Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Goldhawk-Road]

You would also need to employ somebody to carry out this work - an official state executioner. Would you do this job ? If not then don't ask anyone else to do it. You are also asking that people work on a jury and pronounce a guilty verdict knowing what the result will be. Evidence from the USA has shown that juries are slightly less likely to reach a guilty verdict if the death penalty is a possibility. This leads to a situation where more guilty people actually go free. The question of whether it is an effective deterrent - it would be for you and me, but then we are not murderers or terrorists. There is no logic in thinking that it would be a deterrent for a suicide killer. In cases where the death penalty is possible it may even make arrests more difficult, and would, inevitably, lead to having an armed police force.

Would I have a problem in pulling the lever on someone who had, with premeditation, raped and strangled a little girl? If there is irrefutable evidence, no problem whatsoever.

The jury reluctance applies to cases where there is only circumstantial evidence. I don't think these are fit for the death penalty anyway. It does mean, I accept, that the number of cases for the death penalty will be small, but it will still act as a deterrent imo.

I'm certainly not saying it's a deterrent in every case. But it would be in some, and that would save innocent lives

We had the death penalty until the mid 1960's without an armed police force. I don't see that would change. An offender doesn't know whether or not his case would be seen as fit for the death penalty. As I say, most cases would not. And of course, armed police are used now to arrest dangerous offenders. Those that went in for Dale Cregan were carrying more than truncheons

 

[Uber_Hoop]

In answer to your first question - a person who knows that a death penalty is waiting for them is going to use all the powers at their disposal to resist arrest, knowing that additional murders can no longer have any further consequences. This is why it would lead to a fully armed police force. You say that 'you would do it' - so you say that you would be prepared to be a professional executioner ie. to kill those who your government has decided deserve to die (not those who you personally want to kill) - it would just be your job, and somebody else would decide the victims, not you yourself.

Odie, your totalitarian mindset can’t get past the fact that it’s not the government that chooses who’d go to the gallows. It’s a proper legal process, evidence, jury, defence, appeal and all points in between. Any government should be nowhere near the execution (deliberate) of such things.

Yes, I would be prepared to execute those that have passed through such a process and sentenced accordingly.

I’m sure you’re correct that certain criminal types would be hardened to the law, but they’re already right here and among us. Personally, I’d like them got rid of, not locked up for 20 years before some Namby takes pity on their physical or mental health and determines to set them free. There’s no such opportunity for their victims.

 

[colognehornet]

Would I have a problem in pulling the lever on someone who had, with premeditation, raped and strangled a little girl? If there is irrefutable evidence, no problem whatsoever.

The jury reluctance applies to cases where there is only circumstantial evidence. I don't think these are fit for the death penalty anyway. It does mean, I accept, that the number of cases for the death penalty will be small, but it will still act as a deterrent imo.

I'm certainly not saying it's a deterrent in every case. But it would be in some, and that would save innocent lives

We had the death penalty until the mid 1960's without an armed police force. I don't see that would change. An offender doesn't know whether or not his case would be seen as fit for the death penalty. As I say, most cases would not.

We are not only talking about people who strangle little girls Goldie - we are talking about anyone who your government has said deserves to die. As the public executioner you have no say in the matter. You have it in your appointment book that eg. Fred Smith should be dispatched into the next World at 10.00 and that is the end of the story - you do not know him, and have nothing against him personally. Your only concern is in doing the job - you didn't make the laws, or decide who deserves this and who doesn't - there is no emotion there whatsoever. Do you realize that you have institutionally dehumanized someone in the process, through creating this 'job' ? During World War 2 my father served on a firing squad in North Africa - he didn't know who he was shooting at because the victim was behind a white sheet - in order to pep people up for doing this kind of work they were doped. We know that Montgomery issued 100,000 amphetamine pills prior to El Alamein - my father has since confirmed this. In order to get soldiers into the state of killing strangers for a living we drug them up to the eye balls, discipline them into zombies, and progressively dehumanize them. But this is, at least, against someone who is trying to kill you. But the executioner's job is to dispatch a stranger who is strapped to a chair (or bed or something else) who your government says deserves to die - whether you think he does or not is beside the point. Do you want to create such an institutionalized monster ?

