All that shows is how stupid most of the country is. 10 years as an extreme example? Well that's good then - oh, wait, the aforementioned Birmingham Six were only freed after 16 years, the Guildford Four after 15 years, so that's ten innocent lives taken, ignoring the number of innocent individuals who don't make the news. There's no way it can't be seen as inhumane. Murdering somebody is unacceptable in only the most extreme situations like Joe mentioned earlier, otherwise it's brutal, savage and has no place in modern society.
Actually 10 years isn't extreme. There have been a lot of people who have been executed after being convicted over 20 years ago, and some over 30 years ago.
I stand corrected. In which case, not every innocent person convicted will be killed - just most of them.
Make prison somewhere people don't want to go: bring back single cells with just a bed and toilet with 1 hour outdoor time each day. Execute extreme re-offenders: If someone kills, does their time then kills again, get rid of them. They're worthless to a society that's paying to keep them locked up. Embarrassing community payback: Someone burgles a house/attacks someone in the street etc, they must perform community service in bright clothing where everyone can see them such as clearing out drains in all pink. It's all too easy to commit a crime, get a lenient sentence in a nice swanky prison room with XBox's and pool tables with decent meals before being re-released to society with no lessons learned and less care than they had before.
Typical Daily Mail nonsense. Regardless, I'd rather criminals have a comfortable life off the streets. Beats torture and the death penalty for ****'s sake.
I agree with most of that except the killing part. If someone commits murder they should get life without parole at least.
I'm a great believer in humiliation as a deterrant. Young thugs regard a bit of gaol time as a badge of honour...wouldn't do much for your street cred to stand in bright pink overalls with a sign round your neck about your shortcomings. Also means that lads that are just leaving the rails will be put firmly back in place...better than having them mix with real criminals and perhaps get further sucked into crime. My son got picked up by the police when he was found in a bad crowd. Policeman phoned up and said did I want him scared. Yes, I said. He was brought back in a police car with his tail between his legs. No trouble since and he's a great lad.
Criminals should not be comfortable in prison. Prison should be where you get the basics and nothing else. Otherwise how is prison going to act as a deterrent to criminals?
Prison is where you put criminals who are a danger to others, in order to protect society at large from the threat of crime. Prisoners are parolled when they are deemed to no longer be a threat, although I'll grant you the authorities do sometimes get that call wrong. As for punishment, having your freedom taken away is punishment enough for most people. I've been inside a prison once (Pentonville) and trust me, it's not the sort of place I'd ever want to be locked up in. As for the USA, with the death penalty in most states and their notoriously brutal prisons, do they have less crime than us due to the extra deterrent? No, they don't. I do agree that wrong doers should face the consequences of their actions, and anyone committing violent crime should expect to be locked away for a long time. But I don't believe in cruel and unusual punishment.
Well they have a much bigger population than us, so there is going to be more criminals than here isn't there.
I think violent crime, especially in cities, is far more prevalent in the USA than here, though I admit I don't have any figures to back that up. Think you'll find Los Angeles is pretty much the most dangerous city in the developed world though.
Hence why California has by the far the most amount of people on death row. More than double the amount than in the 2nd highest state, Texas.
Well the public in California voted in favour of the death penalty just last month - it would have been scrapped in California had the vote gone against it.
It was close this time, wasn't it? Public opinion is shifting I think. Probably not in Texas, though.
