Changes you would implement to revive the UK

[teddybloat]

"Having served time in my younger years"

having served time in your younger years you served time in a holiday camp compared to today's prisons.

and when i talk of gangs, i am talking not of loose affiliations but the organised sort that sprang up in eg the california prison system. prison gangs only form under very specific circumstances and two of the key ingredients are an inability to track an individual's reputation due to overcrowding and an inability of the system to enforce rules due to overcrowding. a situation we are approaching now.

[EvilPie]

There are currently around 90 lifers who will not be released and will die in prison. The average cost of keeping a lifer in prison is around £200,000 per annum, though government figures say it is much lower – they do not take into account the cost of the free rental space of the cell – heating and water – free food – free television – free Wi-Fi – free education – free counselling – free clothing and paying them a wage for making whatever.

So that’s a £18 million a year – which I am sure could be spent on better things. Does somebody like Peter Sutcliffe, deserve such good hospitality.

We are far too lenient IMO – in general with all crime committed – sure there can be exceptional circumstances, for example if I had caught the guys that had stolen my van in the act on my property and beaten them to death – I would expect to be exonerated as I was protecting my property on my property.

We need to bring in stronger tariffs and no parole – you do the crime and serve the time.

And yes there will be miscarriages of justice but that is life.

The problem with the cost argument is that it is based on the assumption that the death penalty would be cheaper.

In practice the average cost of keeping a lifer in prison is the total cost and not the marginal cost of doing so - i.e.you're double, triple, quadruple counting many parts of the cost which would be shared with other prisoners. So the actual cost is less than the headline figure for imprisonment.

On the other side if you had a death sentence every death sentence would be liable to dozens of appeals, and further investigations. Each one of which would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds - in which time you'd still be paying the cost of imprisonment. You might end up saving some money from the cost of imprisonment ending when the appeal process finally finished but it would be far outweighed by the additional costs involved in the failed appeals plus massively outweighed by all the appeals that were successful.

Also not wanting to be mean but the general idea and in particular the idea that a proportionate response to someone stealing your stuff should be to kill them seems awfully ... American; and that's rarely a good example to follow.

Don't think Mikey was planning on wasting money on appeals to be fair.

[EvilPie]

Having served time in my younger years for an offence that I am not sorry for committing – you can’t let people take liberties, I found my time inside to be quite fulfilling – I learnt to play chess, was given an education in some life skills which helped me in later years and still do today.

There was already overcrowding and so called gangs and drugs – even back then. But you make your own decisions as a man.
 
I wasn’t happy to be sent down as I felt that my act had been self-protection – but when sentenced I accepted it – by the second day I had lost any chance of an early release due to a minor scuffle with the so called gangs. You should accept responsibility for your own actions.
 
In my twenties, thirties and forties I use to have mates that were career villains – they excepted that if they robbed a bank and got caught they would do time – if they dealt drugs and got caught they would do time – the guys who dealt in drugs never touched drugs – nobody was in a gang it was just a loose collection of blokes who knew each other.

Most interesting if you asked any of them what they thought of the sentencing in this country they would all say it was too soft and their views on rapists and women beaters and serial murders were that they should be chucked behind bars for life or worse.

I am a strong believer that one has the rights to protect their own property and family within that property if this means someone’s demise so be it.

Interesting to see some people obviously think the likes of Peter Sutclifee should enjoy the rest of his life.

Possibly the stupidest thing you've ever said on this forum.

And it's not without some serious competition.....

[RED-DOG]

Possibly the stupidest thing you've ever said on this forum.

And it's not without some serious competition.....

<3

[mikeymike]

I am entitled to my opinion – whether you like it or not.
Plus Red Dog is correct – no appeal system – the trouble is people are quick to give opinion without in the majority of cases having experienced it.

1.   I have been inside and therefore I have experienced it fact

2.   Instead of saying there should be no death penalty say why you don’t think there should be.

3.   Someone explain the benefits of keeping mass murders locked up for 30 -40 years instead of terminating them.

4.   I have fought for my country, seen mate’s end up with no legs, no arms and other events that I won’t describe. Some of these guys are now in their late fifties and destitute. I would rather support them than keep mass murders in jail.

