By: MSR777
- 11th April 2012 at 20:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phantom. No need to apologise here for expressing your point of view, it's valid irrespective of where you come from. But I can't agree with you over the death penalty. Despite having it, the US still has one of the highest murder rates in the developed world. For a good number of these killers, the death penalty is no deterrent, whilst for the mentally ill, some of those probably have no idea what the death penalty is, and there are special places for them. The biggest problem that I personally have with the death penalty is when the courts get it wrong. Granted it doesn't happen often, but one such case is one to many. Also, doesn't law enforcement taking the accuseds life make them, and society in general, no better than the killer? The sentence for murder should be life imprisonment, and the only way the killer gets out, is in a wooden box. There should be a regime of hard labour, basic food and drink and no other privileges. Perhaps they could spend the hours of darkness contemplating the gravity of what they have done.
The victims and their families, and those of the guilty come to that, end up with a life sentence not of their making, why should the guilty be spared that? IMO, for those reasons, the death penalty does not fit the crime, and they should not have it. Some would say that it is an easy way out for the killer, some I dare say would say otherwise.
By: duxfordhawk
- 11th April 2012 at 20:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is Arson in Her Majesty's Dockyard still a Hanging Offence? or is it 11 1/2 years the same as a shop?
I so wish he got a lot longer. I am a Croydon born and bred person and literally grew up with the Reeves Corner, My first bed came from there when I was child.
It was a lovely shop and for one a***hole to be able to destroy it in one night still upsets.
By: Lincoln 7
- 11th April 2012 at 22:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is Arson in Her Majesty's Dockyard still a Hanging Offence? or is it 11 1/2 years the same as a shop?
Paul. It used to be a hanging offence for setting fire to H.M. Dockyards, and the last I heard, it is still one of just the odd offences which carries the death penalty by hanging. Don't know if treason still is though?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: jbritchford
- 12th April 2012 at 15:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just my tuppence –
It seems to me that for a judicial system that works we need to get back to basics and decide just what our system is for, and what it is trying to achieve. Naturally, I think we all want to live in a society where crime is zero, or where it does exist, offenders can be convinced to not re-offend. But what is the best method?
There is a tendency to go for the knee-jerk reaction of extreme punishment, essentially where society takes its revenge on offenders in an attempt to deter them and others from committing crimes in the future.
Another school of thought, where we should attempt to reform prisoners through education and constructive pursuits is used in some places, notably Norway.
In both cases the desired outcome is the same, to have offenders leaving their time of incarceration and to prevent them from further transgressions. So which method has a lower recidivism rate?
Many studies have concluded that reform is the answer. Even when the death penalty was prescribed as the answer for everything from petty theft upwards, even when Saudi Arabia mutilates thieves and beheads blasphemers, is this enough to stop it from happening? No.
The fact is that creating brutal, punishment oriented environments for offenders only serves to brutalise them further. This and the fact that we have pursued the revenge policy of incarceration over that of reform for decades and centuries without being able to successfully reduce recidivism of crime rates demonstrates to me that a new approach is needed.
This said, it must be recognised that there are some, particularly those who are violent or mentally ill, who must be incarcerated for the protection of society as a whole. In some cases this may mean they are never released, as they simply cannot recover using current methods, and even if they could society may not be willing to take any chances.
The UK seems to be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but I still think we need to take a long hard look at it. If we want to have a system that turns offenders into productive members of society again, we shouldn’t simply go for ever harsher punishments if they don’t produce the results we want them to. If you want a revenge system, that’s one thing, but come out and say it and then we can debate its merits. If, however, you want a system to reduce crime and recidivism, we should take a step back and look at examples that actually deliver this.
As for the death penalty, which Phantom II brought up, I’m afraid I have to disagree with him on several counts. Innocent people can and have been convicted of murder in the past, the judicial systems of all nations are imperfect and make mistakes. Since DNA testing was introduced, in the United States alone, 289 people convicted of murder have been found innocent. To hand over such power to a system we know is imperfect is morally wrong, in my opinion. I would supporters of the death penalty to tell us what rate of wrongful execution they would be willing to accept? This is not hyperbole, this is an honest question. We know that courts make mistakes.
I also believe that handing over the power of life and death over citizens to the state is something that we should not grant it. A situation where a person, be they a police officer or otherwise, must use lethal force as a means to protect their life or that of others is one thing, to allow the state to choose individuals and deem them unworthy of further life is both dangerous and an affront to human dignity. To say that this goes through the courts and a jury of peers is simply shifting us back to our other problem – we know that courts make mistakes.
