|
Ironside
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: August 22, 2012, 01:05:27 PM » |
|
Let's all give them a hug and send them on holiday. Why should we care about their human rights when they don't care about anybody else's. I know it's harsh but IMO it is justified. People don't have to commit crimes, people choose to commit them.
no one said give them a hug no one mentioned human rights and no one mentioned a holiday minttrav is right if you locked up everyone for 50 years for minor things then what would stop them commiting murder to stop them getting caught for shop lifting if they are going to end up in jail for the rest of there life (or the best part of it) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
lend me a beer and I'll lend you my ear
|
|
|
|
bobAlike
|
|
« Reply #76 on: August 22, 2012, 01:44:28 PM » |
|
Let's all give them a hug and send them on holiday. Why should we care about their human rights when they don't care about anybody else's. I know it's harsh but IMO it is justified. People don't have to commit crimes, people choose to commit them.
no one said give them a hug no one mentioned human rights and no one mentioned a holiday minttrav is right if you locked up everyone for 50 years for minor things then what would stop them commiting murder to stop them getting caught for shop lifting if they are going to end up in jail for the rest of there life (or the best part of it) Obv I was being sarcastic about hugging and holidays but people who commit multiple crimes should be treated accordingly. Where do you draw the line? As I said people choose to be criminals irrespective of what crime they choose to commit. Most crimes have consequences to the victim no matter how big or small. In a utopian world there would be no crime but unfortunately we don't live in that world as such society should do whatever is necessary to make criminals stop what they do. The current justice system does not deter as much crime as it should. IMO 3 strikes and out would certainly help. In the long run it would mean less prison population because it might just deter some would be criminals. As I say my opinion and nothing I've read has convinced me otherwise. I am open to other ideas though. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ah! The element of surprise
|
|
|
|
SirPerceval
|
|
« Reply #77 on: August 22, 2012, 02:32:57 PM » |
|
Let's all give them a hug and send them on holiday. Why should we care about their human rights when they don't care about anybody else's. I know it's harsh but IMO it is justified. People don't have to commit crimes, people choose to commit them.
no one said give them a hug no one mentioned human rights and no one mentioned a holiday minttrav is right if you locked up everyone for 50 years for minor things then what would stop them commiting murder to stop them getting caught for shop lifting if they are going to end up in jail for the rest of there life (or the best part of it) Obv I was being sarcastic about hugging and holidays but people who commit multiple crimes should be treated accordingly. Where do you draw the line? As I said people choose to be criminals irrespective of what crime they choose to commit.
Most crimes have consequences to the victim no matter how big or small. In a utopian world there would be no crime but unfortunately we don't live in that world as such society should do whatever is necessary to make criminals stop what they do. The current justice system does not deter as much crime as it should. IMO 3 strikes and out would certainly help. In the long run it would mean less prison population because it might just deter some would be criminals. As I say my opinion and nothing I've read has convinced me otherwise. I am open to other ideas though. Have you ever driven over the speed limit? If you have, then you committed a crime and according to you, are a criminal. I guess you say it won't count as it is a victimless crime but I don't believe it is, just like throwing litter on the street isn't. There has to be some kind of scale to the punishment. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smashedagain
|
|
« Reply #78 on: August 22, 2012, 02:45:35 PM » |
|
if something terrible happened to ur nearest and dearest would you let the justice system do its job or would you seek your own justice??
say ur child wife was murdered or raped or both something pretty bad?