5.   I respect other people’s right to use free speech and to debate whether they are for and against something that I might strongly disagree with.

6.   Legalising drugs – the vast majority of drug users are not addicts they are recreational users (anybody who has worked in the City will know that) – even out in stickland there are many recreational users. Pharmacists already supply addicts with methadone so why not let them sell drugs such as cocaine and others to the recreational market. Smoking kills more people the drugs.

7.   The bottom line is I am trying to create debate  if the forum doesn’t like it I am sure you can ask Tikay to block my account.

[RED-DOG]

I am entitled to my opinion – whether you like it or not.
Plus Red Dog is correct – no appeal system – the trouble is people are quick to give opinion without in the majority of cases having experienced it.

1.   I have been inside and therefore I have experienced it fact

2.   Instead of saying there should be no death penalty say why you don’t think there should be.

3.   Someone explain the benefits of keeping mass murders locked up for 30 -40 years instead of terminating them.

4.   I have fought for my country, seen mate’s end up with no legs, no arms and other events that I won’t describe. Some of these guys are now in their late fifties and destitute. I would rather support them than keep mass murders in jail.

5.   I respect other people’s right to use free speech and to debate whether they are for and against something that I might strongly disagree with.

6.   Legalising drugs – the vast majority of drug users are not addicts they are recreational users (anybody who has worked in the City will know that) – even out in stickland there are many recreational users. Pharmacists already supply addicts with methadone so why not let them sell drugs such as cocaine and others to the recreational market. Smoking kills more people the drugs.

7.   The bottom line is I am trying to create debate  if the forum doesn’t like it I am sure you can ask Tikay to block my account.

Why are you assuming that we don't like it?

I do like it. I may not agree with you but I like to debate it.

[RED-DOG]

And of course you are entitled to your opinion, but remember, so is everyone else.

[mikeymike]

If you do not think the death penalty should exist then it is a correct assumption that you agree mass murders should live, you cant have it both ways.

[RED-DOG]

If you do not think the death penalty should exist then it is a correct assumption that you agree mass murders should live, you cant have it both ways.

If you are going to assume what I think then you don't need me to take part.

[RED-DOG]

If you do not think the death penalty should exist then it is a correct assumption that you agree mass murders should live, you cant have it both ways.

If you killed those people who took your van you would be a mass murderer, but you would expect to be acquitted.

How come your own logic doesn't apply to you?

[RED-DOG]

By the way, I come across a bit blunt sometimes when I'm debating. Please don't take offence.

[Longines]

If you do not think the death penalty should exist then it is a correct assumption that you agree mass murders should live, you cant have it both ways.

Hugh Callaghan
Patrick Hill
Gerard Hunter
Richard McIlkenny
William Power
John Walker

You happy for you and your family names to go in the hat mikey?

[mikeymike]

1. Yes I probably would be as the odds of been picked are pretty good.

2. If I had killed the people that stole my van it would have been my right as they had no right to be on my land causing unnecessary danger to my family. If you come onto my property with the intent of doing wrong then be prepared to take the consequences.

[kukushkin88]

1. Yes I probably would be as the odds of been picked are pretty good.

2. If I had killed the people that stole my van it would have been my right as they had no right to be on my land causing unnecessary danger to my family. If you come onto my property with the intent of doing wrong then be prepared to take the consequences.

Is there a threshold where they would escape death? What if they stole a small garden ornament valued at less than £1?

[teddybloat]

6.   Legalising drugs – the vast majority of drug users are not addicts they are recreational users (anybody who has worked in the City will know that) – even out in stickland there are many recreational users. Pharmacists already supply addicts with methadone so why not let them sell drugs such as cocaine and others to the recreational market. Smoking kills more people the drugs.

i would argue for the decriminalisation of all drugs at the user level and for the legalisation of most recreational drugs at supply level [under certain conditions]. but for some drugs the goal is abstinance as their effcts on the user and society are too deleterious to be tolerated.

again would you allow chemists to sell anti-psychotic medication to the general public, or general anesthetics in the supermarket?

by the same principle it would be moronic to open out eg crack cocaine to a wider market.

who would benefit from making crack cheaper and more readily available than it is now? no one in favour of legalising drugs has ever been able to answer that question.