The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[doubleup]

Should we consider the fact that the cost of trying to rehabilitate a murderer would buy a lot of things like Cat/MRI scanners, kidney machines etc and save tens, maybe even hundreds of lives.

So you are killing these people right now because of the lack of equipment?

[Doobs]

Should we consider the fact that the cost of trying to rehabilitate a murderer would buy a lot of things like Cat/MRI scanners, kidney machines etc and save tens, maybe even hundreds of lives.

Only if we compare it with the cost of not trying to rehabilitate them?

And of course, even if money was saved, the money would more likely go on tax cuts for big business than on machines that save hundreds of lives.

[teddybloat]

rehab will often lead to shorter time spent in prison + you get a productive member of society as well.

so it's not clear that rehab is the more expensive ethos.

also adz is talking about prison time / the death penalty as though the payoffs are considered in a rational manner. let's grant that for the sake of argument. once you introduce the death penalty there are unintended consequences to consider. eg once you have killed once the next killing is free. you may as well get rid of witnesses, sort out other grievances etc.

once you have true lifers you also have much less control over prison discipline. you increase the prison populations. one thing america has shown us is that when you increase prison populations and reduce discipline you make prison gangs. they have not sprung up in UK prisons so far, but if they do they are a blight on society outside of prisons for many reasons.

[RED-DOG]

Should we consider the fact that the cost of trying to rehabilitate a murderer would buy a lot of things like Cat/MRI scanners, kidney machines etc and save tens, maybe even hundreds of lives.

So you are killing these people right now because of the lack of equipment?

Well I'm not killing anyone, I'm just asking if we should take something into consideration.

I know that people are refused life saving drugs because they are too expensive.

[nirvana]

I think it's a legit position to support the death penalty out of pure vengeance. It's about the only rational reason for supporting it.

[teddybloat]

costs should always be considered.

but could as easily be an argument for shorter sentences. also the counter-factual costs, such as how do you measure the unseen savings from people being rehabilitated and the benefits accrued to society.

and health care would still be rationed. drugs are denied as they are evaluated as being not cost effective. even granting that not looking to rehabilitate would save money, the money saved isn't infinite so you would still have rationing and drugs seen as non-cost effective now would still be seen as non cost effective.

and we don't look to rehabilitate adults now, so we arent saving anything when maintaining the status quo

[Doobs]

Should we consider the fact that the cost of trying to rehabilitate a murderer would buy a lot of things like Cat/MRI scanners, kidney machines etc and save tens, maybe even hundreds of lives.

So you are killing these people right now because of the lack of equipment?

Well I'm not killing anyone, I'm just asking if we should take something into consideration.

I know that people are refused life saving drugs because they are too expensive.

Why are you linking them?  

Surely it is better to start a discussion on the cost of drugs?  We clearly shouldn't just pay whatever is asked for whatever drug is needed if it has any marginal benefit.   Even in a socialist utopia, there is a budget.

I read somebody's gofundme recently.   They had raised hundreds of thousands for some treatment that had a good record of success.  What they didn't mention was thar person x was going to die anyway, and the success was that there was some evidence that a proportion of patients were living a few months longer.  

I think the line is hard to draw, and people can donate to what the hell they like, but I felt a bit mislead, and if the circumstances were properly explained, I am not convinced as much would have been raised.  

If asthma drug companies start charging £1m a year, do we still pay?  Even if it means all we do with our taxes is buy asthma drugs?   Sure all people will draw there lines before that.
 And a lot of these drugs that get mentioned, there is an altenative, and for many they just improve lives, or prolong them, rather than save them.

 It is a bit more difficult than "people are refused life saving drugs because they are too exoensive".  I am not sure I would want the job of deciding, it feels like you get no praise and are frequently slaughtered in the press.

[doubleup]

Should we consider the fact that the cost of trying to rehabilitate a murderer would buy a lot of things like Cat/MRI scanners, kidney machines etc and save tens, maybe even hundreds of lives.

So you are killing these people right now because of the lack of equipment?

Well I'm not killing anyone, I'm just asking if we should take something into consideration.

I know that people are refused life saving drugs because they are too expensive.

I was just puzzled about who "we" was.

