Found this at home today!

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS - just go back to reading your Daily Fail. When you can comprehend what people are saying then we can have a conversation. Don't bother with more arguments about it - you've failed to comprehend what I've written, just stop lecturing others because of your own lack of cognitive abilities.

Err - earth to Simon - is there anybody there?

Let's try again.

Basically what you are proposing is a system where (just making up numbers) people get away with a million "offences" and we don't bother trying to catch them.

Utter nonsense. It is not that we don't bother - it is simple reality that we cannot catch all of them, and therefore the deterrent effect of having punishment for transgressors is diminished.

Harsher penalties would improve the effectiveness,

Whatever the penalties are, the chances of getting caught remain the same. So let's say we change nothing - just keep the existing system, the existing penalties etc.

So using your made up numbers, if currently, people 'get away with a million "offences"' then we currently have the situation where the one in a million that does get caught is penalised and the other 999,999 that don't get caught don't get penalised.

Please show where I have proposed, or even implied, a new system which would reduce the percentage of people who get caught.

There could be a valid argument to say that if harsher penalties reduced the number of transgressors then a higher percentage would be caught, and a smaller percentage would get away with it, although that wasn't an argument I had advanced.

So whilst remaining logical and intelligent, please show how my suggestion of increased penalties would in any way make the status quo worse . And if you can't please explain why you decided it was valid to say that I was proposing a system whereby 'people get away with a million "offences" and we don't bother trying to catch them'.

If you find that you cannot do that either, maybe you should try to reflect on just what compelled you to make that ludicrous suggestion in the first place.

So to compensate, we'll make the penalties a million times harsher - so the one in a million that does get caught is penalised for the other 999,999 offences that don't get caught.

What we have now is that those who get caught are penalised for what they have done. Do we currently have a system whereby sort of rolling average of numbers caught to date inform the penalty handed out to the next one to be caught?

Whilst remaining logical and intelligent, please show how my suggestion of increased penalties in any way contained changes to that . And if you can't please explain why you decided it was valid to say that I was proposing a system whereby people get penalised for the ones who got away.

If you find that you cannot do that either, maybe you should try to reflect on just what compelled you to make that ludicrous suggestion in the first place.

Or put another way, we're going to make a scapegoat out of a few and make them pay the penalties for others' faults.

In the current situation, the few who do get caught are not made scapegoats and made to pay the penalties for others' faults, they are made to pay the penalty for what they have done.

Whilst remaining logical and intelligent, please show how my suggestion of increased penalties in any way contained changes to that . And if you can't please explain why you decided it was valid to say that I was proposing a system whereby people are made scapegoats and made to pay the penalties for others' faults

If you find that you cannot do that either, maybe you should try to reflect on just what compelled you to make that ludicrous suggestion in the first place.

Lets go the whole hog and re-introduce (in the original sense of the word) decimation. Lets line up 100 of the local leckys and decimate them - even though the chances of any of them actually being responsible would be quite slim - I suppose that would have them asking for their trade body to take action

And as for that, (polite) words fail me.

Whilst remaining logical and intelligent, please show how my suggestion of increased penalties in any way contained proposed changes to the processes we have for detection, prosecution, and standards for determining guilt. And if you can't please explain why you decided that decimation was the end of a journey which began with increased fines and/or prison sentences.

If you find that you cannot do that either, maybe you should try to reflect on just what compelled you to make that ludicrous suggestion in the first place.



Quite frankly, Simon, if when I write "we should have harsher penalties" you read "we should have a system where people get away with a million 'offences' and we don't bother trying to catch them. So to compensate, we'll make the penalties a million times harsher - so the one in a million that does get caught is penalised for the other 999,999 offences that don't get caught", and if when I write "we should have harsher penalties" you think that it would be in keeping with the spirit of that suggestion to extend it to lining up 100 electricians and having 90 of them kill 10 of them chosen by lot then it's a bit rich, to say the least, for you to criticise my "lack of cognitive abilities".

 

[JohnD]

Nonsense

Or to be more accurate, wrote a lot of it.

If he thinks that having your car towed away is harsher than the death penalty, he misunderstand how behaviour is influenced.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Where did I say that?

Where did I say anything that any intelligent person capable of rational thought could infer meant that I thought that having your car towed away was harsher than being put to death?

 

[SimonH2]

You accepted earlier that "What is a deterrent is the penalty, not the certainty or the immediacy" (it's in your post at the bottom of the previous page)
You accepted that having your car towed away is an effective deterrent (same post)
So, unless we are to somehow completely re-invent the meaning of fairly simple english, you accept that towing away the car is a harsh enough penalty that people don't commit the offence.
You also appear to agree that the harshness of the penalty for the crimes previously mentioned (armed robbery in some states of the US, smoking in public places, (EDIT) sharing needles in Glasgow) isn't sufficient deterrent to stop them happening.
Do you accept this, or are you going to argue some new meaning of the english language to justify you not having meant that ?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Where did I say anything that any intelligent person capable of rational thought could infer meant that I thought that having your car towed away was harsher than being put to death?

You keep on and on accusing me of saying or proposing things which I have not said or proposed, or meaning things which cannot be taken to be implied by anyone who is not either so driven to criticise what I have said that they are prepared to throw logic out of the window, or who is genuinely incapable of proper discussion.

And I am not going to let you get away with that.

I get that you disagree with my proposal for harsher penalties, but why do you think it is acceptable for you to accuse me of PROPOSING a system where large numbers of people get away with offences and we don't bother trying to catch them but instead penalise the few we do catch for all the offences committed by others.

Why did you do that?

You accused me of PROPOSING a system whereby we make scapegoats out of a few people and make them pay the penalties for what others have done.

Why did you do that?