roughly 11 years ago..... When Jade & Chloe where I think 2&1 My nephews took them to the shops to buy some sweets Luke and lee where about 9-10 years old. Jade and Chloe could not decide what sweets they wanted and kept picking the up and putting them back The shop keeper shouted at them (directed at the older two boys) "if you don't pick something I am going slap you and slap the baby's "of course the four of them came home with Luke and lee in tears I went straight to the shop and asked the guy if he threatened to slap my kids , I was shocked when he replied yes they kept touching my sweets!! WTF So you threaten to slap them? Yep I got charged with racially aggrevated assault !!!..... For the record the racial part got dropped before court ( it was obvious it had nothing to do with race) And when the magistrate asked the shop keeper if it was true ... Did you threaten to slap the two children he proudly said yes I did they where touching my sweets. I got found not guilty. When kids are involved yes I would seek my own justice! You let a 1 year old and a two year old go to the shops? Just looking at the 5 kids here I don't think I would let my niece and nephew 9 & 7 take the 3 boys who are 4 & 5. Presumably you didn't get charged for assault for asking questions? No Any elaboration  Just thought that maybe I would. Asked the wife if the kids could go to the shops and she said most definatly not. Have our streets become less safe in the last ten years or do we just think they have. He got a slap jase ! My 9 year old son goes tithe shop on his own ....only just this summer holiday Oh right. Nephew is in year 5 in September and just told me that this is the year that the kids can walk to school on their own too |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
[ ] ept title
[ ] wpt title
[ ] wsop braclet
[X] mickey mouse hoodies
|
|
|
|
bobAlike
|
|
« Reply #79 on: August 22, 2012, 02:57:52 PM » |
|
Let's all give them a hug and send them on holiday. Why should we care about their human rights when they don't care about anybody else's. I know it's harsh but IMO it is justified. People don't have to commit crimes, people choose to commit them.
no one said give them a hug no one mentioned human rights and no one mentioned a holiday minttrav is right if you locked up everyone for 50 years for minor things then what would stop them commiting murder to stop them getting caught for shop lifting if they are going to end up in jail for the rest of there life (or the best part of it) Obv I was being sarcastic about hugging and holidays but people who commit multiple crimes should be treated accordingly. Where do you draw the line? As I said people choose to be criminals irrespective of what crime they choose to commit.
Most crimes have consequences to the victim no matter how big or small. In a utopian world there would be no crime but unfortunately we don't live in that world as such society should do whatever is necessary to make criminals stop what they do. The current justice system does not deter as much crime as it should. IMO 3 strikes and out would certainly help. In the long run it would mean less prison population because it might just deter some would be criminals. As I say my opinion and nothing I've read has convinced me otherwise. I am open to other ideas though. Have you ever driven over the speed limit? If you have, then you committed a crime and according to you, are a criminal. I guess you say it won't count as it is a victimless crime but I don't believe it is, just like throwing litter on the street isn't. There has to be some kind of scale to the punishment. If had been caught speeding and continued to speed then the is a likelihood I'd be banned for toting up points. In principal similar to the 3 strikes and out rule. If I did have points for speeding/motoring offences I'm pretty sure I'd drive within the law as I depend on my driving license. Hang on a minute that system would have worked for me. Interesting? ? ? As someone has said previously we should tackle the reasons people commit crimes first and then lock the bastards up who continue. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ah! The element of surprise
|
|
|
|
Ironside
|
|
« Reply #80 on: August 22, 2012, 03:51:42 PM » |
|
So a shoplifter on his 3rd strike is caught by a security guard knowing he will get life behind bars has nothing to lose and kills the guard, same punishment after and he knows killing the guard gives him a chance of getting away, if I was the guard I know I would prefer no 3 strikes rule
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
lend me a beer and I'll lend you my ear
|
|
|
|
bobAlike
|
|
« Reply #81 on: August 22, 2012, 04:07:28 PM » |
|
That still doesn't make me think otherwise. Security guards know the risk they are taking under the current rules. If the 3 strikes rule was implemented security guards have a choice whether to carry on the service they provide.
So what do you think the best option would be?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ah! The element of surprise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ironside
|
|
« Reply #83 on: August 23, 2012, 05:13:32 PM » |
|
That still doesn't make me think otherwise. Security guards know the risk they are taking under the current rules. If the 3 strikes rule was implemented security guards have a choice whether to carry on the service they provide.
