The death penalty.

[sooey]

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

Has anyone suggested that you should?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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)

Not being sarky - just pointing out that we don't know what lies behind that figure (except I did find that only 1 of the 42 was caught trying to break into a closed prison). Nor of course does anybody know how many people successfully got in, but given that drug dealers are prepared to kill in the running of their business we shouldn't be surprised that they try and get into open prisons. That some are caught is a good sign - if none were then we should be concerned.

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.

Do you have a link to what Jack Straw actually said, and what question he was actually asked? As opposed to the possibly inaccurate/incomplete reporting in the press?

I still say it is important to consider how many of those 37,000 turned down early release which they had actually been offered, and how many turned down the opportunity to apply for early release. A large percentage of that 37,000 will be in the second category, because they know full well there is no point applying if they would be homeless on release. And there are some (maybe not a huge number, but some) who do stay in order to finish a training course (which should be cause for celebration, not concern).

I'm sure there are some who genuinely could leave but prefer not to, but the intelligent response to that is to look at what is wrong with life outside prison, not inside.

 

[sooey]

I'm sure there are some who genuinely could leave but prefer not to, but the intelligent response to that is to look at what is wrong with life outside prison, not inside.

Sums you up perfectly banallsheds, the realistic response is to know that it is beyond your power to put the whole world to rights. Leaving the intelligent person to try and control that which can be controlled.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sums you up perfectly banallsheds, the realistic response is to know that it is beyond your power to put the whole world to rights. Leaving the intelligent person to try and control that which can be controlled.

So 10's of '000's of people refuse to leave prison when formally told they can actually go because the whole world is wrong, not because of one or two things specific to them that might be fixable, do they?

And how do you know that what is wrong with the outside is beyond anyone's power to resolve if you don't look at it intelligently?

 

[sooey]

Sums you up perfectly banallsheds, the realistic response is to know that it is beyond your power to put the whole world to rights. Leaving the intelligent person to try and control that which can be controlled.

So 10's of '000's of people refuse to leave prison when formally told they can actually go because the whole world is wrong, not because of one or two things specific to them that might be fixable, do they?

And how do you know that what is wrong with the outside is beyond anyone's power to resolve if you don't look at it intelligently?[/quote]

So when you've "fixed" things for these 10's of '000's and got them all settled nicely into a new pad/job/life whatever, what's to stop 10's of '000,000's saying to themselves," f*ck this working for a lark" I think I'll do some crime, do a bit of time, and get "fixed" up at the end of it by that t*thead banallsheds and his mates.

What is wrong with the outside, as you put it, probably isn't within anyones immediate power to "fix" but a start would be to make people face responsibility for the choices they make in life, insted of pandering to them no matter what they do.

 

[megawatt]

Shytalkz wrote:

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

Joe-90 Responded:

Yes. Without as moments hesitation.

Given your statements during this topic about soldiers being people who join up because they want to kill other people this is an extraordinary thing for you to say Joe

You have now stated that you are absolutely no different to those you are deriding as killers simply because they believe in capital punishment.

MW

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So when you've "fixed" things for these 10's of '000's and got them all settled nicely into a new pad/job/life whatever,

So you'd rather we tossed them out, unimproved, to an environment where they have no job and possibly nowhere to live? That'll help them not to re-offend, won't it...

what's to stop 10's of '000,000's saying to themselves," f*ck this working for a lark" I think I'll do some crime, do a bit of time, and get "fixed" up at the end of it by that t*thead banallsheds and his mates.

Would you do that? Seriously, you personally? Or anybody you know (really know I mean, not read about in the Daily Mail, or heard about in the pub)?

10,000,000's of people are not going to land themselves with a criminal record for an offence serious enough to get them in prison long enough for their life outside to disintegrate, just because they fancy a bit of assistance with finding somewhere to live and work...

What is wrong with the outside, as you put it, probably isn't within anyones immediate power to "fix"

We'll never know until we take an intelligent look at it, will we?

but a start would be to make people face responsibility for the choices they make in life,

It's not very widespread, but where they have done just that, either by bringing victims and criminal together, or to group sessions with anonymous victims, it's had a marked beneficial effect on recidivism. And it helps the victims too.

insted of pandering to them no matter what they do.

Who suggested that?

 

[doitall]

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.

Why would you want to educate and rehabilitate them if they ain't getting out ever.

I could except locking them in an 8ft cage and throwing the key away would be as good as hanging them.

Apart from the fact the victims family still have to feed and cloth him for the rest of his natural.

 

[sooey]

First off I know many workshy people who could work but won't and spend their days crossing between the pub and the betting office, I live in a big city, most other towns and cities have areas exactly the same.

