no, it means "refusing to conform to the laws which the UK passed and agreed to conform to"
Can you guess which country took a leading role in framing european human rights ?
no, it means "refusing to conform to the laws which the UK passed and agreed to conform to"
Can you guess which country took a leading role in framing european human rights ?
Sponsored Links
plugwash said:
That sounds like a reasonable definition of a criminal.
jockscott said:
That's not what plugwash said. Criminals are responsible for their own actions. They choose to break the law. What plugwash did say was that governments make the law and, in so doing, they determine what is or is not a crime.
And so it all depends on what kind of government you've got. Maybe that government is made up of intelligent, well-meaning legislators carefully chosen by us all to represent our best interests.
Yeah, right! Excuse me while I swat that pesky pig. More likely, they'll be power-hungry politicians driven by their own prejudice and self interest and this will be reflected in the laws they make. As somebody once didn't quite say: "It's hard to imagine sane legislators seriously sitting down and prescribing what you can and can't buy on a Sunday." We can count ourselves lucky in that the self-interest of our politicians includes the need to be re-elected. Less fortunate souls are stuck with laws lifted from some ancient text which, in turn, reflects the prejudice and self-interest of its author(s) - but it could be worse. In the distant past, laws were made at the whim of a megalomaniac tyrant with a bigger sword than everybody else and answerable to nobody. It still happens - and benevolent dictators are few and far between.
And so we keep coming back to the problem of how to formulate laws that are workable, enforcable and fair.
There is no absolute set of rules out there, whatever the religious bigots might like to think. (To be fair, the major religions have done a pretty good job but they've always come to grief on the sticky subject of sex. ) The fundamental postulate that nobody is more important than anybody else will get you a long way but, as far as I can see, it still doesn't provide a ready answer to the original question of whether or not prisoners should have the right to vote.Look at it another way. Should prisoners have the right to vote for - or against - the government that declared them to be criminals in the first place?
plugwash said:
Yes I do see a problem with that!
It's not so very long ago that our own government kept half the population out of the voting pool. It's also not so long ago that half the population were labelled - well not quite criminals but certainly inferior beings and somehow 'unclean'. Like I said, our own record on human rights hasn't always been as good as we like to think. And on that note, I've more or less convinced myself that we're in the wrong. Prisoners should have the right to vote.PS: I've watched a number of documentaries over the years in which different groups of people - including police officers, judges and ex-convicts - discuss the pros and cons of our penal system. Almost without fail, it's the convicts who argue for the toughest sentences.
Give them the vote!
But isn't our government opposed to giving prisoners the vote, but being 'encouraged' to do so by our masters in Brussels?
Or am I making a foolish and incorrect assumoption again?
Sponsored Links
Can you explain (in simple terms) why so many lawyers and barristers, then use the Human Rights Act as some sort of leverage to protect/defend criminals? Why courts up and down the country afford these "Human Rights" to murderers, rapists, drunk drivers who kill innocent kids, whilst conveniently forgetting these same "Human Rights" murder victims, rape victims etc should have enjoyed ?
That's the real issue here. (or are we to be accused of vindictiveness, simply because we want some sort of system where the punishment fits the crime?
I've seen people use the excuse that prison is there to rehabilitate the criminal. Yet far too often, we read in the press, about so called "Career criminals", who see prison time as some sort of occupational hazard/benefit.
Others point out that these criminals have their freedom taken away from them and are kept separated from family etc. (criminals never gave a thought about that when committing their crimes in the bloody first place)
Yep these will be the same prisoners who know they're getting 3 square meals a day, access to the latest gym equipment, warmth in winter and probably air conditioning in summer. Hmmm what's the answer to it all? Perhaps it's time to build some sort of "super prison" where the inmates are made to work hard, all day long.. No work, no food? (yep that'd work) Perhaps prisons should be harsh places, so criminals don't want to go there in the first place? I'm sure if someone thought they were going to a really harsh regime, they'd seriously think about not committing crime in the first instance (or at least never again)
Hard Labour????
No point.
The human rights lunatics would want indoor swimming pools, saunas and massage therapy for the detrimental effects on their poor over-used muscles.
I have advocated hard labour and harsh regimes for criminals many times on this forum and others. It's good to hear someone else in agreement.
