|
Post by musik on Oct 25, 2018 22:32:04 GMT
With additional torture for bad behaviour. Before and/or after death?
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 25, 2018 22:42:12 GMT
When I was growing up and in Sweden we had somewhere between 8.5 to 9.0 million people, some person in a tv studio discussing demographics, the laws and so on during a debate had made a prediction, saying: If we applied the dealth penalty without distinction, to every commited crime, there would only be 176.000 people left, still alive.
🤣
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 22:45:33 GMT
The nature of rehabilitation and restorative justice is one of turning a blind eye to crimes and violence towards the self and ones individual rights. If persons aren't able to arm themselves for defence and take appropriate action to protect their safety, what is the necessary cause for a government to keep the interests of the violater, and their future wellbeing and prospects in mind at the cost of the taxpayer? It's a nonsense. The role of justice for offences in the serious nature as I've outlined above should be punishment, not an expensive Clockwork orange style, see the best in people. It's how society degrades, Britain hasn't had a handle on punishment since arguably the 50's. And now we're at a time in society where Terrorists boldly wander the streets, comments on the internet or imprisonable and top priority but old ladies can get kicked in on their doorstep by thugs who have no fear of their crime because worst case scenario its a slap on the wrist and a £200 fine (if they're ever caught). The point is to try to rehabilitate people to be civilised and real help to society. Most criminals aren't that way in nature for want, it's out of necessity or environment they're brought up in. The issue isn't the idea of rehabilitating, it's the execution (mind the pun). Prisons are overcrowded, rife with crime and generally shit and not conducive of rehabilitation of criminals. If there aren't serious (here meaning forfeiting your own right to life) consequences for breaking social contracts and invading others self then people have license to act how they please. So normatively speaking; the huge majority of people I know who have been sent down fucking love prison. The chance and circumstance of a serious offender might go some way to explain why they have acted the way they have, but it does not excuse their actions. It's exactly this apologism that dilutes and dilutes the power of the courts and therefore emboldens criminals' activity. (Not that I'm accusing you personally) You're right prisons are overcrowded! They wouldn't be if the death penalty were active for serious crimes, it would deterrent as a dterrent and free up resources for rehabillitation for minor crimes. Bear in mind the parameters on which I proposed the death penalty, I'd be interested to hear if and why you'd disagree: Returning ISIS fighters should be tried for high treason and put to death.
"British" Isis fighters should be hunted down and disposed of.
Wouldn't oppose it for active-paedos, rapists, sex offenders or murderers.I'd ask you this though, 1. Are these people really capable of being 'real help' to society? 2. Do they deserve the opportunity to breathe after their actions? One really odd theory I studied for postgrad was the idea of community rehab, It was a really odd blend of marxist restorative justice and fringe libertarian anti-state spending. It involved all persons in a community who are involved and are family with the victim, meeting the person who for example, murdered their son, they then take on the task of rebuilding and 'helping' as it were. (I can look this up for you if you're interested) I personally think it's a serious load of old cack, but at least that way, people who think in that way of helping serious offenders, put the burden on those that want to help instead of making it an issue for the tax payer. Speaking normatively again, as somebody mentioned above, why the fuck are we busting our guts at work to keep Lee Rigby's killer with hot foot in his belly and nice new teeth in his skull...
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 25, 2018 23:09:52 GMT
Are these people really capable of being 'real help' to society? To me it's not even a question. Why should criminals get a second and a third and fourth chance ... when their victims didn't even get their first? Contemplate on that. And the constant talk about their upbringing. Well, those people argueing about that, they should ask themselves: why aren't every poor person from the same neighbourhood a criminal? So yes, I agree with you, but at the same time, I'm not for the death penalty. There was a time in my life when I definitely wanted the death penalty for every crime there is. But I've changed my mind. Prisons would do. Science have showed criminal brains aren't looking the same as non-criminals brains do. And it's very difficult to change that. Society has to protect the non-criminals. Forever.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 25, 2018 23:10:35 GMT
Not death, just full sentence to be served in solitary. That would be worse.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 25, 2018 23:12:30 GMT
Add 'outbidding people on eBay' to the list. Pure evil.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 23:14:00 GMT
[/quote]
And the constant talk about their upbringing. Well, those people argueing about that, they should ask themselves: why aren't every poor person from the same neighbourhood a criminal? [/quote]
This is an excellent point. Very well put.