Thirdly, you mention that you don’t want to have to pay to sustain a murderer’s incarceration. I can understand this, but it seems a very weak argument. We all pay for things through our taxes that, if given the choice, we would not. Some people don’t want to contribute so much to social welfare, others might not believe we should spend money on the military, or the arts, or foreign aid. Just because you find it distasteful to have to pay to feed a criminal isn’t a justification for capital punishment. If you want to tackle government spending there are huge number of payouts or tax breaks that could be looked at before we decide the state should be allowed to kill people we find distasteful to save money.
By: Lincoln 7
- 12th April 2012 at 16:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J.B. Having read your two penceworth, you can drive a bus through it, no dissrespect to what you have written on this subject, the Law as it stands is sufficiant, BUT. until you get rid of prisoners human rights, ie, Sky T.V. weight training jyms etc, and all the other goodies, that most of us on the outside would like, plus the P.C. brigade, and the race card, the Judicial system we have at the moment is in need of a huge re think, prisoners will never NOT re offend. When I was on the Force, two old timers who lived rough, every mid Nov comitted a crime, that guaranteed them a custodial sentance over the Christmas period. Prison is not the same as it used to be, and certainly is no deterrent to criminals to not re offend.
To many, it's better than a holiday. All the goodies, free food, no gas or electric bills etc to pay, and they say Crime don't pay?.
Don't make me laugh, some, even run their own business through smuggled in mobile phones.
As regards D.N.A. which was introduced in 1980 yes, 1980, I think your answere to that being invalid as evidence is in itself invalid, as DNA has come a long way in over 30 yrs and has been refined to such an extent that Courts will accept "Expert witnesses" ie a DNA experts witnesses evidence as extremely acceptable.
Not wiishing to write a book, which one could easily do on this subject, pardon the pun, but "I rest my case".;)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: John Green
- 12th April 2012 at 20:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 8
Having had sixpennyworth at 8 (above) I have just one further comment which has some relevance to certain opinions. I spent much of my working life in the Middle and Far East and I am not a supporter of Islam or Sharia Law. It was I admit, some time ago but, working in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in particular, although there were restrictions, particularly those affecting women, walking the streets of Riyadh day or night, was a whole lot safer than and actually felt safer than many Western capitals.
Crime was extremely rare. I remember one case of a raid on a jewellery store. The thieves were quickly captured and because it was a first offense they didn't lose a hand but were instead imprisoned. I did witness one death by execution of a felon - either a rapist or murderer, I can't remember which.
The point of this comment concerns the certainty, understood by all who lived and worked in Saudi Arabia, that condign punishment would follow as surely as night followa day. Sharia Law as practised in Saudi Arabia does not permit soft punishment options. You transgress and you pay. Simple. Result: few transgress.
If zero tolerance works there, it must surely work here. Unfortunately the Kenneth Clark's of this world stand in the way.
By: Lincoln 7
- 12th April 2012 at 22:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J.G. I couldn't agree with you more. at least they knew where they stood regarding the Law,
I also think we should adopt Zero tollerance, lets face it, it works wherever it's in force.
Jim.
By: Arthur Pewtey
- 12th April 2012 at 23:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rather than thinking of new ways to punish what would be better would be stopping it in the first place. Eradicating the causes like poverty, inequality, unemployment, alienation and you'll go a long way to stopping a large amount of crime.
I rather think that proposing a closed tyrannical state like Saudi Arabia is hardly the way to go, unless of course giving up your freedom is what you desire.
By: jbritchford
- 13th April 2012 at 11:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lincoln, maybe I wasn't being clear in what I wrote, so I want to clarify.
When I mentioned DNA, I didn't mean that it is an invalid form of evidence, quite the opposite. I meant to show that with the introduction of this new evidence, multiple miscarriages of justice have been uncovered, demonstrating how fallible the courts can be. Yes, DNA evidence now makes them less imperfect, but who knows what other forms of evidence will be discovered in future years that would have changed the ways verdicts might have gone? Be it guilty or innocent, verdicts can be wrong, which is why I believe that the death penalty is simply too big a risk to take, to say nothing of giving the state the power to take the life of citizens.