 

[DT’s Socks]

not long enough to be one of mine

Laval, Viking Line and the Limited Right to Strike
Author:
Daniel Ornstein, Herbert Smith
Topics:
Trade unions, Cross border/non-UK employment law
Two European Court of Justice rulings, Viking Line and Laval, have a potentially far-reaching impact on the lawfulness of industrial action in the UK. In both cases, employees sought to strike to protest against plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-paid workers from another. The central legal issue was the tension between the freedoms of movement and establishment (under articles 49 and 43 of EC Treaty) and the lawfulness of industrial action that could limit those freedoms. Daniel Ornstein focuses on three aspects of the rulings. First, they place new limitations on the lawfulness of industrial action. Secondly, where industrial action is potentially incompatible with community law, they require the UK courts to adopt a radically new approach to applications for injunctive relief to prevent industrial action. Thirdly, while on the surface the rulings are limited to where there is an international element involving more than one community member state, the influence of the decisions may nonetheless be far-reaching


Laval
Latvian construction company Laval posted workers to Sweden to work for its Swedish subsidiary, Baltic Bygg. The Swedish construction union sought to persuade the subsidiary to enter into a collective agreement that provided for more favourable terms. When talks broke down, the union blockaded one of Laval's building sites. As a result, the contract that Baltic Bygg was working on was terminated and subsequently Baltic Bygg was declared bankrupt. Laval then began proceedings in Sweden for a declaration that the industrial action was illegal on the grounds that the union was infringing its rights under article 49 of the EC Treaty to freedom of movement (and specifically its rights to provide services in Sweden). The court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).


Viking Line
Viking Line operated a ferry, the Rosella, between Finland and Estonia. The Rosella sailed under the Finnish flag and employed its crew under a collective agreement with the Finnish Seaman's Union (FSU), which meant the crew were paid at Finnish wage levels.
The Rosella was operating at a loss and Viking Line wished to reflag it as an Estonian ship and enter into a collective bargaining agreement with an Estonian union, which would have led to lower wages. The FSU objected to the reflagging and in support the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) asked all affiliated member unions not to negotiate with Viking Line. This prevented Viking Line dealing with the Estonian union. The FSU then gave notice of its intention to start industrial action.
In response, Viking Line agreed not to start reflagging. However, once Estonia became a member of the EU, Viking Line applied to the High Court for an injunction requiring the FSU not to interfere (by taking industrial action) with Viking Line's rights to freedom of establishment (ie the right to reflag the Rosella). The High Court found in Viking Line's favour. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which referred the issue of whether Viking Line could rely on the right to freedom of establishment to challenge the actions taken by a trade union to the ECJ.


Emerging principles
In both cases, the ECJ held that the right to take industrial action is a ''fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of community law''. This might appear a significant pronouncement. However, its significance is undermined by the extent to which the rulings then qualify the right.
The ECJ held that the consequence of recognising that the right to take industrial action has its origins in community law is that the right can only be exercised in a manner that is compatible with that law. The important consequence of this is that the right is fettered in so far as it restricts freedom of movement and freedom of establishment such that where industrial action restricts freedom of movement or establishment, it will only be lawful if it is both justified and proportionate.


Justified and proportionate
The ECJ held in both cases that the issue of whether industrial action is justified and proportionate is a matter for national courts. Nonetheless, it provided guidance as to how to address these issues.
As to justification, the ECJ held that ''the right to take collective action for the protection of workers was a legitimate interest, which in principle justified a restriction of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty''. As to proportionality (only addressed in Viking Line), it was held that national courts should assess whether the union taking industrial action has ''other means at its disposal which were less restrictive of freedom of establishment'' and has ''exhausted those means''.
These requirements impose significant new restrictions on when industrial action is lawful in the UK. For example, the requirement under UK law for lawful industrial action to relate to a trade dispute (defined in s.218 of Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act and interpreted broadly by the courts), appears wider than the requirement from the ECJ that lawful industrial action must protect workers' rights. Where community rights apply, the narrower ECJ test rather than the broader TULR(C)A will apply.
In addition, the guidance that the ECJ has given on proportionality suggests that the lawfulness of industrial action will depend on matters including the steps a union has taken to try to resolve a dispute, the alternatives to taking industrial action and the level of impact that the issues in dispute has on employees - matters that have no bearing on the lawfulness of industrial action under UK domestic law.