Are "we" going to kill the crims to save the people who "they" are killing due to lack of equipment and drugs or are they going to kill the crims?

Just need to establish who is responsible for the deaths due to lack of drugs and who will be responsible for the crim killing.

We or they should also consider executing all prisoners, that would quickly make the nhs the envy of the world, don't you think?

[RED-DOG]

Should we consider the fact that the cost of trying to rehabilitate a murderer would buy a lot of things like Cat/MRI scanners, kidney machines etc and save tens, maybe even hundreds of lives.

So you are killing these people right now because of the lack of equipment?

Well I'm not killing anyone, I'm just asking if we should take something into consideration.

I know that people are refused life saving drugs because they are too expensive.

Why are you linking them?  

To give people the opportunity to make excellent points like the ones you made.

Note that I used words like 'should we' and 'consider'

[BigAdz]

Has rehabilitation worked in the Jon Venables case?

What do you think the cumulative cost (yes, financial, but all the other costs too) of his incarceration, rehabilitation, new identity and re-offending/incarceration have been?

Shouldn’t you also consider the impact on the victims? The Bulgers, in this case. I can only imagine the pain; especially in the knowledge that the killers of their son are seemingly being treated as a higher priority than the victims.

No, we can’t advocate executing minors, but a life sentence should mean exactly that.

He was 10 when he did it.   Surely we shouldn't put 10 year olds away for life, no matter how appalled we are by their actions?  And if you are worrying about the cost, then why would you want to increase it by keeping him in for another 60 years.  

Given we don't have enough information on Jon Venables, we don't know enough about the standard of care, or any real idea who got "higher priority".   But if he did get "higher priority", whatever that means, then that is an issue with victim support and not really relevant to sentencing.  

Also if we are advocating Jon Thompson does life, then Robert Thompson does too, and there is no sign he has reoffended?  Surely this is all a bit grey, rehabilitation sometimes works, sometimes it is less succesful.  

On the park stabbing, we really should wait for it to play out in a court, rather than making a lot of assumptions, even if it seems "obvious" what happened from press reports.   We can't advocate hanging until we know the full story.  Just because it is likely the killer was hanging round with his mate doesn't make him a gang member, and black people can suffer from the same mental illnesses white people do, etc.  This isn't to say the gang angle isn't the best hypothesis, just it isn't the only one.

Lets have a bullseye on the fact I am right though shall we? It was an initiation or dare. Most of you softies don't actually answer that question, you just deflect it with a "what if"

For sure, some brief will claim some mental disorder etc, but once again back to the route of all criminal activity, if you don't do it in the first place, there is nothing to worry about.....

Do the crime, do the time. (or lose your life)

[BigAdz]

Should we consider the fact that the cost of trying to rehabilitate a murderer would buy a lot of things like Cat/MRI scanners, kidney machines etc and save tens, maybe even hundreds of lives.

So you are killing these people right now because of the lack of equipment?

Well I'm not killing anyone, I'm just asking if we should take something into consideration.

I know that people are refused life saving drugs because they are too expensive.

Why are you linking them?  

To give people the opportunity to make excellent points like the ones you made.

Note that I used words like 'should we' and 'consider'

You were going so well with the original post Tom, spot on.

Then you slowly let the softies brow beat you down into a "well, I wasn't saying it was my opinion, just an opinion"

Not allowed strong convictions(!) if they don't suit the softies.....or you are made to feel like the criminals they all want to go easy on.....

[Jon MW]

I think it's a legit position to support the death penalty out of pure vengeance. It's about the only rational reason for supporting it.

Definitely not against this - the death penalty isn't cheaper and doesn't reduce crime overall; vengeance is a motive I'd respect.

[BigAdz]

I think it's a legit position to support the death penalty out of pure vengeance. It's about the only rational reason for supporting it.

Oooo. I think we could add prevention to that, quite easily.

They cant do it again, if they are dead. Pretty rational?

[kukushkin88]

Has rehabilitation worked in the Jon Venables case?

What do you think the cumulative cost (yes, financial, but all the other costs too) of his incarceration, rehabilitation, new identity and re-offending/incarceration have been?

