Thanks, OFH, Brian & Dave for helping me settle an argument, I was really upset when they changed to the pink sheet of paper. I wanted to get a thick one like my Dad (don't you get some daft ambitions when you're younger.
Cologne, I was grown up when this happened, it was an event that totally shocked the country, three unarmed police officers doing their job trying to keep it safe for the likes of you and I were brutally murdered. Two shot and one repeatedly run over by the van. He gave no thoughts for the rights of those men, at his trial he showed contempt and at no time showed remorse. I do agree as a civilised society people should not be held in prisons until they die but I feel he should at least show some public form of honest remorse either by public statement or interview. What about Brady and Hindley, She died never revealing where one of the children's body is buried of the 5 they sexually assaulted and murdered, Brady even used the information as a bartering tool to try to get released. The body still has not been recovered. Brady is in Ashworth Hospital but as he is over 70 in your eyes should he not be sent to a normal Mental Hospital?
As this happened before I was born, I can't make any further comment than that I feel that if, as has been reported, he still shows no signs of remorse he should not be released.
Charlie, we are not disagreeing over this. The main function of prison is to segregate off people who are dangerous to society - as long as they are still dangerous then they should be kept there. However, if that is not the case, through either remorse, changed character or incapacity then to keep them lingering there until death because we want to punish them is not fitting to a civilized country. To send someone away for life (and to mean it as life) means someone growing old and infirm, and then dying in captivity. Prison is not just about deterent but also about reforming people - and life imprisonment has been abolished in many countries for this reason ie. by definition it rules out the possibility of reform and rehabilitation. Every case is different Charlie and the ones you have quoted are extreme cases which do not prove the rule.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 Gascoigne in the news again - he must surely be approaching the bottom of his downhill slide?
Hi Cologne, I agree with you that no person should ever be sent to prison without the hope of one day being freed. Likewise no person in prison should expect parole without earning it. I just wonder if Roberts did earn it or the 'do gooders' won the day. I quoted the Moors Murderers as an example that even a civilised society may have to keep some people in prison until they die.
FA Cup 4th qualifying round today - Hemel, St Albans and Boreham Wood are all 90 minutes away from a tie against a league side.
I am afraid I do not agree. I believe prison should be partly for "revenge" I am not saying that in all cases of murder the punishment should be "life" - there may be some cases where there are extenuating circumstances and the judge will take these into account when passing sentence. However there are also many cases where a person has committed murder without caring about their victim. How does a civilised society compensate someone who is denied a life of their own and how are their family and friends compensated? If you take a life you forfeit your own - but as I do not believe in "state murder" - i.e capital punishment then I settle for the fact that the murderer is given an equivalent punishment to that he gave his victim. I do not care how remorseful he feels later in life - he is at least given the luxury of having a life to live - albeit in a cage - he did not give that opportunity to his victim. Maybe if he shows genuine remorse and becomes a decent prison citizen he gets to have a few luxuries like access to TV - but to walk the streets again as a free man - definitely not. For me a civilised society balances the rights of victims and perpetrators.
Leo I don't disagree with you that those who commit crimes should be punished, also I agree that those who commit murder should be given life and serve life, but without the hope of parole as an incentive for a prisoner what do you suggest is done to keep him/her in control. Lock them in solitary 24 hours a day? Beat them if they are naughty? Or perhaps withold food unti a prisoner does what he is told to do.
I am not sure that the hope of parole some years off makes any difference to behaviour. I am not in favour of any of those punishments - in prison there are privileges or boring days - if a lifer behaves and is able to to spend their time doing work ( I assume mailbags is no longer an occupation) for which they get a small payment to buy themselves things and so on then that should be preferable to them - they effectively live a life inside a prison's walls. The punishment is loss of freedom.
I can see two sides to this debate. Keep someone in prison long enough and they become institutionalized and when released cannot cope, and will try to find a way to get put away again. This is a failure of the system, rather like the old debtors prison where you stayed until you could repay your debts. At the same time the families of victims really do not want to think that a wrong doer will ever see the light of day again. My belief is that prisoners need for their own rehabilitation be made to do meaningful activities to repay society. I would want to see community work five or six days a week under strict supervision, with the prisoner returned to his cell each evening. I think that this could be painful as they would be reminded what freedom is, but be denied it. At the same time families would at least understand that the offender is not shut away with his TV and computer, but being led towards a work culture that would be of use if ever released.