So what do you think the best option would be?
ok guy on 2 strikes is robbing an empty house when suddenly an OAP comes back in and intrupts him blocking his escape now he know currently he will get a slap on wrists when police arrive but under the 3 strikes rule he gets life in prison or he could do the OAP in and has a chance of getting away if he does get caught he will get the same punishment as if he does nothing guess what innocent OAP gets bashed about as villian has nothing to lose 3 strikes is daft punishments should meet the crimes problem in this world is we havent found anywhere this happens all the time |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
lend me a beer and I'll lend you my ear
|
|
|
|
bobAlike
|
|
« Reply #84 on: August 23, 2012, 06:08:20 PM » |
|
That still doesn't make me think otherwise. Security guards know the risk they are taking under the current rules. If the 3 strikes rule was implemented security guards have a choice whether to carry on the service they provide.
So what do you think the best option would be?
ok guy on 2 strikes is robbing an empty house when suddenly an OAP comes back in and intrupts him blocking his escape now he know currently he will get a slap on wrists when police arrive but under the 3 strikes rule he gets life in prison or he could do the OAP in and has a chance of getting away if he does get caught he will get the same punishment as if he does nothing guess what innocent OAP gets bashed about as villian has nothing to lose 3 strikes is daft punishments should meet the crimes problem in this world is we havent found anywhere this happens all the time You are a trier Ironside and God loves a trier but I'm still not convinced. I know 3 strikes isn't perfect and I'm sure there are some happy mediums (not fortunetellers) out there but criminals should think about the consequences of their actions be it speeding, robbery or murder. How we do that I don't know either but if people can't figure out for themselves that carrying out crimes is morally wrong then the state should scare them into thinking about it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ah! The element of surprise
|
|
|
|
DMorgan
|
|
« Reply #85 on: August 23, 2012, 06:28:59 PM » |
|
imo Ironsides points are perfectly valid. The 3 strikes system has been tried and has failed spectacularly in many US states.
The three strikes law that puts people in prison for life is astronomically expensive. Not only are there the costs of keeping them in prison, the state is now responsible for their medical care for life either because they are in prison for life or because they've been in prison for so long that they have no shot at being able to afford their own medical care later on in life.
If the public were asked to choose between spending £800,000 keeping someone locked up (£40k x 20 years) or spending a much smaller amount to keep these people on the streets but have them commit offences every now and then, I know what I'd choose and yes I've been a victim of burglary and of ABH.
Swiching to a three strikes system doesn't really change anything for the hardened criminals. They are just going to be in and out of jail anyway and it is widely accepted that the three strikes system is not an effective deterrent. All it does it widen the range of criminals that are behind bars for 20 years+ and it doesn't take much widening of that range of crimes to make the huge public expense a bad deal for the country.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leethefish
|
|
« Reply #86 on: August 23, 2012, 06:41:24 PM » |
|
Just shoot the bastards!!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leethefish
|
|
« Reply #87 on: August 23, 2012, 06:42:18 PM » |
|
Or off with their heads!!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bobAlike
|
|
« Reply #88 on: August 23, 2012, 06:53:29 PM » |
|
As I've said previously 3 strikes may not be the ideal situation but IMO nobody has said what is the better solution.
Cost does come into it but it shouldn't, just because something is expensive to do doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. I for one would rather be harder on criminals no matter what the financial cost otherwise we are just giving in and will live in a society where it's expected to get mugged, burgled, raped.
I too have been a victim of burglary but I can honestly say that if those 3 people who broke into my house were locked up for life or even killed I would laugh the laugh of a mad man whilst pissing on their graves. Harsh, definately but fuck them.
I did some work in prisons a while ago and the state could save a fortune if they got rid of any creature comforts they afford to the inmates. Fuck their human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ah! The element of surprise
|
|
|
|
Jon MW
|
|
« Reply #89 on: August 23, 2012, 07:00:42 PM » |
|
As I've said previously 3 strikes may not be the ideal situation but IMO nobody has said what is the better solution.
...
The current system is a better solution The 3 strikes system doesn't work as a deterrence and it doesn't work as rehabilitation, the only thing it works at is punishment. And as it is providing the same sort of punishment for lesser crimes the result is you have the escalation as has already been mentioned - i.e. it makes crime in the country worse. How can a system which doesn't decrease the overall level of crime but will increase the severity of crime be a better way of doing things? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield
2011 blonde MTT League August Champion
2011 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain - - runners up - -
5 Star HORSE Classic - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
|
|
|
|
Author