting other people's 'misunderstanding' of what I have posted. 'Misunderstandings' that I'm sure are not all my fault.

Fair enough, you see little value in forums, but I disagree, and I will argue robustly if people try to belittle people that do see value in them.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 7 2010, 10:33 PM

Exactly; except I would imagine some might even say both. Good post by the way.

One thing I have read is a theory that harsh or long sentences can in some cases, enable a prisoner to come to terms with their crime - feel as if they have paid their dues for their crime, thus little or no remorse.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 8 2010, 04:59 AM

Hold on - according to Dannyboy there is no deterrent to crime!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 8 2010, 05:20 AM

As Iommi says, both, one achieves the other.
Punishment of crime is a natural path to take for most in society.
Without it we would have a lawless society which is where we are heading now because of the lack of it.
How would you want the criminal treated if they had committed a serious crime against yourself and been caught and convicted?
And yes, many of us do live in fear of crime, especially older and more vulnerable people, which is difficult to "see past" and why should we?

Posted by: DrPepper Sep 8 2010, 07:19 AM

Hi Ho

Joining in a bit late here, but it really is simple (well I think so). It goes like this:-

A criminal is caught
Said Criminal serves his full sentence, in tough conditions (no tv, pool table, as many in a cell as you can fit in etc, etc)
Whilst inside this criminal is off our streets and not committing crime
As he will serve his full sentence, not just half, crime goes down, we are all safer for the time they are in prison - simply a fact
If this criminal is capable of rehabilitation then he has a social conscience and enough self-awareness not to want to repeat the experience. If they re-offend it straight back to clink.

You will always get constant re-offenders who just take advantage of all the do-gooders who want to make themselves feel good by helping the scum of society. There have always been, and always will be criminals. As a civilised society with laws it's up to the individual to obey these laws or pay the consequences.

In reply to the "death sentence doesn't work" argument. Show me criminal who has been executed and then goes on to re-offend , I reckon - no I'm 100% sure you can't Now how many rehabilitated criminals have re-offended (no I'm not suggesting will kill all criminals)

Posted by: Iommi Sep 8 2010, 07:46 AM

If we had no punishment, I think there would see an increase in crime, but some crime more than others. Like I said, there's little point, in my view, having a severe sentence, if people feel the chances of getting caught is small. Look how well behaved people's speed is on roads with average speed detectors, compared to roads that only have a GATSO. What is questionable, though, is whether the effect of speed detection would change if the fines or points were changed (up or down).


I would like what ever there might be to prevent that happening again. Once something is done, it cannot be undone, but it would be far more useful to me if something could be subsequently done to either make the miscreant understand the anguish they create, or things can be put in place to stop them re-offending. Knowing that the person is suffering does little to make me feel better. It might be for the immediate short term, but not long term.


It would seem the fear of crime is almost deserving it's own thread. From what I have heard, fear of crime is going down. The problem is, of course, we are constantly fed conflicting stories and experiences. My opinion is ASB is more prevalent now than in the past, but what is that saying about it takes a village to raise a child? I think social cohesion is a problem and we have become less neighbourly and I sure that this contributes to all the things we have discussed here.


Dead people cannot commit a new crime, but a death sentence is not in itself without victims. Especially the wrongly convicted.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 8 2010, 07:46 AM

I agree entirely and what a good, clear and definite opinion. You make a point that we can all understand. So refreshing from the tirade of pseudo interlectual claptrap that this subject has produced.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 8 2010, 07:57 AM

It is a shame, in my view, that people cannot just support someone else's point of view without resorting to to being rude of others that they don't agree with, or understand.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 8 2010, 08:11 AM

Have you heard the expression "It's the singer, not the song"
That is the problem with this subject. Some posters just want to win the argument by tenaciously counter attacking arguments using any means open to them even false and unsubstantiated statements. They have lost sight of the simplicity of the argument to the point where it is unimportant. Only winning the argument is.
I think that position does not make for a healthy debate and becomes tiresome and boring.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 8 2010, 08:16 AM

This an interesting comment which makes sense however I feel that you cannot have a safe society without the need to punish those that act against it.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 8 2010, 08:20 AM

Has it occurred to you, that you just might be wrong? Regardless of that, It still doesn't excuse rudeness. You could have made your point without calling what I (or maybe others) write as claptrap. I am able to have a discussion with people on where winning didn't and doesn't feature, but not it seems with you and one or two others, why do you think that is?