A new approach to injunctions
Normally, employers challenge industrial action through seeking an injunction to stop it.
Before Laval and Viking Line, when determining whether to grant an injunction, the UK courts do not need to address the merits of a dispute. Viking Line and Laval radically change this. The need for industrial action to be legitimate and proportionate, together with the ECJ's guidance on these requirements, means that where community rights apply, the UK courts will have to consider the merits and background of a trade dispute, such as whether it would in fact protect workers' rights and the steps taken to resolve the dispute.
Moreover, because the key to obtaining injunctive relief is to persuade the court that there is a serious issue to be tried, employers will not have to show that community law actually applies or that the action proposed by a trade union is in fact unjustified or disproportionate. Rather, if an employer can merely show that there an arguable case that the proposed industrial action will infringe its rights under community law, there will be good prospects of obtaining an injunction.



The far-reaching international element
Although it may appear that the influence of the Viking Line and Laval cases is restricted because it only applies where there is an international element, this may not be the case.
First, Viking Line and Laval confirm that the magnitude of any restriction to the freedom of movement or establishment is irrelevant. This means that an act of a trade union can be challenged by an employer on community law grounds even if it only results in a trifling restriction to free movement or establishment.
Secondly, there is scope for companies to plan their business affairs in a way that enables them to rely on an international element to challenge industrial action.
Thirdly, it is arguable that the ability to invoke community rights only where there is an international element is of itself a restriction of community rights. This is on the grounds that if an employer has lesser protection against industrial action in relation to, say, a move from Manchester to Liverpool than a move from Manchester to Lodz, this of itself operates (albeit indirectly) as a restriction of an employer's freedom of movement and establishment in the UK because the employer is less free to operate in the UK than in Poland.
There are therefore arguable grounds that the rules governing the lawfulness of industrial action should be as set out by Laval and Viking Line, regardless of whether there is a direct international element. Historically, the ECJ has not been sympathetic to such arguments. However, there have been some indications that the ECJ may be increasingly receptive to applying community rights to purely domestic situations.


Conclusion
These two rulings impose substantive new restrictions on the lawfulness of industrial action and require the UK courts to adopt a new approach to the grant of injunctive relief, at least where there is a direct international element. Moreover, they may also apply where there is very little or even no direct international element. There is therefore every reason to conclude that Viking Line and Laval have provided employers with a potent new weapon with which to oppose industrial action.

what’s your views on the book war and peace ?

 

[colognehornet]

Odie, your totalitarian mindset can’t get past the fact that it’s not the government that chooses who’d go to the gallows. It’s a proper legal process, evidence, jury, defence, appeal and all points in between. Any government should be nowhere near the execution (deliberate) of such things.

Yes, I would be prepared to execute those that have passed through such a process and sentenced accordingly.

I’m sure you’re correct that certain criminal types would be hardened to the law, but they’re already right here and among us. Personally, I’d like them got rid of, not locked up for 20 years before some Namby takes pity on their physical or mental health and determines to set them free. There’s no such opportunity for their victims.

It is the government which would choose the range of offences for which the death penalty could come into effect Uber - the dirty work would, I acknowledge be done by others.

 

[DT’s Socks]

I'd bring back the death penalty for certain limited premediiated murders. Examples - Dale Cregan who ambushed and shot two young policewomen. Roy Whiting who murdered Sarah Payne. The only doubt in my mind is level of burden of proof. You would need more than beyond reasonable doubt, if that is possible. It would have to be case certain

I would bring it part in a heartbeat that would solve knife crime overnight
An eye for an eye
Taking a life if proven through a violent act shouldn’t mean a few years and vast amounts of tax payers money

 

[Staines R's]

We are not only talking about people who strangle little girls Goldie - we are talking about anyone who your government has said deserves to die. As the public executioner you have no say in the matter. You have it in your appointment book that eg. Fred Smith should be dispatched into the next World at 10.00 and that is the end of the story - you do not know him, and have nothing against him personally. Your only concern is in doing the job - you didn't make the laws, or decide who deserves this and who doesn't - there is no emotion there whatsoever. Do you realize that you have institutionally dehumanized someone in the process, through creating this 'job' ? During World War 2 my father served on a firing squad in North Africa - he didn't know who he was shooting at because the victim was behind a white sheet - in order to pep people up for doing this kind of work they were doped. We know that Montgomery issued 100,000 amphetamine pills prior to El Alamein - my father has since confirmed this. In order to get soldiers into the state of killing strangers for a living we drug them up to the eye balls, discipline them into zombies, and progressively dehumanize them. But this is, at least, against someone who is trying to kill you. But the executioner's job is to dispatch a stranger who is strapped to a chair (or bed or something else) who your government says deserves to die - whether you think he does or not is beside the point. Do you want to create such an institutionalized monster ?

