The death penalty.

[ban-all-sheds]

So the world according to doitall:

1) Prisons should be brutal and dehumanising places. This means that nobody who is imprisoned is going to get any education or training, so he's ignoring the fact that lack of education etc is a very common problem with people in prison. This means that nobody who is imprisoned is going to get any rehabilitation or related treatment.

So his policy would mean that we could never release anybody, as we would have done nothing to address the causes of their offending, or to help them develop coping strategies to deal with any problems they have, or to do anything else to prevent recidivism. Since he doesn't want people to reoffend, his answer means life imprisonment without parole for any offence whatsoever. Or killing them, of course.

2) Anyone who doesn't want to kill, or permanently lock up, every criminal in the land is a "bleeding heart do-gooder". One wonders, if he has no interest in human rights, why he is interested in preserving society in the first place.

3) "Do-gooder" is a term of abuse, as though wanting to do good things is to be deprecated. What sort of person, I wonder, regards doing, or wanting to do, good things as something bad to be criticised?

 

[Shytalkz]

As usual, you are going to extremes. Where has anyone said that everyone in prison, if they're not going to be bumped off by the state, should be subjected to the harshest regime possible, one that is barely above basic subsistence level? Clearly there are a large range of offences for which one can end up inside; equally, there is not an "excuse" - be it lack of education, dad leaving the family home when they were at a bad age etc - for every person's actions that caused them to end up there. Some are just bad people, well beyond the pale and complete oxygen thieves, fit only for the prison vegetable patch.

I got beasted more in the AF in the 70s and 80s than those in prison do these days. And I volunteered to do that, I wasn't getting treated like that because I'd committed a crime against society or an individual.

Nick Leeson, as but one example, got more of a prison sentence than many who have murdered, or raped, or fiddled with kids, or dealt in drugs. Where is the logic in that? This country has gone soft in the head.

 

[joe-90]

Not you specifically.



Would you, as an anti-death penalty person, be prepared to kill in the defence of this nation?

Yes. Without as moments hesitation.

 

[Shytalkz]

So, how come that's ok to your mind, but not banging out some pondlife who has killed or raped someone?

 

[joe-90]

Because protecting your homeland and family in a time of war is a selfless act. You don't do it for revenge. I guess you'd get rid of the POW camps and shoot the barbarians. Sounds like a final solution even if it isn't a good one.

 

[sooey]

Because protecting your homeland and family in a time of war is a selfless act. You don't do it for revenge.

That's a pretty childish view of war I think, I've never been in one myself but , they are a very dirty business, and revenge is one of the main motivations, after survival of course.

 

[Shytalkz]

Getting rid of murdering and raping pondlife scumbags - and chavs - is as much about protecting one's homeland as well.

Or would you rather defend this homeland against invasion...for what exactly? So that these amoebas can continue to procreate and become the majority?

 

[sooey]

1) so he's ignoring the fact that lack of education etc is a very common problem with people in prison.

You're ignoring the fact that if you educate the b,st,rds you'll make them into better criminals.

 

[Shytalkz]

You can't educate what isn't there ie a brain.

 

[Bilioustrumpstaine]

37,000 prisoners turned down early release from 2000-2006

Do you know how many of those were people who had actually been offered early release, and how many were ones who didn't apply when eligible to apply for it because they knew they wouldn't get it, e.g. because they had nowhere to go if released? They won't give early release to prisoners who'll be homeless, and as in 2005/6 alone 12,000 prisoners were released into homelessness, there's a pretty good chance that over the 7 year period you quote a high percentage of that 37,000 were people in that category.

Do you know how many of those were people who, having actually started to receive education and training, and could see a chance of turning their lives around (which we all want, surely?) wanted to stay and finish, get a qualification etc?

and 42 people where caught trying to break into prisons during the same period.

Shock horror - there are criminals out there who will break into places as part of their criminal activities. Thank you for alerting us to this.

Do you know how many of these 42 were caught breaking into closed prisons, and how many were caught trespassing in open prisons?

Do you find it surprising that pimps and drug dealers are prepared to add trespass to their portfolio of crimes?

Alright Mr Sarky, no idea if they were caught in open prisons, closed prisons whether they were breaking in to steal or to get a room for the night (as in getting caught and then prosecuted)

The 37 thousand were due for release with conditions attached such as tagging, reporting to police on a regular basis etc. so not people who applied and were turned down but prisoners who could have left prison but decided, for whatever reason, to stay inside. Jack Straw reported this to parliament recently.

 

[joe-90]

Getting rid of murdering and raping pondlife scumbags - and chavs - is as much about protecting one's homeland as well.

Or would you rather defend this homeland against invasion...for what exactly? So that these amoebas can continue to procreate and become the majority?

Lock them up for ever.

 

[joe-90]

Because protecting your homeland and family in a time of war is a selfless act. You don't do it for revenge.

That's a pretty childish view of war I think, I've never been in one myself but , they are a very dirty business, and revenge is one of the main motivations, after survival of course.

No need for POWs then? Are you suggesting both sides torture and kill their enemies? What a twisted person you are.

 

[sooey]

Because protecting your homeland and family in a time of war is a selfless act. You don't do it for revenge.

That's a pretty childish view of war I think, I've never been in one myself but , they are a very dirty business, and revenge is one of the main motivations, after survival of course.

No need for POWs then? Are you suggesting both sides torture and kill their enemies? What a twisted person you are.

Realistic rather than twisted I think, have you ever been in a war?

 

[joe-90]

No but I wouldn't shoot people for the heck of it.

 

[godsoftandjoearedull]

Lock them up for ever.

Why? When there's no need

t1

• godsoftandjoearedull
• 10 Jun 2008
• 1