Sadly, the hand-wringers and do-gooders seem to call the shots these days (with or without the help of the EU) and so I'm afraid we'll have to live with the present situation where crime is actively encouraged.
I wonder how bad things will have to get before people begin to see sense.
It is a foolish mistake to imagine that severity of sentence deters criminals.
What works is certainty of detection, and swiftness of consequences.
For example, the punishment for smoking is that, in 20 or 40 years time, you might be crippled with heart disease and emphysema, you might have your tongue amputated as a result of oral cancer, you might have an agonising death due to lung cancer, and you will probably not see your grandchildren grow up.
So not immediate, and not certain.
Result? They puff away. But no sentence could be more severe.
If you park on a yellow line in Oxord Street, within five minutes your car will be ticketed and you will be fined. Within fifteen minutes your car will be hoisted away and you will have a large fine plus recovery costs plus you will lose the use of your car for a day or so. Immediate and certain.
Result? They don't do it.
What works is certainty of detection, and swiftness of consequences.
For example, the punishment for smoking is that, in 20 or 40 years time, you might be crippled with heart disease and emphysema, you might have your tongue amputated as a result of oral cancer, you might have an agonising death due to lung cancer, and you will probably not see your grandchildren grow up.
So not immediate, and not certain.
Result? They puff away. But no sentence could be more severe.
If you park on a yellow line in Oxord Street, within five minutes your car will be ticketed and you will be fined. Within fifteen minutes your car will be hoisted away and you will have a large fine plus recovery costs plus you will lose the use of your car for a day or so. Immediate and certain.
Result? They don't do it.
Hmm a quick google reveals cars worth more than the average house price are towed away in London, quite often. Sometimes for parking offences and sometimes for having no insurance. A Lamborghini Aventador was recently auctioned by the Met after the driver was found to be uninsured. It sold for £218,000 (costs over £400,000 brand new , so some lucky bidder got an absolute bargain)
It's not detection rates and swiftness of consequences that prevent crime. I feel that harsher consequences would certainly make career criminals , think twice before committing further criminal acts. (might even make first time offenders stop and consider their actions)
Yes it is.
how many cars do you see illegally parked today?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/travelnews/london/trafficcameras/transportforlondon/0000107452
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/travelnews/national/trafficcameras/transportforlondon/0000107301/serveimage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/travelnews/london/trafficcameras/transportforlondon/0000107452
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/travelnews/national/trafficcameras/transportforlondon/0000107301/serveimage
We're not exactly talking about cars parked on double yellow lines though (are we?) Anyway, the links you give only show still pictures and they are quite small. I don't suppose even you could tell whether there's a vehicle illegally parked on them (which of course there could well be)
Even if we are talking about illegal parking,(well you seem to be) , it's just not on the same level as murder, rape, or armed robberies etc etc.
Even if we are talking about illegal parking,(well you seem to be) , it's just not on the same level as murder, rape, or armed robberies etc etc.
Add to the fact that the longer they are in is time they are not able to commit a crime. And if they are given hard labour, (regardless of how pointless it may seem to some), then they will probably not want to return so quickly.
We are too soft in many aspects of life in this country. Point aside, you now only need to sign on once a fortnight instead of weekly! I think you should have to do it daily.
1/ It would mean you couldn't go swanning off working on the side.
2/ It would mean extra jobs in the benefits office so slightly reducing unemployment.
3/ it would stop the dole-ites going to Ibiza for 10 days holiday at the tax payers expense and then getting back in time to sign on for their next pay cheque.
4/ By looking at their 'work' experience when they sign on an officer can notify them of a vacancy that they should apply for. (No excuses, there is a job there, apply or lose benefit).[/list]
We are too soft in many aspects of life in this country. Point aside, you now only need to sign on once a fortnight instead of weekly! I think you should have to do it daily.
1/ It would mean you couldn't go swanning off working on the side.
2/ It would mean extra jobs in the benefits office so slightly reducing unemployment.
3/ it would stop the dole-ites going to Ibiza for 10 days holiday at the tax payers expense and then getting back in time to sign on for their next pay cheque.
4/ By looking at their 'work' experience when they sign on an officer can notify them of a vacancy that they should apply for. (No excuses, there is a job there, apply or lose benefit).[/list]
Sponsored Links