And then last, but far from least, you suggested that we should take 100 of the local electricians and have 90 of them kill the other 10.

Why did you do that?

 

[SimonH2]

So BAS, you've seen where I'm heading, and instead of answering the questions asked, you are going off on one of your rants.

Did you or did you not state that "What is a deterrent is the penalty, not the certainty or the immediacy" ?

Do you agree that having your car towed away appears (from what has been said) to be an effective deterrent against parking on (eg) Oxford Street ?

Do you agree that the risk (penalty) of death from such activities such as armed robbery (in some locales) and sharing of needles doesn't appear to be a sufficient deterrent to stop the activities ?

Simple yes or no will suffice. It doesn't need War & Peace, it doesn't need a rant, just simple "yes" or "no". Of course, if these questions are too intellectually challenging for you then I expect you'll respond with a rant and not answer them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I will answer your questions after you have answered mine. Seems fair as mine came before yours.

Where did I say anything that any intelligent person capable of rational thought could infer meant that I thought that having your car towed away was harsher than being put to death?

I get that you disagree with my proposal for harsher penalties, but why do you think it is acceptable for you to accuse me of PROPOSING a system where large numbers of people get away with offences and we don't bother trying to catch them but instead penalise the few we do catch for all the offences committed by others.

Why did you do that?

You accused me of PROPOSING a system whereby we make scapegoats out of a few people and make them pay the penalties for what others have done.

Why did you do that?


And then last, but far from least, you suggested that we should take 100 of the local electricians and have 90 of them kill the other 10.

Why did you do that?

 

[SimonH2]

So Did you or did you not state that "What is a deterrent is the penalty, not the certainty or the immediacy" ? is beyond your abilities to answer. Fair enough. Case closed.

You accused me of PROPOSING a system whereby we make scapegoats out of a few people and make them pay the penalties for what others have done.

Why did you do that?

Because, what you propose is just that. Only you are unable to see why.

And then last, but far from least, you suggested that we should take 100 of the local electricians and have 90 of them kill the other 10.

Why did you do that?

I didn't.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So Did you or did you not state that "What is a deterrent is the penalty, not the certainty or the immediacy" ? is beyond your abilities to answer. Fair enough. Case closed.

No - case adjourned until you either grow some brains that work logically or discover a sense of decency and responsibility and answer the questions.

You accused me of PROPOSING a system whereby we make scapegoats out of a few people and make them pay the penalties for what others have done.

Why did you do that?

Because, what you propose is just that. Only you are unable to see why.

No it isn't. I'm not proposing anything different wrt who gets penalised than what we have right now. If you think that what we have now where the 1 in <however-many> gets a small penalty if he is unlucky enough to get caught counts as him being made a scapegoat then that's your opinion. Are you the only one unable to see that a quantitative change to the penalty is not the same as a qualitative change to the way the system operates?

You've missed this one, BTW:

Why do you think it is acceptable for you to accuse me of PROPOSING a system where large numbers of people get away with offences and we don't bother trying to catch them but instead penalise the few we do catch for all the offences committed by others?

And then last, but far from least, you suggested that we should take 100 of the local electricians and have 90 of them kill the other 10.

Why did you do that?

I didn't.

Liar:

Lets go the whole hog and re-introduce (in the original sense of the word) decimation. Lets line up 100 of the local leckys and decimate them

 

[JohnD]

Harsher penalties would improve the effectiveness

No, that's not how deterrence works.

It still isn't.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fine.

You go around thinking that if, for example, the entire regime regarding drink-driving was left unchanged with the exception of reducing the penalty from a minimum 1 year ban to 3 points, and the removal of the insurance implications of a DD conviction, that the deterrent effect of the DD laws would not be diminished.

Meanwhile the rest of the world can go about using common sense.

 

[SimonH2]

I think we should drop this - BAS is never going to admit that he's wrong, he never does.
He clearly can't cope with the concept of "risk" - in fact he's said as much when he stated that "What is a deterrent is the penalty, not the certainty or the immediacy". So he apparently can't grasp that it's not just the amount/severity of the penalty, but the (perceived) chance of getting caught.
To take the specific case that started this, if the perceived chance of getting caught is "practically nil" then a few grand a time is no deterrent. Improve the chance of catching them so there's little chance of not getting caught and even a few hundred quid a time will turn virtually all botched jobs into loss makers.
But to take the last one he gives, and removing the entirely artificial restriction imposed to make his argument plausible ... Make it so the chance of not getting caught is virtually nil and you could reduce the penalties while also increasing the deterrent value.
Which all comes back to, the bit BAS can't or won't understand, that applying grossly harsh penalties to the ones we do catch because we can't won't catch all but a few is effectively punishing those we do catch for the sins of the others.
Take a simple example.
Suppose the penalty for stealing some money was to repay it threefold. Take £100, get caught, repay the victim £300. In BAS-world (which is starting to look a lot like Rimmer-World ), we find we only catch (say) 1 in 10. Therefore the penalty should be 10 times - take £100, repay £3,000. Why should the victim of that crime get the windfall ? Why should that particular perpetrator get the harsher penalty - he didn't nick the other £900 ?
So label it how you want, imposing harsher penalties like that is effectively penalising the ones we do catch for the sins of those we don't. It all smacks of "we have this amount of justice to hand down, spread it between those we catch, not those who committed the crimes".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think we should drop this - BAS is never going to admit that he's wrong, he never does.

When I am, I do.

This time I am not.

But you might as well drop it, as I am not prepared to debate with a liar.

You suggested that we should take 100 of the local electricians and have 90 of them kill the other 10.

I didn't.

Lets go the whole hog and re-introduce (in the original sense of the word) decimation. Lets line up 100 of the local leckys and decimate them