What’s the pay like ? And do I get days in lieu for bank holidays ?

 

[Uber_Hoop]

It is the government which would choose the range of offences for which the death penalty could come into effect Uber - the dirty work would, I acknowledge be done by others.

You have such a jaundiced view of government, Odie, which I share in part. It's only a matter of time before government gives in to Big Dope and legalises recreational use of a range of dangerous drugs. I won't be surprised to hear that you support such a move.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

We are not only talking about people who strangle little girls Goldie - we are talking about anyone who your government has said deserves to die. As the public executioner you have no say in the matter. You have it in your appointment book that eg. Fred Smith should be dispatched into the next World at 10.00 and that is the end of the story - you do not know him, and have nothing against him personally. Your only concern is in doing the job - you didn't make the laws, or decide who deserves this and who doesn't - there is no emotion there whatsoever. Do you realize that you have institutionally dehumanized someone in the process, through creating this 'job' ? During World War 2 my father served on a firing squad in North Africa - he didn't know who he was shooting at because the victim was behind a white sheet - in order to pep people up for doing this kind of work they were doped. We know that Montgomery issued 100,000 amphetamine pills prior to El Alamein - my father has since confirmed this. In order to get soldiers into the state of killing strangers for a living we drug them up to the eye balls, discipline them into zombies, and progressively dehumanize them. But this is, at least, against someone who is trying to kill you. But the executioner's job is to dispatch a stranger who is strapped to a chair (or bed or something else) who your government says deserves to die - whether you think he does or not is beside the point. Do you want to create such an institutionalized monster ?

One more time. If the death penalty was restored it would be through a democratically elected parliament. Of course, we can blah blah blah about FPTP here if you wish. All the government can do is restore the ultimate penalty for certain types of offences, it cannot impose this sentence on whosoever it chooses - that's the job of the legal system. Even if a jury returns a unanimous guilty verdict on some lowlife for some heinous crime, it is the job of the judge to then determine whether the felon is deserving of the death sentence or not.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

You have such a jaundiced view of government, Odie, which I share in part. It's only a matter of time before government gives in to Big Dope and legalises recreational use of a range of dangerous drugs. I won't be surprised to hear that you support such a move.

I do.

 

[colognehornet]

One more time. If the death penalty was restored it would be through a democratically elected parliament. Of course, we can blah blah blah about FPTP here if you wish. All the government can do is restore the ultimate penalty for certain types of offences, it cannot impose this sentence on whosoever it chooses - that's the job of the legal system. Even if a jury returns a unanimous guilty verdict on some lowlife for some heinous crime, it is the job of the judge to then determine whether the felon is deserving of the death sentence or not.

The judge determines within a range of possible sentences - he determines according to the legal facts of the case and according to legal precedent, not on whether he likes the face of the accused or not. You say that a restoration of the death penalty would be through a democratically elected government - so the sentence would then be dependent on the constellation in the house of commons at the time of the crime, rather than on the crime itself. Under one government it would be ok. but not under the next ? Maybe it would be good to examine why some countries have the death penalty and others don't - but there are none which have abolished it but then gone back. We are not fundamentally disagreeing here Uber, because both of us want to live on safe streets. What is important is the certainty of punishment, and not the severity of it. It makes absolutely no difference what sentences you have if you only have a police clear up rate of 20% or so. We also need to make sure that our prisons actually fulfill their function of returning people back to society in a reformed way, and through then being able to rehabilitate ex cons back into society. What is especially problematic in the UK. is the rate of recidivism, which is much higher than in many other countries.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