Secondly, you think that your benevolent attitudes are intelligent, they're not, the underclass I have just mentioned has been largely created by them.

Thirdly, when talking of making people face responsibility, I am talking about meaningful punishment that would also act as a deterrant. Train them as well at the same time, the two things are not mutually exclusive. Also many victims would have no wish to meet with perpetrators, unless they had a hammer in their hands.

Fourthly, every post that you make on this subject is all about pandering to criminals. So, you suggested it.[/quote]

 

[godsoftandjoearedull]

Who suggested that?

 

[Norcon]

Just reading about people killing in war. Wasn't a study done of WW2 veterans about how many can actually pull the trigger when the enemy is in his sights and a surprisingly large proportion opt not too.
The killing is done by about 1 in every 100 soldiers and this one guy is deemed pysopathic by nature.
They have no conscience to allow them to be bothered by what they have just done ( ie. blow the head off some poor chap)
I had a work mate a few years back who hospitilised 3 guys on a night out.
I was listening to the news one Sunday morning on the radio and the police were appealing for witnesses for an assault that taken place in the area that I knew he had been in that very night.
His favourite method of dispatch to his victims is a head butt straight on the nose.
He was courting a girl from across the divide in an Irish republican stronghold and a few of the locals had hatched a plan to give him a good seeing after closing time in the pub they had been drinking in that night. What they didn't know was that the guy was/is lethal in a street fight.
It wasn't until Monday morning when I seen his other mate with a severly bruised face that the penny dropped.
His face was untouched and unmarked. True bill.
It always made me think afterwards that this is the type of guy who in a time of war will be doing the killing without a moments hesitation.

 

[joe-90]

Shytalkz wrote:

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

Joe-90 Responded:

Yes. Without as moments hesitation.

Given your statements during this topic about soldiers being people who join up because they want to kill other people this is an extraordinary thing for you to say Joe

You have now stated that you are absolutely no different to those you are deriding as killers simply because they believe in capital punishment.

MW

Not even remotely similar. I don't go around assaulting people, but I will defend myself if attacked. Same sort of thing on a grander scale. If invaded I'd do what I could to protect the country (war isn't about dad's army now though). And if I were in charge of POW's I'd treat them decently. Just the same as our parents in WW2.

 

[Softus]

Given your statements during this topic about soldiers being people who join up because they want to kill other people this is an extraordinary thing for you to say Joe

I don't agree that someone's different view makes them extraordinary - it would be pretty strange if we were all the same.

Isn't there scope for graduations of 'wanting' people to be killed?

And isn't there scope for accepting that the same person is capable of expressing feelings bordering on indictability, and yet still act compassionately?

And isn't that the principle of a civilised society?

Can't we feel hunger, and yet not steal bread from someone else's mouth?
Can't we hurt, but contain it and not cause it to others?
Can't we hate, without actively seeking revenge?

You have now stated that you are absolutely no different to those you are deriding as killers simply because they believe in capital punishment.

I don't mean to pick on you, megawatt, but there's been a lot of this type of burlesque assertion on this topic. Just because you see a way to construe something, it isn't valid to express what you infer by claiming that the person has made a statement to that effect.

Is it so very hard to separate the feelings expressed by a person from the core of that person's being? We're all a mixed bag of prejudices and entrenched beliefs, many of which aren't at all logical. For example, it isn't rational to vehemently oppose the death penalty, and yet to be so utterly dismissive of all civilised debating rights of someone who, equally vehemently, supports it. And vice versa, of course.

I know it's often fun to play Devil's advocate and argue the toss, but the topic would be about one tenth of the length if people just stuck to saying what they believe, or support, or applaud, or even despise, but still behaved as though the goal was understanding differences in moral polarity and working out how to align them.

 

[Shytalkz]

That's a very erudite post, Softy.

Now, can we just work the conveyor belt, aquaduct and wind speed into this one?

 

[megawatt]

Softus Wrote:

I don't mean to pick on you, megawatt, but there's been a lot of this type of burlesque assertion on this topic.

I didn't realise that you were. Mind you I'm so surprised to see you responding to any of my posts that I guess I'm still shell-shocked really

Just because you see a way to construe something, it isn't valid to express what you infer by claiming that the person has made a statement to that effect.

I need to think about this one after a few beers

I know it's often fun to play Devil's advocate and argue the toss, but the topic would be about one tenth of the length if people just stuck to saying what they believe, or support, or applaud, or even despise, but still behaved as though the goal was understanding differences in moral polarity and working out how to align them.

This is so true and I hope BAS reads it.

MW