We should just chuck em all on an island and let them get on with it.
They'd end up with a better country.

We should just chuck em all on an island and let them get on with it.
We should just chuck em all on an island and let them get on with it.
We should just chuck em all on an island and let them get on with it.
Why has the "SEND THEM BACK" mentality had a resurgance here? I thought that was what people worked to remove over the past few years?
But can you EVER have 100% evidence? I don't think so, which is why so many people are against it, because really you can never 100% prove something :/
I think it should at least be discussed in the House of Commons/Lords though.
we're in a day and age that science has advance so far that no one can be wrongly accused of a crime
Of course you can have 100% assurance the person you're putting to death is guilty.
DNA matches are so accurate they're in the region of 1 in a billionth that it isn't a match. Video surveillance is also going to be used if it was able to capture whatever crime it was.
If you're talking about cases we see in the paper where someone is released 25 years later after being falsely imprisoned, you'll find that it's due to new technologies we have to be able to narrow down to the right guy.
We're not quite at the level of "Minority Report" but you can convict with certainty nowadays.
Again, wrong.
we in a day and age that. science has advance so far. that no one can be wrongly accused of a crime. with all this dna testing etc.(light)
I believe that life should mean life. Not 25 years or so and then out in half the time for good behaviour.
[TW]Fox;13458150 said:So assuming you did that where is the incentive not to, I dunno, beat the crap out of wardens etc? Being let out early for good behaviour is what maintains order in most prisons.
[TW]Fox;13458150 said:So assuming you did that where is the incentive not to, I dunno, beat the crap out of wardens etc? Being let out early for good behaviour is what maintains order in most prisons.
I believe that different crimes do deserve different levels of prison. Someone in prison for a more minor crime should be allowed more luxuries than someone who has murdered.
Although, brand name shampoo and playstations are out of the question.
I don't think anyone's saying that every crime has a 100% chance of being correnctly solved. But for the ones, such as what I said earlier, where there really is no doubt about it, then the death penatly should be available.
Fear would need to be the incentive. You start a fight with the wardens, expect to be in a chair for a few months.
I disagree, prison should be prison regardless. Like out of Shaw shank redemption. But they should get education and qualifications if they want it.
But that doesn't work either. You can't apply the death penalty in that way.