I'm confused as to why you're not then for the death penalty though?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 23:14:14 GMT
The point is to try to rehabilitate people to be civilised and real help to society. Most criminals aren't that way in nature for want, it's out of necessity or environment they're brought up in. The issue isn't the idea of rehabilitating, it's the execution (mind the pun). Prisons are overcrowded, rife with crime and generally shit and not conducive of rehabilitation of criminals. If there aren't serious (here meaning forfeiting your own right to life) consequences for breaking social contracts and invading others self then people have license to act how they please. So normatively speaking; the huge majority of people I know who have been sent down fucking love prison. The chance and circumstance of a serious offender might go some way to explain why they have acted the way they have, but it does not excuse their actions. It's exactly this apologism that dilutes and dilutes the power of the courts and therefore emboldens criminals' activity. (Not that I'm accusing you personally) You're right prisons are overcrowded! They wouldn't be if the death penalty were active for serious crimes, it would deterrent as a dterrent and free up resources for rehabillitation for minor crimes. Bear in mind the parameters on which I proposed the death penalty, I'd be interested to hear if and why you'd disagree: Returning ISIS fighters should be tried for high treason and put to death.
"British" Isis fighters should be hunted down and disposed of.
Wouldn't oppose it for active-paedos, rapists, sex offenders or murderers.I'd ask you this though, 1. Are these people really capable of being 'real help' to society? 2. Do they deserve the opportunity to breathe after their actions? One really odd theory I studied for postgrad was the idea of community rehab, It was a really odd blend of marxist restorative justice and fringe libertarian anti-state spending. It involved all persons in a community who are involved and are family with the victim, meeting the person who for example, murdered their son, they then take on the task of rebuilding and 'helping' as it were. (I can look this up for you if you're interested) I personally think it's a serious load of old cack, but at least that way, people who think in that way of helping serious offenders, put the burden on those that want to help instead of making it an issue for the tax payer. Speaking normatively again, as somebody mentioned above, why the fuck are we busting our guts at work to keep Lee Rigby's killer with hot foot in his belly and nice new teeth in his skull... On those 3 in bold: Returning ISIS fighters and British ISIS fighters are a product of brainwashing and should be helped to snap out of it so to speak. Easier said than done, but people don't deserve to die because they got caught up in a wrong ideology, no doubt whilst vulnerable. For those, again I think you'd see rates of people reporting those crimes plummet with a death sentence. Also, murdering doesn't stop others committing murder, you're already signing your life away by being forced to spend it in prison. What needs to be done is more to find the root of why people commit these crimes, and doing what can be done to keep it happening again, both in their case and in others. Killing people literally solves nothing, other than 'we can't be arsed spending the money so shoot them'. I don't think at any point you should have state-sanctioned murder, because death is final, and no court is ever 100% certain.
|
|
|
Post by marylandstoke on Oct 25, 2018 23:21:46 GMT
If anyone actually wants to take the time Tim Junkin’s book Bloodsworth is one of the greatest books I have had the privilege. Do not imagine this book is in anyway dry. It’s an absolute page turner. I discovered it by accident in the Md library system (Mr Bloodsworth is a Maryland native) The death penalty is an easy “James Whale” method of starting something isn’t it? Read this and imagine it was you or yours.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 23:21:52 GMT
If there aren't serious (here meaning forfeiting your own right to life) consequences for breaking social contracts and invading others self then people have license to act how they please. So normatively speaking; the huge majority of people I know who have been sent down fucking love prison. The chance and circumstance of a serious offender might go some way to explain why they have acted the way they have, but it does not excuse their actions. It's exactly this apologism that dilutes and dilutes the power of the courts and therefore emboldens criminals' activity. (Not that I'm accusing you personally) You're right prisons are overcrowded! They wouldn't be if the death penalty were active for serious crimes, it would deterrent as a dterrent and free up resources for rehabillitation for minor crimes. Bear in mind the parameters on which I proposed the death penalty, I'd be interested to hear if and why you'd disagree: Returning ISIS fighters should be tried for high treason and put to death.