Shouldn’t you also consider the impact on the victims? The Bulgers, in this case. I can only imagine the pain; especially in the knowledge that the killers of their son are seemingly being treated as a higher priority than the victims.

No, we can’t advocate executing minors, but a life sentence should mean exactly that.

He was 10 when he did it.   Surely we shouldn't put 10 year olds away for life, no matter how appalled we are by their actions?  And if you are worrying about the cost, then why would you want to increase it by keeping him in for another 60 years.  

Given we don't have enough information on Jon Venables, we don't know enough about the standard of care, or any real idea who got "higher priority".   But if he did get "higher priority", whatever that means, then that is an issue with victim support and not really relevant to sentencing.  

Also if we are advocating Jon Thompson does life, then Robert Thompson does too, and there is no sign he has reoffended?  Surely this is all a bit grey, rehabilitation sometimes works, sometimes it is less succesful.  

On the park stabbing, we really should wait for it to play out in a court, rather than making a lot of assumptions, even if it seems "obvious" what happened from press reports.   We can't advocate hanging until we know the full story.  Just because it is likely the killer was hanging round with his mate doesn't make him a gang member, and black people can suffer from the same mental illnesses white people do, etc.  This isn't to say the gang angle isn't the best hypothesis, just it isn't the only one.

Lets have a bullseye on the fact I am right though shall we? It was an initiation or dare. Most of you softies don't actually answer that question, you just deflect it with a "what if"

For sure, some brief will claim some mental disorder etc, but once again back to the route of all criminal activity, if you don't do it in the first place, there is nothing to worry about.....

Do the crime, do the time. (or lose your life)

The “bullseye on the fact I am right” is one for the highlight reel.

I guess my plan was to encourage a discussion about how people think rather than what they think. Some good discussion though. I’d like to hear more about ‘vengeance theory’ it seems the opposite of what nearly every respected thinker has been telling us since ~ the 19th century.

[Doobs]

Has rehabilitation worked in the Jon Venables case?

What do you think the cumulative cost (yes, financial, but all the other costs too) of his incarceration, rehabilitation, new identity and re-offending/incarceration have been?

Shouldn’t you also consider the impact on the victims? The Bulgers, in this case. I can only imagine the pain; especially in the knowledge that the killers of their son are seemingly being treated as a higher priority than the victims.

No, we can’t advocate executing minors, but a life sentence should mean exactly that.

He was 10 when he did it.   Surely we shouldn't put 10 year olds away for life, no matter how appalled we are by their actions?  And if you are worrying about the cost, then why would you want to increase it by keeping him in for another 60 years.  

Given we don't have enough information on Jon Venables, we don't know enough about the standard of care, or any real idea who got "higher priority".   But if he did get "higher priority", whatever that means, then that is an issue with victim support and not really relevant to sentencing.  

Also if we are advocating Jon Thompson does life, then Robert Thompson does too, and there is no sign he has reoffended?  Surely this is all a bit grey, rehabilitation sometimes works, sometimes it is less succesful.  

On the park stabbing, we really should wait for it to play out in a court, rather than making a lot of assumptions, even if it seems "obvious" what happened from press reports.   We can't advocate hanging until we know the full story.  Just because it is likely the killer was hanging round with his mate doesn't make him a gang member, and black people can suffer from the same mental illnesses white people do, etc.  This isn't to say the gang angle isn't the best hypothesis, just it isn't the only one.

Lets have a bullseye on the fact I am right though shall we? It was an initiation or dare. Most of you softies don't actually answer that question, you just deflect it with a "what if"

For sure, some brief will claim some mental disorder etc, but once again back to the route of all criminal activity, if you don't do it in the first place, there is nothing to worry about.....

Do the crime, do the time. (or lose your life)

ok, if this is standard gang initiation where are all the other white teenage girls killed in parks?  I can't remember one.   That is enough for an element of doubt for me.   Sure it is a strong possibility, but I'd rather see how it plays out before assuming it happened the way we are told, or the way I thought.

I have appeared in the national press twice,  each time there were significant innaccuracies.  They constantly make assumptions and misreport to get the story out.  How long was it before you revised your opinion on Hillsbrough?  That was played out in front of thousands of witnesses too. 

You'd rather cut straight to the death penalty, I wouldn't.