I also meant to challenge to notion that simply giving harsher punishments will reduce re-offending. If reducing re-offending is our aim we should take a step back and examine why prison systems in Norway and other places, with lower recidivism rates, can achieve this. Maybe it is due to cultural difference, maybe it is to do with the prison system, an interaction of these factors, or other things - but until we examine it we won't know.
Going back to a 19th Century style of crime and punishment, or possibly something even more draconian, seems to be what you are suggesting. Can you provide us any evidence that this is going to help us reduce crime and recidivism?
It seems to me that culture and economic prosperity are two of the major factors in determining crime rates in a community, if we ignore the determining factors and only try to clean up the mess then we aren't going to reduce crime rates, are we?
By: Lincoln 7
- 13th April 2012 at 15:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lincoln, maybe I wasn't being clear in what I wrote, so I want to clarify.
When I mentioned DNA, I didn't mean that it is an invalid form of evidence, quite the opposite. I meant to show that with the introduction of this new evidence, multiple miscarriages of justice have been uncovered, demonstrating how fallible the courts can be. Yes, DNA evidence now makes them less imperfect, but who knows what other forms of evidence will be discovered in future years that would have changed the ways verdicts might have gone? Be it guilty or innocent, verdicts can be wrong, which is why I believe that the death penalty is simply too big a risk to take, to say nothing of giving the state the power to take the life of citizens.
I also meant to challenge to notion that simply giving harsher punishments will reduce re-offending. If reducing re-offending is our aim we should take a step back and examine why prison systems in Norway and other places, with lower recidivism rates, can achieve this. Maybe it is due to cultural difference, maybe it is to do with the prison system, an interaction of these factors, or other things - but until we examine it we won't know.
Going back to a 19th Century style of crime and punishment, or possibly something even more draconian, seems to be what you are suggesting. Can you provide us any evidence that this is going to help us reduce crime and recidivism?
It seems to me that culture and economic prosperity are two of the major factors in determining crime rates in a community, if we ignore the determining factors and only try to clean up the mess then we aren't going to reduce crime rates, are we?
May I suggest you read thread 44 again??.
No need to write a book in answering,as this states it all realy, if our system were like that, then we POSSIBLY would not want the death penalty re introduced, however, there are States within the USA that carry the death penalty by lethal injection, it's just a play on words at the end of the day.:)
Jim.
Lincoln.7
By: John Green
- 13th April 2012 at 20:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 73 & 75
You can squirm, wriggle and evade till the 'cows come home' while you're trotting out all the hoary old excuses to justify wrongdoing: Broken homes; absent fathers; mother at work; no income; sexual abuse; physical abuse; truancy etc. etc. The fact remains that my generation and the one before it did not generally indulge in law breaking in spite of extreme social deprivation.
My maternal grandfather was one of the Jarrow marchers. In spite of appalling deprivation, he remained - as did his workmates, law abiding and responsible. It would not have crossed his mind to torch some local department store or plunder the contents of any shop merely because it had something that he thought he desperately needed.
He passed his sense of civic responsibility and concern for others to my mother who then passed them to her children, of whom I was one. An ingrained knowledge of and acceptance of the value of 'right from wrong' coupled with strong religious values such as 'Thou shalt not steal' were passed to us from our parents. This does not happen to-day.
No one suggests that we should adopt the laws and customs of Saudi Arabia. They have their way and we have ours. It is just that their way appears to work and ours does not.
But fear not. Salvation looms - though you might not like it. When, within the next thirty to forty years, an Islamic govt. rules in this country, we will have Sharia law whether we like it or not. Then crime will disappear - virtually.
By: Arthur Pewtey
- 13th April 2012 at 22:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So crime only arrived in the last generation? What rubbish.
But fear not. Salvation looms - though you might not like it. When, within the next thirty to forty years, an Islamic govt. rules in this country, we will have Sharia law whether we like it or not. Then crime will disappear - virtually.
Probably the saddest thing I've read on here. It is such a deluded point of view as to require sympathy rather than ridicule. With around 3% of the population, how are Muslims going to 50% in 30-40 years? Ludicrous.
By: John Green
- 14th April 2012 at 10:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 79
Ludicrous? Let us hope that you are right. Or, could it be, that the prevalence of Sharia Courts in some parts of the country and coupled with the recent news that certain Universities are - as a consequence of Moslem complaint - prepared to install alcohol free areas on their campus, just the thin end of the wedge?