You say it makes sense, then immediately deny its validity - I'm confused. However, I don't think (hardly) anyone is saying we shouldn't punish.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 8 2010, 08:39 AM

Yes, it has occured to me that I might be wrong, no one has all the answers.
I'm sorry you are offended by my description of some of the exchanges that have gone on with this subject. It's just an expression that seemed to encapsulate a collection of banal and sometimes pointless argument.


I think you confuse too easily but that mainly for the sake of perpetuating an argument which substantiates my critisism of the validity of your posts.

You are "confused" again. I said the post was intersting however the implication from the post I quoted from was that there was a choice between safety and punishment which I disagree with.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 8 2010, 08:46 AM

So he's saying that in some cases there is no deterrent. If there was there would not 'always be crime' as the deterrent would be working. And you agree!

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 8 2010, 08:57 AM

Not sure I totally understand your post but this is my explanation.
I agree that there will always be the individual who will commit a crime regardless of the penalty.
If they commit murder they should be locked up for life. If they are serial criminals they should be locked up for ever increasing periods of time resulting in a life sentence.

Posted by: Sarah Sep 8 2010, 09:39 AM

I suspect I come under that heading, but I prefer to think of it as seeing the wider picture.

Posted by: Sarah Sep 8 2010, 09:45 AM

I would agree with this, especially when they invent friends in high places who just happen to confide certain facts, or friends of friends who are in the know. Not a good way to back up so called facts.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 8 2010, 11:55 AM

I'm talking about me. Your views on why I post might be wrong about me.


If you were truly sorry, you wouldn't do it. I'm not asking for an apology; only that if you insist on being rude, not only will you win fewer friends, but you will more than likely perpetuate that which you claim to dislike.


Again, rudeness seems your preferred method of debate. So if that's the way you like it: I am glad I don't live in a world where people like you are in charge of justice.


And you said it made sense. Is it not foolish to turn your back on solutions that make sense because they might fail to sate the need for vengeance or retaliation?


He never said one or the other, that is simply your interpretation of it.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 8 2010, 12:18 PM

It's not always about you Iommi.

Well, the thought of not winning friends is a bit of a worry.

Fine.

Don't understand this but don't bother explaining as I am losing interest anyway.

Bending the words again Iommi. I never said that he said one or the other. I said there was an implication of that position.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 8 2010, 02:20 PM

I'm glad; the sooner this thread is rid of your bigotry, the better.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 8 2010, 07:13 PM

...and I thought you were never rude!

Posted by: Iommi Sep 8 2010, 07:16 PM

It would be only in 'self defence', or under provocation, but I have taken enough s**t off of him and others. Besides, I don't think I have ever claimed that I am never rude. Anyway, the statement you refer to is true if you take the word literally.

bigotry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

—Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 9 2010, 07:46 AM

Yes, a bit unpleasent eh?
Do the words "pot and kettle" spring to mind.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 9 2010, 09:52 AM

I suppose the obvious difference between me, you, and a few others, Bloggo; is that I know I am rude and a bigot. To add to that, I am also an intellectual snob and suffer fools badly. Perhaps this why we clash!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 9 2010, 11:00 PM

Disco!!. you got it! To some people there simply is nothing that will stop them committing a crime. Your season criminal who realises the risks, and decides they are worth taking.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 10 2010, 07:41 AM

Great, we agree on that bit.
Now for the next: There will also be a lot of criminals/killers etc who will be detered by harsher jails and sentences and the death penalty. So there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by imposing these.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 10 2010, 08:10 AM

Except the death penalty is not going to come back any time soon.

Posted by: Bloggo Sep 10 2010, 08:13 AM

Yes, I expect you are correct but I for one would like to see it reinstated for child, police and serial killers at least.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 10 2010, 08:23 AM

Perhaps like Europe we will get a referendum on it!
Oh hang on a bit - The British Public? Good Lord they will make the wrong decision.....

Posted by: Iommi Sep 10 2010, 09:13 AM

An idea I'm debating with myself at the moment for the people you list, is life without parole and voluntary option for euthanasia; but again, pie in the sky, and it does have a few distinct flaws.


Well they voted Labour for a third term!