"British" Isis fighters should be hunted down and disposed of.
Wouldn't oppose it for active-paedos, rapists, sex offenders or murderers.I'd ask you this though, 1. Are these people really capable of being 'real help' to society? 2. Do they deserve the opportunity to breathe after their actions? One really odd theory I studied for postgrad was the idea of community rehab, It was a really odd blend of marxist restorative justice and fringe libertarian anti-state spending. It involved all persons in a community who are involved and are family with the victim, meeting the person who for example, murdered their son, they then take on the task of rebuilding and 'helping' as it were. (I can look this up for you if you're interested) I personally think it's a serious load of old cack, but at least that way, people who think in that way of helping serious offenders, put the burden on those that want to help instead of making it an issue for the tax payer. Speaking normatively again, as somebody mentioned above, why the fuck are we busting our guts at work to keep Lee Rigby's killer with hot foot in his belly and nice new teeth in his skull... On those 3 in bold: Returning ISIS fighters and British ISIS fighters are a product of brainwashing and should be helped to snap out of it so to speak. Easier said than done, but people don't deserve to die because they got caught up in a wrong ideology, no doubt whilst vulnerable. For those, again I think you'd see rates of people reporting those crimes plummet with a death sentence. Also, murdering doesn't stop others committing murder, you're already signing your life away by being forced to spend it in prison. What needs to be done is more to find the root of why people commit these crimes, and doing what can be done to keep it happening again, both in their case and in others. Killing people literally solves nothing, other than 'we can't be arsed spending the money so shoot them'. I don't think at any point you should have state-sanctioned murder, because death is final, and no court is ever 100% certain. Some good points in there but I think we fundamentally disagree. For example with the case of ISIS, Taking a mother's baby, killing it cooking it and feeding it to her isn't getting caught up in an ideology. No amount of jailtime could justify the killers sustained life. But let's say you're right and it is just getting caught up in an ideology, What possible rehabilitation could go on to repair that wrong? It's easy to say 'We can't be arsed to pay for these people in prison so lets just shoot them' But it goes beyond that for me. I don't want them shot for some lazy time and money saving affair. There are some assaults on persons that go beyond any justification for continued existence. (The money saving aspect is a useful by-product, not an end of itself)
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 25, 2018 23:44:52 GMT
The money saving aspect is a useful by-product, not an end of itself. Have you seen the prisons in Afghanistan? A hole in the ground. Sending them to prison should be money saving. For a start, they shouldn't be tax financed. They'd have to work in prison to survive, the rest goes to the society. If they're dead by the death penalty society gets nothing. But I'm hopeful, someday medicine and genetics will solve this.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 25, 2018 23:50:00 GMT
because death is final, and no court is ever 100% certain. Vital point! My reason on this. Since no court is 100%, witnesses can lie, corruption expands etc, death penalty isn't the way to go for me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 23:51:55 GMT
The money saving aspect is a useful by-product, not an end of itself. Have you seen the prisons in Afghanistan? A hole in the ground. Sending them to prison should be money saving. For a start, they shouldn't be tax financed. They'd have to work in prison to survive, the rest goes to the society. If they're dead society gets nothing. But I'm hopeful, someday medicine and genetics will solve this. Yeah I get that, I'm much more bothered about punishment than money saving, which is why the money saving is an aftetthought for me. so Sky tv etc in inmates rooms? Nope. I'm not sure how I feel about hole in the ground stuff, bit too reminiscent of the gulag.
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Oct 26, 2018 8:39:05 GMT
There is a lot of misconception about times in Gaols. The Rony Barker, Porridge conception is not realistic.
