Harmless 39 year old alcoholic woman tortured and beaten to death by girls aged 13 and 14.

In these cases the parents should be punished just as much as the children. 9/10 cases people become killers from their upbringing.

A twelve year old boy in my daughter's school was stabbed several times and died just before Christmas by a kid in the year above. Just left to bleed to death on a street corner. Just total madness.
 
This case was 6 years ago. Now High court order protects their identities for life. Other than that it is done and over. Think this is spiralling into dealing with mental health issues and social issues as well as the capital punishment debates.
To be fair anyone in the state of indulging in the pain and torture and ultimate death of another person with the inability to understand remorse or empathy etc Is really hardly going to be deterred by a death penalty.
And also of course having a system that can allow people who are pretty high risk into society again is another issue, as we all have a right not to be put in harms way as it were as well.

But I would say this case is done. In the last 6 years there has been plenty similar and even far worse.
 
inogen said:
You don't crack crime.

You have to decide if you're on the side of punishing/deterring crime, or rehabilitating those that commit them. You should do that, with the full knowledge that punishing/attempting to deter crime/meting out "justice" actually causes more of it. ie, who's side are you on? do you want a good outcome for society or do you want to see people get punished?

If killing Breivik makes it more likely someone else will come along and do similar, you're not solving anything at all are you? In fact, you're making it worse.
Click to expand...

Punishment and removal from society is the only acceptable solution if they truly show remorse and want to be rehabilitated then the process can begin.

You have to accept that:

A, not everyone can be rehabilitated
B, keeping dangerous people off the streets reduces crime
C, crimes can and often deserve punishment
D, short sentences benefit nobody
 
The Running Man said:
Punishment and removal from society is the only acceptable solution if they truly show remorse and want to be rehabilitated then the process can begin.

You have to accept that:

A, not everyone can be rehabilitated
B, keeping dangerous people off the streets reduces crime
C, crimes can and often deserve punishment
D, short sentences benefit nobody
Click to expand...

A and B, yes, C and D. Balls.

Having been the victim of a serious violent crime myself, I completely understand the human desire for retribution, but it’s in the real interests of nobody and in our system, just often makes perpetrators more likely to do the same to someone else.

Longer sentences in the current system are just a way of kicking various cans down the road at the taxpayers expense. Which is where your point B also has a caveat to my agreement. Keeping dangerous criminals off the streets only really reduces crime through rehabilitation. If that doesn’t happen, in the long run it increases it. Either that or you lock them up in perpetuity, which again, isn’t really in the best interest of anyone.
 
adam cool dude said:
In these cases the parents should be punished just as much as the children. 9/10 cases people become killers from their upbringing.

A twelve year old boy in my daughter's school was stabbed several times and died just before Christmas by a kid in the year above. Just left to bleed to death on a street corner. Just total madness.
Click to expand...

how does punishing the parents act as a deterrent and make it less likely to happen again?
 
inogen said:
A and B, yes, C and D. Balls.

Having been the victim of a serious violent crime myself, I completely understand the human desire for retribution, but it’s in the real interests of nobody and in our system, just often makes perpetrators more likely to do the same to someone else.

Longer sentences in the current system are just a way of kicking various cans down the road at the taxpayers expense. Which is where your point B also has a caveat to my agreement. Keeping dangerous criminals off the streets only really reduces crime through rehabilitation. If that doesn’t happen, in the long run it increases it. Either that or you lock them up in perpetuity, which again, isn’t really in the best interest of anyone.
Click to expand...

I believe that it is accepted that over 75% of offenders are repeated offenders.

You cannot reoffend against the general public while you are at her majesty's leisure. Therefore the longer a person is in prison the less crimes they can commit outside prison. Its just a fact.

Screenshot-20210206-121529-Chrome.jpg


Id be happy with 3 strikes and you're out as a way of stopping those career offenders.
 
adam cool dude said:
In these cases the parents should be punished just as much as the children. 9/10 cases people become killers from their upbringing.

A twelve year old boy in my daughter's school was stabbed several times and died just before Christmas by a kid in the year above. Just left to bleed to death on a street corner. Just total madness.
Click to expand...

You cannot punish parents for the crimes of their children.

Would you extend that to, say, shoplifting offences?
 
The Running Man said:
You cannot reoffend against the general public while you are at her majesty's leisure. Therefore the longer a person is in prison the less crimes they can commit outside prison. Its just a fact.
Click to expand...

So okay. Say you get burgled. Which one do you want?

1) Burglar gets a 5 year prison sentence. Comes out and burgles you (or your neighbour) within 6 months along with even more as he's now made better contacts to fence his swag.
2) Burglar gets a 2 year rehabilitation sentence. Comes out with a trade and some self respect. Get's proper help and support. Goes onto be a productive member of society.

Which one results in less crimes being committed?

Prisons are a crime incubator, the idea that you're not offending because you're in one is just about as superficial an understanding of them as you can get.

They're useful because they're cheap, compared to proper social interventions and being seen to be being tough on crime (which they're not) by increasing sentences is an easy vote winner.

It's the public that pays the price. It's the law abiding public being punished.
 
Last edited:
Two problems with prison are firstly it costs too much to keep someone locked up and secondly it doesn't act as a deterrent to some people.

