ChatterBank2 mins ago
Criminals/Prisoners
More and more we hear of criminals not getting the sentences they deserve and the ones that do go to jail get so many 'rights' that it makes me angrier and angrier by the day. Why is this country so lenient? Decent law-abiding citizens dont have as many 'rights' or entitlements as some criminals now. Why would a paedophile not be sentenced or castrated for goodness' sake?????
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by weeal. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Do you have any specific examples in mind or is this just a rant?
Your post is very subjective. What you think may be a fair sentence may differ radically from what others think. What you think is lenient, may be fair in the eyes of others.
Also, what rights do criminals have that you don't?
In answer to your last question, you would have to look at all the facts and circumstances of the case in order to know why a paedophile isn't given a custodial sentence, just as you would with any alleged crime. I'd imagine such examples will be very rare though. Castration may not be considered because it may not actually make any difference, therefore, why do it?
Your post is very subjective. What you think may be a fair sentence may differ radically from what others think. What you think is lenient, may be fair in the eyes of others.
Also, what rights do criminals have that you don't?
In answer to your last question, you would have to look at all the facts and circumstances of the case in order to know why a paedophile isn't given a custodial sentence, just as you would with any alleged crime. I'd imagine such examples will be very rare though. Castration may not be considered because it may not actually make any difference, therefore, why do it?
Its certainly not a rant, it was a backlash at the paedophile who, after 14 years of abusing kids, walked free on Thursday !!! His own sister said he shouldnt be walking the streets.
And prisoners are getting 'rights' and 'back-dated payments' for things like them "not being allowed their drugs in jail", I mean come on, its illegal in the first place so why should the tax payer pay for their drugs inside. Once someone commits a serious crime and is taken away from society they should forfeit any rights they had, if they dont play by the rules why should I the tax payer keep them on the inside with full bed n board, they can even buy their shampoos, fags etc at cash n carry prices - I bl**dy cant. A lot of them get out and re-offend so how could the term given have been correct. And life should mean life.
And prisoners are getting 'rights' and 'back-dated payments' for things like them "not being allowed their drugs in jail", I mean come on, its illegal in the first place so why should the tax payer pay for their drugs inside. Once someone commits a serious crime and is taken away from society they should forfeit any rights they had, if they dont play by the rules why should I the tax payer keep them on the inside with full bed n board, they can even buy their shampoos, fags etc at cash n carry prices - I bl**dy cant. A lot of them get out and re-offend so how could the term given have been correct. And life should mean life.
There are paedophiles and there are paedophiles, just as there are armed robbers and there are armed robbers. They don't all fit into the same box so they can't all be treated the same.
The circumstances in either crime may force or persuade the courts to pass a very tough sentence, or the circumstances may be less serious and as a result, a more lenient sentence may be passed. That's how sentencing should work.
Now, whilst I accept that peadophilia is a very serious offence, we also have to realise the shortcomings of the priosn system and face up to our responsibilities as taxpayer's.
We need to build more prisons or, at least find alternative ways of sentencing offenders who commit less serious crimes or default on paying fines. That way we could deal with the most serious offenders more suitably.
But what ever the offence, I refuse to go into the gutter and advocate that we should, in effect, torture prisoners by removing them of all rights once they are convicted of an offence.
I get the impression that you are a headline reader rather than a content reader. Prisoners are not given drugs to 'get high'. They are given drugs e.g. methodone to weane them off drugs such as heroin - often the addiction to drugs was the reason they ended up in prison in the first place.
Tony Blair advocated that we should 'be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime'. I agree with that. Pity the government saw it as a soundbite rather than a genuine method of dealing with crime.
Tackle drug and alcohol addiction and half of our prisons will empty. Help children who have been the victims, or have witnessed ,domestic physical abuse or sexual abuse, and that will reduce the number of future violent criminals and sexual predators. Taking TV's off our prisoners won't change that.
The circumstances in either crime may force or persuade the courts to pass a very tough sentence, or the circumstances may be less serious and as a result, a more lenient sentence may be passed. That's how sentencing should work.
Now, whilst I accept that peadophilia is a very serious offence, we also have to realise the shortcomings of the priosn system and face up to our responsibilities as taxpayer's.
We need to build more prisons or, at least find alternative ways of sentencing offenders who commit less serious crimes or default on paying fines. That way we could deal with the most serious offenders more suitably.
But what ever the offence, I refuse to go into the gutter and advocate that we should, in effect, torture prisoners by removing them of all rights once they are convicted of an offence.
I get the impression that you are a headline reader rather than a content reader. Prisoners are not given drugs to 'get high'. They are given drugs e.g. methodone to weane them off drugs such as heroin - often the addiction to drugs was the reason they ended up in prison in the first place.
Tony Blair advocated that we should 'be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime'. I agree with that. Pity the government saw it as a soundbite rather than a genuine method of dealing with crime.