I have had occasion to visit two prisons for a few hours on separate occasions. They were awful and I could not get out quick enough.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 26, 2018 8:59:55 GMT
There is a lot of misconception about times in Gaols. The Rony Barker, Porridge conception is not realistic. I have had occasion to visit two prisons for a few hours on separate occasions. They were awful and I could not get out quick enough. And? Not like in Sweden then. * Better food presented there, then in schools and within the care system for the old population. There are stats on this in our daily morning papers once in a while. * When I went to University and took the degree, there was this special quote system who allowed prisoners to get in. Basically getting a paid for University degree in prison, while others had to take loans. Normal students has to pay for room, electricity, insurances and food you know. The prisons order the books so they can study, and no queues on them, since not that many is taking a degree. Or they buy them, since they got their daily payment. There are numerous examples of people here who'll do just anything to get in there. We have a tv programme called "Uppdrag granskning"(Mission: Investigation) where they interview criminals etc. I'm amazed it's still allowed to be shown here, since it shows how it is.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 26, 2018 9:10:29 GMT
The money saving aspect is a useful by-product, not an end of itself. Have you seen the prisons in Afghanistan? A hole in the ground. Sending them to prison should be money saving. For a start, they shouldn't be tax financed. They'd have to work in prison to survive, the rest goes to the society. If they're dead society gets nothing. But I'm hopeful, someday medicine and genetics will solve this. Didn’t you swedes try the route of compulsory sterilisation of people not deemed the full krona before
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 26, 2018 9:29:14 GMT
Didn’t you swedes try the route of compulsory sterilisation of people not deemed the full kronor before I searched but don't know what the expression "full kronor" means. I could only guess, either not being enough Swede or didn't pay enough taxes (kronor)? Anyway, the only sterilisations I've heard of was the projects within the Race Biological Institute, invented by the Social Democratic Labour Party, more than 70 years ago. Not by any liberal, communist or right wing party. The regrets they've had about this is probably why they've been so migration friendly; to erase their past, and don't even realizing it's two completely different stories. I even remember in the 70ies, when I one day was called to a doctor together with some of my classmates to have some skull measures done - a study within the field "race differences". I remember it as it was done yesterday. I was kind of swedish reference material obviously. I didn't like it then and I wouldn't like it now. There is a misconception sterilisation always helps against pedophiles. Actually the perverted desire lies within the sexual center of the brain. It's like castration of the cat or dog, it will still trying to do it.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Oct 26, 2018 9:51:37 GMT
I'm not sure how I feel about hole in the ground stuff, bit too reminiscent of the gulag. You're right! And it was figuratively spoken, just a way to express they shouldn't think of it as a holiday (as some of them do here in Sweden). But I'm absolutely positive about the thought of them working for their food, unless they are sick/injured and unable to work. They should get their food and clothes anyway in that case. The job might be the first one they've got ever. I'm not after being extremely bad to people, but society (at least here) has to take a new route, when criminality is the new best way to do a career. And when they get out here, their is absolutely no plan for them! No job, no place to stay. No wonder they want to return!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 12:34:14 GMT
Have you seen the prisons in Afghanistan? A hole in the ground. Sending them to prison should be money saving. For a start, they shouldn't be tax financed. They'd have to work in prison to survive, the rest goes to the society. If they're dead society gets nothing. But I'm hopeful, someday medicine and genetics will solve this. Yeah I get that, I'm much more bothered about punishment than money saving, which is why the money saving is an aftetthought for me. so Sky tv etc in inmates rooms? Nope. I'm not sure how I feel about hole in the ground stuff, bit too reminiscent of the gulag. I think that's the point, cause I don't see death as a punishment really. It's just a way out where you are then never to feel remorse or pain. That and the fact you can't ever be completely certain of guilt puts me firmly against.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 26, 2018 13:23:18 GMT
The state should not have the decision to decide who lives and who dies. Governments are inherently open to corruption and naive fuck-ups in equal measure, a life is too valuable to be held at risk in that regard.