We are not only talking about people who strangle little girls Goldie - we are talking about anyone who your government has said deserves to die. As the public executioner you have no say in the matter. You have it in your appointment book that eg. Fred Smith should be dispatched into the next World at 10.00 and that is the end of the story - you do not know him, and have nothing against him personally. Your only concern is in doing the job - you didn't make the laws, or decide who deserves this and who doesn't - there is no emotion there whatsoever. Do you realize that you have institutionally dehumanized someone in the process, through creating this 'job' ? During World War 2 my father served on a firing squad in North Africa - he didn't know who he was shooting at because the victim was behind a white sheet - in order to pep people up for doing this kind of work they were doped. We know that Montgomery issued 100,000 amphetamine pills prior to El Alamein - my father has since confirmed this. In order to get soldiers into the state of killing strangers for a living we drug them up to the eye balls, discipline them into zombies, and progressively dehumanize them. But this is, at least, against someone who is trying to kill you. But the executioner's job is to dispatch a stranger who is strapped to a chair (or bed or something else) who your government says deserves to die - whether you think he does or not is beside the point. Do you want to create such an institutionalized monster ?

It's not government that makes the decision - parliament legislates to give courts the option. And as I say, there would have to be a higher burden of proof for the death penalty.

Some people are suited to the work. Some wouldn't want to work in an abattoir Some are fine with it. Murderers get lethal injections in the US. I've never heard it made monsters of those giving the injection.

 

[kiwiqpr]

what’s your views on the book war and peace ?

Not read it
Is it any good
No ones forced me to read it yet

 

[Uber_Hoop]

The judge determines within a range of possible sentences - he determines according to the legal facts of the case and according to legal precedent, not on whether he likes the face of the accused or not.

Far more eloquently put than my lazy description, but what I meant (as I suspect you know)

You say that a restoration of the death penalty would be through a democratically elected government - so the sentence would then be dependent on the constellation in the house of commons at the time of the crime, rather than on the crime itself. Under one government it would be ok. but not under the next ?

The death penalty is a serious thing and shouldn't be introduced nor applied lightly. As we both know, it will never happen. The House would never agree to it and (I suspect) public opposition, though possibly not a majority position, would be vocal. Perhaps we should have a referendum on it?

As for your Government du Jour point, that's the nature of things - one government introduces legislation, the next one repeals it. One government might take the country to war, another may have immediately sued for peace. If your argument is that a 100% guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt) piece of multiple child-murdering sputum (as an example) might swing under one government, but rot in prison (or be released after X number of years) under another then, yes, that's always a possibility. Is that harsh on the sputum that hangs? Not in my view... it's lenient on those that don't.

Maybe it would be good to examine why some countries have the death penalty and others don't - but there are none which have abolished it but then gone back.

Fair point - I wonder what the relevant crime rates and prison populations are for those countries? Would politicians even admit they'd got it wrong?

We are not fundamentally disagreeing here Uber, because both of us want to live on safe streets. What is important is the certainty of punishment, and not the severity of it. It makes absolutely no difference what sentences you have if you only have a police clear up rate of 20% or so. We also need to make sure that our prisons actually fulfil their function of returning people back to society in a reformed way, and through then being able to rehabilitate ex cons back into society. What is especially problematic in the UK. is the rate of recidivism, which is much higher than in many other countries.

Hmmm, difficult one for me. I would have a huge problem returning certain criminals back into society - Kenneth Noye is a recent example.

Is it the prisons' sole function to "return people back to society in a reformed way"? Not all rehabilitation, surely? Punishment too? What if someone is beyond rehabilitation, or the severity of their crime is just too gruesome to ignore?

I not only want to be safe on the streets, I want to ensure that those people that don't make the streets safe (in the most heinous way) are never given the chance to return to them.

An interesting point here: I understand the reluctance to send an innocent person to the gallows, but what about taking the risk of returning a dangerous crim to society? How often have we heard about serious crimes being perpetrated by individuals given early release from the slammer despite the severity of their original offence? That's a big risk too, innit?

 

[Uber_Hoop]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[colognehornet]

Far more eloquently put than my lazy description, but what I meant (as I suspect you know)



The death penalty is a serious thing and shouldn't be introduced nor applied lightly. As we both know, it will never happen. The House would never agree to it and (I suspect) public opposition, though possibly not a majority position, would be vocal. Perhaps we should have a referendum on it?