Tackle drug and alcohol addiction and half of our prisons will empty. Help children who have been the victims, or have witnessed ,domestic physical abuse or sexual abuse, and that will reduce the number of future violent criminals and sexual predators. Taking TV's off our prisoners won't change that.
-- answer removed --
Not at all. But I can tell there is a difference between a 36 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old, and a 36 year old who rapes a 5 year old. Both are paedophiles in the eyes of the law but the latter would quite correctly be dealt with more harshly. Likewise an armed robber with an imitation handgun should be treated more leniently than one with a genuine handgun loaded and ready to kill any bank teller or post office worker that gets in his way. Prisoners, and the offences they have committed do not all fit into the same small convenient and uncomplicated box that your small mind can only cope with.
There is absolutely no point in castrating a sex offender if it won't change the sex offender's behaviour. Likewise, there is no point in castration if one is arguing life means life, because if castration ends the criminal behaviour, then presumably, you'd want that person released freeing up cells for bank robbers and the like. I can't see the logic in arguing a true life sentence and castration.
Your original post is subjective and ambiguous. A prisoner has lost the right to liberty - what other rights should they lose? Medical or psychological treatment? Life? Sanitary facilities? Rehabilitation treatment/counselling?
You have conveniently pushed all criminals and all crimes into the one box with very little thought.
Taxpayers like you (and I), can't have it both ways. We can't say we want tougher sentences and then not be prepared to pay for the additional costs of needing more prisons, HMP staff (plus pay, pensions etc). If life is to mean life, the downside is that we as taxpayers will have to pay for prisoners 'bed n' board' and all the associated costs.
There is absolutely no point in castrating a sex offender if it won't change the sex offender's behaviour. Likewise, there is no point in castration if one is arguing life means life, because if castration ends the criminal behaviour, then presumably, you'd want that person released freeing up cells for bank robbers and the like. I can't see the logic in arguing a true life sentence and castration.
Your original post is subjective and ambiguous. A prisoner has lost the right to liberty - what other rights should they lose? Medical or psychological treatment? Life? Sanitary facilities? Rehabilitation treatment/counselling?
You have conveniently pushed all criminals and all crimes into the one box with very little thought.
Taxpayers like you (and I), can't have it both ways. We can't say we want tougher sentences and then not be prepared to pay for the additional costs of needing more prisons, HMP staff (plus pay, pensions etc). If life is to mean life, the downside is that we as taxpayers will have to pay for prisoners 'bed n' board' and all the associated costs.
Why say it in one paragraph when you can have a whole page to yourself eh!!! You have no idea of the size of my mind and what it can cope with (as you incorrectly stated), you dont know me or what my profession is. You have verbally attacked me personally on this one, and it was a generalised statement!*! You sound like youre a paedo sympathiser.
Well I am certainly not a paedo or a paedo sympathiser. But, I suppose I invited you to make such an offensive accusation due to my own rudeness and ill thought assumption as to your intellect. For that, I apologise. Your profession, however, whatever it is, has no relevance.
But I will also add that, perhaps I am jusified in using more space than you did to make an argument because I acknowledge that the issues regarding sex offenders, the causes of their crimes, and how we as a society should deal with them are complex. As I said, and I stand by my argument, we can't have it both ways.
If life is to mean life we can't really complain about the bed'n board costs of prisoners. If sex offenders are to be imprisoned rather than executed, they must surely have some basic rights to certain standards of hygiene etc. If they are to be executed or let free, what is the point of castration - which in around 20% of cases is ineffective anyway.
If you want to have a proper discussion then by all means, let's discuss the issues. Let's not get into a slanging match, and try to put forward a constructive arguement. So far your arguments have been rhetorical, contradictory, and superficial, if wholehearted.
But I will also add that, perhaps I am jusified in using more space than you did to make an argument because I acknowledge that the issues regarding sex offenders, the causes of their crimes, and how we as a society should deal with them are complex. As I said, and I stand by my argument, we can't have it both ways.
If life is to mean life we can't really complain about the bed'n board costs of prisoners. If sex offenders are to be imprisoned rather than executed, they must surely have some basic rights to certain standards of hygiene etc. If they are to be executed or let free, what is the point of castration - which in around 20% of cases is ineffective anyway.
If you want to have a proper discussion then by all means, let's discuss the issues. Let's not get into a slanging match, and try to put forward a constructive arguement. So far your arguments have been rhetorical, contradictory, and superficial, if wholehearted.
One escapes scott free:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime /article2317335.ece
One gets life:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idU KL3065918420070830?pageNumber=1
Not rocket science to know they BOTH shouldve been jailed and removed from society!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime /article2317335.ece
One gets life:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idU KL3065918420070830?pageNumber=1
Not rocket science to know they BOTH shouldve been jailed and removed from society!
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
ChatterBank38 mins ago