It's cruel and barbaric. I don't care what the killer did, stooping to the same level is nothing other than revenge, which is not what a justice system should be about.
You teach that killing is wrong by killing, work that one out.
It's far, far more expensive to put someone to death due to legal appeals processes than it is to keep them alive for their natural lifetime, despite oft-repeated arguments to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Oct 26, 2018 13:29:46 GMT
That's not to say I don't think physical beatings should not be an option though.
Some sick, paedo, rapist, child killing cunt or ISIS shitbag? Life in solitary with the occasional crowbar across the jaw or golf-club to the kneecap. I'm fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 26, 2018 14:18:10 GMT
Didn’t you swedes try the route of compulsory sterilisation of people not deemed the full kronor before I searched but don't know what the expression "full kronor" means. I could only guess, either not being enough Swede or didn't pay enough taxes (kronor)? Anyway, the only sterilisations I've heard of was the projects within the Race Biological Institute, invented by the Social Democratic Labour Party, more than 70 years ago. Not by any liberal, communist or right wing party. The regrets they've had about this is probably why they've been so migration friendly; to erase their past, and don't even realizing it's two completely different stories. I even remember in the 70ies, when I one day was called to a doctor together with some of my classmates to have some skull measures done - a study within the field "race differences". I remember it as it was done yesterday. I was kind of swedish reference material obviously. I didn't like it then and I wouldn't like it now. There is a misconception sterilisation always helps against pedophiles. Actually the perverted desire lies within the sexual center of the brain. It's like castration of the cat or dog, it will still trying to do it. The term relates to a old English saying not the full schilling meaning people unfortunate enough to have mental impairments from birth Apparently the Swedish government was still doing until the late seventies Have a look at compulsory sterilised Sweden on wiki Certainly a interesting read on social engineering
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 26, 2018 20:52:11 GMT
Kill them, kill them all
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 21:14:47 GMT
Not death, just full sentence to be served in solitary. That would be worse. A dark dirty cell, with no windows to the outside world, a bucket to shit and piss in and just enough food and water to keep them alive sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by thequietman on Oct 26, 2018 21:22:35 GMT
A deep.question that one. Once came up in conversation with some work colleagues. One who'd previously been a warder on the high security wing at Wakefield prison was totally against it. Another who was a born-again Christian was totally in favour of it. That set my head spinning as much as the question did.
I'm against it. 1 innocent person wrongly put to death would be 1 too many, regardless of the number of scum who probably deserve it.
There's much to despair at in this country, and I've thought about emigrating many times. But there's plenty to admire and be thankful for too, not the least of which is a reasonable legal system and no chance of being fried if I'm ever subject to a horrible miscarriage of justice.
Free The Quietman One. (I'm starting the campaign now, just in case ...)
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 1, 2019 9:37:46 GMT
Returning ISIS fighters should be tried for high treason On the news here yesterday SocialDemocrat politician Morgan Johansson said "many people want to see a new law that puts returning ISIS warriors on trial, but the Constitution is always governing, so a new law of that kind would be totally meaningless!" I don't know how it works in England.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Nov 1, 2019 14:24:02 GMT
Returning ISIS fighters should be tried for high treason On the news here yesterday SocialDemocrat politician Morgan Johansson said "many people want to see a new law that puts returning ISIS warriors on trial, but the Constitution is always governing, so a new law of that kind would be totally meaningless!" I don't know how it works in England. House Benefits Car Thats my guess
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2019 14:36:00 GMT
They had that mischief night t'other night ( what a load of bollocks). Those vandals should be told that if they get caught, they're going in the army for two years, like it or not! Tweots!
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Nov 1, 2019 14:55:18 GMT
They had that mischief night t'other night ( what a load of bollocks). Those vandals should be told that if they get caught, they're going in the army for two years, like it or not! Tweots! Fook that, little bastards should be birched and sterilised to break the circle of reproduction from their feral families
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 1, 2019 15:45:35 GMT
Sadly, We’re going down a reactionary rabbit hole with kind of thread...
|
|