There was an article in last weekend's Times about how the 'shoe rapist' (1980s multiple rapist from S Yorkshire) was caught using DNA evidence. When arrested he admitted the offences, and got life, minimum 20 years.
There's many discussions on AB about crime and punishment and it's often said, usually by the vociferous minority, that 'prison doesn't work', 'the purpose of prison is to reform, not punish' and similar.
However, this offender had already reformed himself; he hadn't committed any crimes since 1980-something - when he got married. He's since lived a fairly succesful, though a bit hum-drum, life and has a family. Pillar of the community etc.
So if the aim of prison is to reform people, what was the point of sending him to jail? He was a reformed criminal already and in fact he's now likely to be 're-criminalised' as a result being in prison.
Would the prison-doesn't-work-clan agree that he should have received a non-custodial sentence?
The tactics are described as draconian, and in a derogatory manner, usually, because they refer to an ancient system of law that was seen as unjust and corrupt and was destroyed because of this.
it's just that you brought the draconian tactics bit into the debate, then when bigmalc explains it your telling him that this is not what the debate is about. anyway don't sweat it, just something that crossed my mind at the time. cheers!
maxx, I used the word draconian to describe something, and as bigmalc had no reply to my point he chose to fix on the meaning of the word and not my actual point, which I am sure you will agree is a cheap childish tatic. I am happy to debate with anyone but when people start being petty whats the point?