Fed the Troll? I hope not ! I'd find it tough to even subsist on your provision. Meagre slices of half baked left wing gobbledegook. Watery diatribe soup. A melting pot of half truths and evasions floating in a noxious gravy of socialist dogma.
By: Lincoln 7
- 15th April 2012 at 21:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JG. Too right John, from experience, your right when you state it IS the thin end of the wedge, they have the race card, and can proceed without any fear of intervention from the Authorities.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Posts: 2,841
By: paul178 - 11th April 2012 at 20:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is Arson in Her Majesty's Dockyard still a Hanging Offence? or is it 11 1/2 years the same as a shop?
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 11th April 2012 at 20:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phantom. No need to apologise here for expressing your point of view, it's valid irrespective of where you come from. But I can't agree with you over the death penalty. Despite having it, the US still has one of the highest murder rates in the developed world. For a good number of these killers, the death penalty is no deterrent, whilst for the mentally ill, some of those probably have no idea what the death penalty is, and there are special places for them. The biggest problem that I personally have with the death penalty is when the courts get it wrong. Granted it doesn't happen often, but one such case is one to many. Also, doesn't law enforcement taking the accuseds life make them, and society in general, no better than the killer? The sentence for murder should be life imprisonment, and the only way the killer gets out, is in a wooden box. There should be a regime of hard labour, basic food and drink and no other privileges. Perhaps they could spend the hours of darkness contemplating the gravity of what they have done.
The victims and their families, and those of the guilty come to that, end up with a life sentence not of their making, why should the guilty be spared that? IMO, for those reasons, the death penalty does not fit the crime, and they should not have it. Some would say that it is an easy way out for the killer, some I dare say would say otherwise.
Posts: 2,230
By: duxfordhawk - 11th April 2012 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I so wish he got a lot longer. I am a Croydon born and bred person and literally grew up with the Reeves Corner, My first bed came from there when I was child.
It was a lovely shop and for one a***hole to be able to destroy it in one night still upsets.
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th April 2012 at 22:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Paul. It used to be a hanging offence for setting fire to H.M. Dockyards, and the last I heard, it is still one of just the odd offences which carries the death penalty by hanging. Don't know if treason still is though?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Posts: 652
By: garryrussell - 12th April 2012 at 00:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Long gone
The crime of Arson in HM dockyards dissappeared in 1971 during some legal re organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arson_in_royal_dockyards
Posts: 2,766
By: spitfireman - 12th April 2012 at 01:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty serious on an Aircraft Carrier.........
(quote from Top Gun)
Baz
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 12th April 2012 at 14:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think on a Sub would be worse Baz. ;)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 12th April 2012 at 15:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just my tuppence –
It seems to me that for a judicial system that works we need to get back to basics and decide just what our system is for, and what it is trying to achieve. Naturally, I think we all want to live in a society where crime is zero, or where it does exist, offenders can be convinced to not re-offend. But what is the best method?
There is a tendency to go for the knee-jerk reaction of extreme punishment, essentially where society takes its revenge on offenders in an attempt to deter them and others from committing crimes in the future.
Another school of thought, where we should attempt to reform prisoners through education and constructive pursuits is used in some places, notably Norway.
In both cases the desired outcome is the same, to have offenders leaving their time of incarceration and to prevent them from further transgressions. So which method has a lower recidivism rate?
Many studies have concluded that reform is the answer. Even when the death penalty was prescribed as the answer for everything from petty theft upwards, even when Saudi Arabia mutilates thieves and beheads blasphemers, is this enough to stop it from happening? No.
The fact is that creating brutal, punishment oriented environments for offenders only serves to brutalise them further. This and the fact that we have pursued the revenge policy of incarceration over that of reform for decades and centuries without being able to successfully reduce recidivism of crime rates demonstrates to me that a new approach is needed.
This said, it must be recognised that there are some, particularly those who are violent or mentally ill, who must be incarcerated for the protection of society as a whole. In some cases this may mean they are never released, as they simply cannot recover using current methods, and even if they could society may not be willing to take any chances.
The UK seems to be somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, but I still think we need to take a long hard look at it. If we want to have a system that turns offenders into productive members of society again, we shouldn’t simply go for ever harsher punishments if they don’t produce the results we want them to. If you want a revenge system, that’s one thing, but come out and say it and then we can debate its merits. If, however, you want a system to reduce crime and recidivism, we should take a step back and look at examples that actually deliver this.