As for your Government du Jour point, that's the nature of things - one government introduces legislation, the next one repeals it. One government might take the country to war, another may have immediately sued for peace. If your argument is that a 100% guilty (beyond all reasonable doubt) piece of multiple child-murdering sputum (as an example) might swing under one government, but rot in prison (or be released after X number of years) under another then, yes, that's always a possibility. Is that harsh on the sputum that hangs? Not in my view... it's lenient on those that don't.



Fair point - I wonder what the relevant crime rates and prison populations are for those countries? Would politicians even admit they'd got it wrong?



Hmmm, difficult one for me. I would have a huge problem returning certain criminals back into society - Kenneth Noye is a recent example.

Is it the prisons' sole function to "return people back to society in a reformed way"? Not all rehabilitation, surely? Punishment too? What if someone is beyond rehabilitation, or the severity of their crime is just too gruesome to ignore?

I not only want to be safe on the streets, I want to ensure that those people that don't make the streets safe (in the most heinous way) are never given the chance to return to them.

An interesting point here: I understand the reluctance to send an innocent person to the gallows, but what about taking the risk of returning a dangerous crim to society? How often have we heard about serious crimes being perpetrated by individuals given early release from the slammer despite the severity of their original offence? That's a big risk too, innit?

I would say that prisons have two functions - the rehabilitation function, and separating dangerous people from society for as long as they are dangerous. As for punishment - the taking away of liberty is enough in itself, we don't need chain gangs as well. With all due respect the majority of people in prison are not dangerous, not beyond redemption, and will return one day to the World outside mostly still of working age. If they are returning to the same conditions they left, and have additional problems gaining meaningfull employment, then all the conditions are there for a return to their criminal ways. Such a vast number of prisoners are short term ones and a year's imprisonment is not enough time to reform someone, yet is long enough to ruin their life - in that they have probably lost homes, jobs, partners in the meantime. We have to find alternatives for these short term sentences so that prisons can concentrate upon the hard cases. I wouldn't say that it is the sole function to ''return people back to society in a reformed way'' - but it is the main one for most prisoners. We have to ask why so many ex cons return to prison within a year of having left - we can only presume that the time spent there was wasted.

 

[DT’s Socks]

Not read it
Is it any good
No ones forced me to read it yet

That’s a coincidence I haven’t been forced to read anything either

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Govt to table a motion for a GE on Monday

12 December

 

[kiwiqpr]

I would say that prisons have two functions - the rehabilitation function, and separating dangerous people from society for as long as they are dangerous. As for punishment - the taking away of liberty is enough in itself, we don't need chain gangs as well. With all due respect the majority of people in prison are not dangerous, not beyond redemption, and will return one day to the World outside mostly still of working age. If they are returning to the same conditions they left, and have additional problems gaining meaningfull employment, then all the conditions are there for a return to their criminal ways. Such a vast number of prisoners are short term ones and a year's imprisonment is not enough time to reform someone, yet is long enough to ruin their life - in that they have probably lost homes, jobs, partners in the meantime. We have to find alternatives for these short term sentences so that prisons can concentrate upon the hard cases. I wouldn't say that it is the sole function to ''return people back to society in a reformed way'' - but it is the main one for most prisoners. We have to ask why so many ex cons return to prison within a year of having left - we can only presume that the time spent there was wasted.

at least they might learn a useful skill working in a chain gang

 

[bobmid]

I would say that prisons have two functions - the rehabilitation function, and separating dangerous people from society for as long as they are dangerous. As for punishment - the taking away of liberty is enough in itself, we don't need chain gangs as well. With all due respect the majority of people in prison are not dangerous, not beyond redemption, and will return one day to the World outside mostly still of working age. If they are returning to the same conditions they left, and have additional problems gaining meaningfull employment, then all the conditions are there for a return to their criminal ways. Such a vast number of prisoners are short term ones and a year's imprisonment is not enough time to reform someone, yet is long enough to ruin their life - in that they have probably lost homes, jobs, partners in the meantime. We have to find alternatives for these short term sentences so that prisons can concentrate upon the hard cases. I wouldn't say that it is the sole function to ''return people back to society in a reformed way'' - but it is the main one for most prisoners. We have to ask why so many ex cons return to prison within a year of having left - we can only presume that the time spent there was wasted.

The majority of people in prisons are drug addicts. Rehabilitation is non existent, it's just a means to an end.