Crime - part deux.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should crime happen

  • Go on then why not.

  • Yes

  • Stfu sucky

  • Tobes and peej welch couple

  • Suck Roy's tits

Results are only viewable after voting.
Blue Potato said:
In theory, at least, our punitive system is supposed to rehabilitate rather than be a system of revenge.

It's actually not that unusual for family of murder victims to make "no punishment is going to bring them back" statements. Others are angry AF and want revenge... Which they may want it,.but I don't support wasting a hundred grand a year that could be used on other things just to prop up someone's desire for revenge. (Which would probably be cooled off by the time the normal sentence is up anyway).
Click to expand...
That’s not true as it goes, as there is most definitely an element of punishment to jail time, as there should be. Rehabilitation isn’t the sole aim of incarceration. The entire justice system is about justice and a sentence should fit the crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD and Libby
Tobes said:
That’s not true as it goes, as there is most definitely an element of punishment to jail time, as there should be. Rehabilitation isn’t the sole aim of incarceration. The entire justice system is about justice and a sentence should fit the crime.
Click to expand...


But why do we punish? What is the logical reason for punishing?

There are two:
1) to prevent people commiting crimes.
2) to prevent people commiting crimes again.

Ultimately yes, prisons are about punishment. But the punishment is there to lower/prevent crime. We have prisons these days to maintain order, not just for revenge on people for being bad.

I absolutely agree, sentence should fit crime. Stealing a loaf of bread should not be the same as killing your neighbour and ****ing her corpse, or pounding her car.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be prisons, I'm saying this call every few years for longer and longer sentences is self-defeating and had been proved over and over again all over the world to not be effective in lowering crime. There is actual data that it doesn't.

If you get five years, or fifteen years in jail for beating someone badly, at that point there is a diminishing set of returns on preventing crime. Same with murder, I can't imagine many people would say "20 years in jail isn't so bad. I'll kill this guy." But then reconsider for thirty years.

Incidentally as an interesting aside... prisons, AS a punishment, is actually a fairly recent phenomenon before the late 1700's prisons were where you kept people before you decided how to punish them. Prisons weren't actually built with the intention of keeping people locked up as a punishment originally. It's where you kept people before putting them in the stocks, or hanging them, etc.
 
Blue Potato said:
But why do we punish? What is the logical reason for punishing?

There are two:
1) to prevent people commiting crimes.
2) to prevent people commiting crimes again.

Ultimately yes, prisons are about punishment. But the punishment is there to lower/prevent crime. We have prisons these days to maintain order, not just for revenge on people for being bad.

I absolutely agree, sentence should fit crime. Stealing a loaf of bread should not be the same as killing your neighbour and ****ing her corpse, or pounding her car.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be prisons, I'm saying this call every few years for longer and longer sentences is self-defeating and had been proved over and over again all over the world to not be effective in lowering crime. There is actual data that it doesn't.

If you get five years, or fifteen years in jail for beating someone badly, at that point there is a diminishing set of returns on preventing crime. Same with murder, I can't imagine many people would say "20 years in jail isn't so bad. I'll kill this guy." But then reconsider for thirty years.

Incidentally as an interesting aside... prisons, AS a punishment, is actually a fairly recent phenomenon before the late 1700's prisons were where you kept people before you decided how to punish them. Prisons weren't actually built with the intention of keeping people locked up as a punishment originally. It's where you kept people before putting them in the stocks, or hanging them, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree that longer sentences largely don’t affect actual crime figures, but equally there are plenty of cases were the sentencing is pathetic imo. Moving away from sensational incidents but crimes like assaulting an emergency worker for example, which imo is not punished stringently enough, as it’s an offence that is carried out by those who have zero respect for authority and the society that they inhabit.

The issue of rehabilitation is a completely separate discussion imo, as there’s plenty of evidence from elsewhere that quality rehabilitation can really work and reduce reoffending rates dramatically when done well. We won’t pay for sufficient coppers and court time though so rehab is also currently massively under funded. The idea that getting tough on crime is just longer sentencing is for the birds, and is nothing but binary nonsense. Sentence lengths mean little if you’re not arresting or charging these criminals in the first place due to lack of resource.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milk.. and PleaseNotPoll
Tobes said:
I agree that longer sentences largely don’t affect actual crime figures, but equally there are plenty of cases were the sentencing is pathetic imo. Moving away from sensational incidents but crimes like assaulting an emergency worker for example, which imo is not punished stringently enough, as it’s an offence that is carried out by those who have zero respect for authority and the society that they inhabit.

The issue of rehabilitation is a completely separate discussion imo, as there’s plenty of evidence from elsewhere that quality rehabilitation can really work and reduce reoffending rates dramatically when done well. We won’t pay for sufficient coppers and court time though so rehab is also currently massively under funded. The idea that getting tough on crime is just longer sentencing is for the birds, and is nothing but binary nonsense. Sentence lengths mean little if you’re not arresting or charging these criminals in the first place due to lack of resource.
Click to expand...

I believe I can agree with all that. <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes
West WindsR said:
I read as part of Oscar Pistorius’ sentence/early release he has to sit down with his bird’s parents (insert leg amputation/not like he can stand up joke) which apparently is standard in South Africa and seems a fair part of the rehabilitation / giving relatives closure process.
Click to expand...

I would try to kill the ****

That would give me closure but not make up for the loss of a daughter
 
Last edited:
Man took his shoe off to hit the bus.<rofl>
You must log in or register to see media
All need a slap, with a shoe<laugh>
 
Treble said:
He didn't fire the gun according to him.
Click to expand...

Yeah I read that yesterday, I think it was in the Guardian, repeating something that was said during some TV interview.

Claimed it wasn't him that fired the gun, I was like wtf, so what did happen?

Although it appears he said 'he didn't pull the trigger' so is this some sort of play on words...

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...ys-he-didnt-pull-the-trigger-in-rust-shooting

Sounds like another OJ Simpson style trial coming up, does the glove fit. <whistle>

You must log in or register to see media
 
I thought the original story was that he was handed the gun by one of the crew but they never bothered to check the chamber before handing it over to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back