As for the death penalty, which Phantom II brought up, I’m afraid I have to disagree with him on several counts. Innocent people can and have been convicted of murder in the past, the judicial systems of all nations are imperfect and make mistakes. Since DNA testing was introduced, in the United States alone, 289 people convicted of murder have been found innocent. To hand over such power to a system we know is imperfect is morally wrong, in my opinion. I would supporters of the death penalty to tell us what rate of wrongful execution they would be willing to accept? This is not hyperbole, this is an honest question. We know that courts make mistakes.
I also believe that handing over the power of life and death over citizens to the state is something that we should not grant it. A situation where a person, be they a police officer or otherwise, must use lethal force as a means to protect their life or that of others is one thing, to allow the state to choose individuals and deem them unworthy of further life is both dangerous and an affront to human dignity. To say that this goes through the courts and a jury of peers is simply shifting us back to our other problem – we know that courts make mistakes.
Thirdly, you mention that you don’t want to have to pay to sustain a murderer’s incarceration. I can understand this, but it seems a very weak argument. We all pay for things through our taxes that, if given the choice, we would not. Some people don’t want to contribute so much to social welfare, others might not believe we should spend money on the military, or the arts, or foreign aid. Just because you find it distasteful to have to pay to feed a criminal isn’t a justification for capital punishment. If you want to tackle government spending there are huge number of payouts or tax breaks that could be looked at before we decide the state should be allowed to kill people we find distasteful to save money.
p.s. sorry, this turned into quite the essay :D;)
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 12th April 2012 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J.B. Having read your two penceworth, you can drive a bus through it, no dissrespect to what you have written on this subject, the Law as it stands is sufficiant, BUT. until you get rid of prisoners human rights, ie, Sky T.V. weight training jyms etc, and all the other goodies, that most of us on the outside would like, plus the P.C. brigade, and the race card, the Judicial system we have at the moment is in need of a huge re think, prisoners will never NOT re offend. When I was on the Force, two old timers who lived rough, every mid Nov comitted a crime, that guaranteed them a custodial sentance over the Christmas period. Prison is not the same as it used to be, and certainly is no deterrent to criminals to not re offend.
To many, it's better than a holiday. All the goodies, free food, no gas or electric bills etc to pay, and they say Crime don't pay?.
Don't make me laugh, some, even run their own business through smuggled in mobile phones.
As regards D.N.A. which was introduced in 1980 yes, 1980, I think your answere to that being invalid as evidence is in itself invalid, as DNA has come a long way in over 30 yrs and has been refined to such an extent that Courts will accept "Expert witnesses" ie a DNA experts witnesses evidence as extremely acceptable.
Not wiishing to write a book, which one could easily do on this subject, pardon the pun, but "I rest my case".;)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 12th April 2012 at 20:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 8
Having had sixpennyworth at 8 (above) I have just one further comment which has some relevance to certain opinions. I spent much of my working life in the Middle and Far East and I am not a supporter of Islam or Sharia Law. It was I admit, some time ago but, working in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in particular, although there were restrictions, particularly those affecting women, walking the streets of Riyadh day or night, was a whole lot safer than and actually felt safer than many Western capitals.
Crime was extremely rare. I remember one case of a raid on a jewellery store. The thieves were quickly captured and because it was a first offense they didn't lose a hand but were instead imprisoned. I did witness one death by execution of a felon - either a rapist or murderer, I can't remember which.
The point of this comment concerns the certainty, understood by all who lived and worked in Saudi Arabia, that condign punishment would follow as surely as night followa day. Sharia Law as practised in Saudi Arabia does not permit soft punishment options. You transgress and you pay. Simple. Result: few transgress.
If zero tolerance works there, it must surely work here. Unfortunately the Kenneth Clark's of this world stand in the way.
John Green
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 12th April 2012 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J.G. I couldn't agree with you more. at least they knew where they stood regarding the Law,
I also think we should adopt Zero tollerance, lets face it, it works wherever it's in force.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Posts: 985
By: Arthur Pewtey - 12th April 2012 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rather than thinking of new ways to punish what would be better would be stopping it in the first place. Eradicating the causes like poverty, inequality, unemployment, alienation and you'll go a long way to stopping a large amount of crime.
I rather think that proposing a closed tyrannical state like Saudi Arabia is hardly the way to go, unless of course giving up your freedom is what you desire.
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 13th April 2012 at 08:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am begining to think of a new meaning for a "Hung Parliament".
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Posts: 1,518
By: jbritchford - 13th April 2012 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lincoln, maybe I wasn't being clear in what I wrote, so I want to clarify.
When I mentioned DNA, I didn't mean that it is an invalid form of evidence, quite the opposite. I meant to show that with the introduction of this new evidence, multiple miscarriages of justice have been uncovered, demonstrating how fallible the courts can be. Yes, DNA evidence now makes them less imperfect, but who knows what other forms of evidence will be discovered in future years that would have changed the ways verdicts might have gone? Be it guilty or innocent, verdicts can be wrong, which is why I believe that the death penalty is simply too big a risk to take, to say nothing of giving the state the power to take the life of citizens.
I also meant to challenge to notion that simply giving harsher punishments will reduce re-offending. If reducing re-offending is our aim we should take a step back and examine why prison systems in Norway and other places, with lower recidivism rates, can achieve this. Maybe it is due to cultural difference, maybe it is to do with the prison system, an interaction of these factors, or other things - but until we examine it we won't know.
Going back to a 19th Century style of crime and punishment, or possibly something even more draconian, seems to be what you are suggesting. Can you provide us any evidence that this is going to help us reduce crime and recidivism?
It seems to me that culture and economic prosperity are two of the major factors in determining crime rates in a community, if we ignore the determining factors and only try to clean up the mess then we aren't going to reduce crime rates, are we?
Posts: 2,841
By: paul178 - 13th April 2012 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well best thing is to protect yourself from harm
Well it made me laugh!
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 13th April 2012 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
May I suggest you read thread 44 again??.
No need to write a book in answering,as this states it all realy, if our system were like that, then we POSSIBLY would not want the death penalty re introduced, however, there are States within the USA that carry the death penalty by lethal injection, it's just a play on words at the end of the day.:)
Jim.
Lincoln.7
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 13th April 2012 at 20:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 73 & 75
You can squirm, wriggle and evade till the 'cows come home' while you're trotting out all the hoary old excuses to justify wrongdoing: Broken homes; absent fathers; mother at work; no income; sexual abuse; physical abuse; truancy etc. etc. The fact remains that my generation and the one before it did not generally indulge in law breaking in spite of extreme social deprivation.
My maternal grandfather was one of the Jarrow marchers. In spite of appalling deprivation, he remained - as did his workmates, law abiding and responsible. It would not have crossed his mind to torch some local department store or plunder the contents of any shop merely because it had something that he thought he desperately needed.
He passed his sense of civic responsibility and concern for others to my mother who then passed them to her children, of whom I was one. An ingrained knowledge of and acceptance of the value of 'right from wrong' coupled with strong religious values such as 'Thou shalt not steal' were passed to us from our parents. This does not happen to-day.
No one suggests that we should adopt the laws and customs of Saudi Arabia. They have their way and we have ours. It is just that their way appears to work and ours does not.
But fear not. Salvation looms - though you might not like it. When, within the next thirty to forty years, an Islamic govt. rules in this country, we will have Sharia law whether we like it or not. Then crime will disappear - virtually.
John Green
Posts: 985
By: Arthur Pewtey - 13th April 2012 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So crime only arrived in the last generation? What rubbish.
Probably the saddest thing I've read on here. It is such a deluded point of view as to require sympathy rather than ridicule. With around 3% of the population, how are Muslims going to 50% in 30-40 years? Ludicrous.
Sorry, I've fed the troll again
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 14th April 2012 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Re 79
Ludicrous? Let us hope that you are right. Or, could it be, that the prevalence of Sharia Courts in some parts of the country and coupled with the recent news that certain Universities are - as a consequence of Moslem complaint - prepared to install alcohol free areas on their campus, just the thin end of the wedge?
Fed the Troll? I hope not ! I'd find it tough to even subsist on your provision. Meagre slices of half baked left wing gobbledegook. Watery diatribe soup. A melting pot of half truths and evasions floating in a noxious gravy of socialist dogma.
If you didn't exist, we'd have to invent you !
John Green
Posts: 8,306
By: Lincoln 7 - 15th April 2012 at 21:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JG. Too right John, from experience, your right when you state it IS the thin end of the wedge, they have the race card, and can proceed without any fear of intervention from the Authorities.
Jim.
Lincoln .7