It's complete insanity that we are prepared to spend more on some low-life per day than we give to someone disabled and unable to work per week.

If we cut costs then we could afford to keep these people in prison longer.

Back to basics I say!! Have different layers of prisons but the worst crimes get the worst prisons. An people like this sicko pair should never get out. What they did was horrific.
 
I'm all for a points based system where acheiving max points means CAPITAL punishment.

Assign crimes with varying values based on severity and once you've 'totted up' you're gone.
 
pp111 said:
Two problems with prison are firstly it costs too much to keep someone locked up and secondly it doesn't act as a deterrent to some people.

It's complete insanity that we are prepared to spend more on some low-life per day than we give to someone disabled and unable to work per week.

If we cut costs then we could afford to keep these people in prison longer.

Back to basics I say!! Have different layers of prisons but the worst crimes get the worst prisons. An people like this sicko pair should never get out. What they did was horrific.
Click to expand...

Have to say I'm amazed it costs so much to keep someone in a concrete box. We should let Aldi run our prisons
 
d_brennen said:
Have to say I'm amazed it costs so much to keep someone in a concrete box. We should let Aldi run our prisons
Click to expand...

It is incredible. I think it is really time we started to ask whether rehabilitation is actually worth the cost or whether deterrence is more effective. I mean I am sure there are some prisoners who can be rehabilitated, but there are some who just can not, and we can not keep treating them the same as those who can.
 
inogen said:
1) Burglar gets a 5 year prison sentence. Comes out and burgles you (or your neighbour) within 6 months along with even more as he's now made better contacts to fence his swag.
2) Burglar gets a 2 year rehabilitation sentence. Comes out with a trade and some self respect. Get's proper help and support. Goes onto be a productive member of society.
Click to expand...
most burglars don't want to stop because it's easy money.

Source half my friends were robbing houses from the age of 15, after robbing sheds/garages for power tools from the age of like 13

you need to rehabilitate before it's too late, once they are 16 they are pretty much career criminals already.

blame poverty
 
arknor said:
most burglars don't want to stop because it's easy money.

Source half my friends were robbing houses from the age of 15, after robbing sheds/garages for power tools from the age of like 13

you need to rehabilitate before it's too late, once they are 16 they are pretty much career criminals already.

blame poverty
Click to expand...

Firstly, there is no abject poverty in the UK.

There is free education, jobs available and job seekers for those without.

Some people just like the life if crime and an easy way without any thought for others because they are selfish and objectively bad citizens.
 
inogen said:
So okay. Say you get burgled. Which one do you want?

1) Burglar gets a 5 year prison sentence. Comes out and burgles you (or your neighbour) within 6 months along with even more as he's now made better contacts to fence his swag.
2) Burglar gets a 2 year rehabilitation sentence. Comes out with a trade and some self respect. Get's proper help and support. Goes onto be a productive member of society.

Which one results in less crimes being committed?

Prisons are a crime incubator, the idea that you're not offending because you're in one is just about as superficial an understanding of them as you can get.

They're useful because they're cheap, compared to proper social interventions and being seen to be being tough on crime (which they're not) by increasing sentences is an easy vote winner.

It's the public that pays the price. It's the law abiding public being punished.
Click to expand...

1, 5 years of no crime. Not bad, if he does it twice more he will never rob anyone again.

2, if he really wanted a career he could have gotten one without being a burglar first. I personally wouldn't want an ex con working in my house 'rehabilitated ' or not.

The only burglars that get sent to prison are already hard-core. They are not first time shoplifters.


Screenshot-20210206-145334-Chrome.jpg



Screenshot-20210206-145406-Chrome.jpg



Rehabilitate that
 
Last edited:
The Running Man said:
Firstly, there is no abject poverty in the UK.

There is free education, jobs available and job seekers for those without.

Some people just like the life if crime and an easy way without any thought for others because they are selfish and objectively bad citizens.
Click to expand...
are you serious? there was poverty when I was growing up you just don't see it from your posh suburban home.....

there was my school so don't talk about free education like it's a god given right in this country.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/may/10/features11.g2
as it says one of the science blocks didn't even have RUNNING WATER....... clumps falling from the ceiling.... look at the GSCE rate...

people are FAILED by the government just because you didn''t see it doesn't mean it's not there...........
Lyons noted, 'the school fails to provide a continuous learning experience to pupils in a manner that enables them to have a full access to their legal entitlement, the national curriculum.' Lyons observed that the number of pupils achieving 5 A-C grade passes in GCSEs was only 8% (the national average is 41%); a quarter of the pupils were leaving without any qualifications. He pointed to poor attendance among the pupils; he alluded to staff absenteeisM, a high exclusion rate, poor discipline, emotionally troubled pupils and a low level of parental interest in school affairs. The school was failing.
Click to expand...
....... don't tell me it's not the schools fault..... it's the PARENTS!!! omg... yes sir your right

ooh look 2011 long after I left seems the school didn't get better in 11 years lol...
Last summer, only 5 per cent of pupils taking GCSEs got five or more grades A to C,
Click to expand...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s/is-reincarnation-the-way-to-go-1076623.html
they reopened the school under a new name to try and throw off the bad reputation it had... as well


3rd world countries give a better education than I received even with their ABJECT POVERTY
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom