Mike Rainbird

A guy who works for us had the right idea:

His son had his Toyota Corrolla Gti nicked. Fortunately the police caught the guy in question (don't know how, as that's normally the last you see of a car). When the case came to court, they went to watch and apparantly in court they say something along the lines of "are you John Doe of 17 Arcacia Avenue" etc (this was a couple of years ago now, so don't know if this is still the case). They obviously then had "scum's" address. They bided their time and after a few months (I believe he got a few hours community service), waited outside his house one night and "sorted" him out.

However, my favourite one is a story from "Performance Bikes" just over a year or so ago. Fed up with having their bikes nicked or attempted to be, a group of bike owners got together and "planted" a bike in an area they knew to be high on the thieve's hit list and sat and waited in the back of a transit for scum to turn up (this was apparantly an organised professional ring of thieves). When the guy tampered with the bike (they had to be sure he was intending on nicking it), they all piled out of the van with baseball bats (wearing celebrity masks) and beat the living sh*t out of him, broke several fingers and told him to report back that if any of them were ever caught on their "manor" again, they would basically end up as fish bait. Apparantly it worked so well, word spread and they got calls from all over the country to go and do the same thing eleswhere.

One of the journalists actually went along on one of the "stake-outs" (where someone was actually caught) and wrote a full article about the whole thing. They even called themselves "The A-Team" if memory serves me correctly....

It was one of the best articles I have ever read, as despite it being SO WRONG, you ended up siding with them for actually have the ***** to do something and make a difference (unlike the police and magistrate courts)...

Despite the wrongness of what Nightmare is saying, I also know that I would do the same thing if one of my loved ones were killed in similar circumstances. He would not make it to jail - unless it was at the very least via a hospital first.
Mike

Richard F

krisw

I'm sorry that you feel upset by the remarks made in this thread but can only imagine that you've never been the victim of any sort of crime. I believe that the average Subaru owner is an intelligent individual capable of rational thought and action and the fact that so many people are outraged by such an incident is a natural response.

To want some form of physical revenge on another human being if they do you wrong is not right wing in any way. In fact it's human nature. Have your car stereo nicked and you'll understand - you want to inflict serious pain on the person responsible. I can't even imagine the feeling of losing a relative or loved one in such an incident. This wasn't an accident. This was a malicious act perpetrated by an established criminal. When such people are allowed to commit crime time and time again, it's understable (I think) for people to seek their own justice.

By the way, the Bolsheviks killed millions of Jews in the thirties in pogroms in Russia so violent acts are not confined to one political view or another.

I don't believe I am right wing or left wing. I believe that people should take responsibilities for their own actions and if my son had committed such a terrible act then he should face up to the consequences, whatever they may be.

Once again, don't buy (or indeed don't not buy) a car based upon your impressions of the owners from this thread. If you've been on here for some months I think you'll agree that generally the people on here are very reasonable, helpful people.

Ian Cook

Hmmm, While I agree with a majority of whats above, I am not sure about capital punishment ie execution. We should definitely be harder on these people but i am not sure we should stoop to their level. A ban for this type of offence is a complete waste of time as far as i am concerned, they simply dont care, and drive anyway, without insurance, tax, mot etc, so unless they get caught driving they get away with it.

5 years for what he did, is an absolute disgrace, and no sentence would be enough for the victims family, nothing would bring the victim back. A life sentence should be what he got, for taking the life of another human being under these circumstances. Not in one of the hotels we have nowadays for crims either, hard labour or whatever else to make them pay for what they have done, killing them is letting them off easy !!!!

The fact a criminal can sue someone for defending their property and family is also very offensive. Once a criminal has crossed the line they should have no rights whatsoever ?????

Ranted on a bit there, but this is a very hot topic, and the government should be doing something about these people, instead of stopping people doing 5mph over the speed limit etc.

Markus

I'm pretty right wing with my views and re-instating the death penalty, while very appealing, might not be the way to go due to the fact that no political part will ever have the ***** to have this on their manifesto, it's basically political suicide, less you are 99.99 percent convinced that the country will vote you in.

I aggree with Mike Rainbird, if someone I care about is killed in the same cirumstances then the villian in question will face serious consequences, not a quick death, but a nice, 'rest-of-thier-lives' punishment, don't know quite what though. But a Black n Decker with a masonary bit would feature somewhere along the line.

grrrrrr. I better go and have a nice cold shower and some fresh air. I'm getting angry, and you won't like me when I'm angry.

NickF

Prisons aren't hotels. Britain has some of the nastiest, most overcrowded and generally vile prisons in Europe, as our prison inspectors constantly point out.

Britain also has the highest prison population (per head) in Europe.

Britain passes longer sentences than almost any other country in Europe.

Oh yes, and Britain has just about the highest recorded crime figures in Europe.

Sorry boys (and it's almost always men who come out with these views) - longer sentences in ****ty prisons DO NOT deter criminals. What they do is make released offenders almost completely unemployable, so they commit more crimes when they come out. If you've been dehumanised in prison, you're not exactly going to come out thinking the best of the society that put you in there, now are you?

DavidLewis

I think Ian Cook has hit the nail on the head

Yep, people have rights. We should the right to sleep safe in our houses and not be burgled. Once a criminal takes the step to break the law, he should forfeit the right to protection from the law.

I would consider myself a failure if one of my kids stole cars to drive dangerously at 100mph. I dont advocate the death penalty, but if my kids ever commit a serious crime I would stand by any sentence passed on them.

sickboy

NickF,
you're right, SOME prisons aren't hotels and longer prison sentences tend to produce better "trained", more determined criminals.

Hence disrupting the cycle with certain death would stop the problem. QED

It would save a fortune in taxpayer's money too.

Flippancy mode off.

[This message has been edited by sickboy (edited 27-01-2000).]

Oz

Prisons are definitely not hard enough on criminals.....they get to live in nicely heated cells, get three meals a day, watch some telly, have a bit of leisure time, even try some drama-therapy (and I have relatives who work in prisons so I know this for a fact).

All the while, the taxpayer pays for them. They don't come out dehumanised - they come out thinking `that wasn't so bad after all'. I'm all for chaingangs - get them doing something useful for society while they're in there. Plenty of roads that need surfacing, trenches that need digging, etc. And I don't think this is purely a male view - I know enough women who agree with this perspective.

If the punishment was harsh enough, it would deter the majority of would-be criminals. If stealing a car meant five years hard labour (with no parole for good behaviour) - as opposed to a slap on the wrist and a driving ban (as if they care) - then I think you'd find the number of cars stolen would drop considerably.

GranTurismo

The thing that makes me sick is the fact that people who commit fraud, especially against the govetnment get much stricter sentances than people who commit violent/sex crimes. I am not defending white collar crime, but a VAT fiddle is not as bad as Rape, but the VAT gets more time inside.

Sad.

Danny Fisher

I think the punishment the kiddy perv's get is almost getting to what they should be given in court. I.E. When they get to jail, all the 'SISTERS' (18 stone, brick sh*t houses) enjoy abusing them. Unfairly they only get a couple of years, should be castration....

Dan

PaulL

...but what REALLY p155es me off is that some of these car-offenders end up, AS PUNISHMENT, on some race track being shown how to drive a car properly at speed by professionals, and all paid for by us taxpayers...

I'm sure everyone here would jump at some FREE track and tuition time.

Maybe I should start nickin' a few mota's

Paul L

[This message has been edited by PaulL (edited 27-01-2000).]

MorayMackenzie

krisw,

Please don't let the socio-political opinions of a few posters on this thread disuade you from buying into the scooby "way of life", eg: almost always enjoying getting from A to B too much, often adding C,D,E and F to the route (IMHO).

This is just one of those issues where only people with the strongest(most extreme?) views will bother getting involved in posting (letting off steam? ). I know I do this when I see a topic that I feel particularly strongly about, I think it's just human nature!

Bear in mind that, although you may not agree with some of the opinions expressed here on the BBS, those opinions are (almost) always expressed and discussed in an intelligent and articulate manner. If it degenerated to simple name calling, it simply wouldn't be nearly as interesting a community to be a member of!

Moray

PS: Anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong and smells of elderberries!

MorayMackenzie

Oz,

Re Your statement:

a) I failed him as a parent
b) He's no son of mine

Question: You admit failure as a parent, so you disassociate yourself from your resposibility for your offspring and your own failings as a parent, does that really, truely seem reasonable to you?

In the unlikely event that this is the case, it makes me appreciate my own parents that little bit more, despite their (and my) failings!

Moray

Oz

Question: You admit failure as a parent, so you disassociate yourself from your resposibility for your offspring and your own failings as a parent, does that really, truely seem reasonable to you?

To be honest, Moray, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to get at. What I meant was:

a) If he committed those acts, then I would feel that I must have done a bad job of being a father somewhere along the way. Whether or not this is empirically proven - it would be a gut feeling, which I think is probably quite natural. Would you be proud of your parenting abilities if your son did this?

b) I would not be able to forgive my son if he carried out his life like this and committed this act. I would therefore, not want anything further to do with him.

I think most people would feel like this if their offspring went on to become murderers, rapists, etc.

MorayMackenzie

Sorry Oz, that just seems to be blaming and punishing the child for the results of your bad parenting. Kind of convinient way to shift the blame, if you can really just sever links with your own flesh and blood like that!

It strikes me that someone who could just walk away from their own parental responsibilities like that, whatever the circumstances, does not really have what it takes to be a good parent anyway (IMHO!).

I don't mean to be offensive, I am just giving my opinion, which is nice to be able to do (appreciating my parents that little bit more again !).

Moray

Oz

>Sorry Oz, that just seems to be blaming and punishing the child for the results of your bad parenting.
-It's nothing of the sort and I can't even see how you'd come to that conclusion. Are you suggesting that all criminal acts are the result of bad parenting?

>Kind of convinient way to shift the blame, if you can really just sever links with your own flesh and blood like that!
-So, you're the kind of person who'd be quite happy to have a murderer or a rapist for a son? Wouldn't make a difference to your relationship? I'm afraid you're in the minority....


Equally, this whole line of 'what if it was your child who committed this offence' is pointless and tries to turn the debate into a subjective one. If every judge/politician honestly thought 'what if it was me/my wife/my child, etc.' then I'm sure we'd have very few laws and even less punishments.

My belief is that the current laws and punishments are not strong enough and do not deter crime. This is borne out by the fact that, for some crimes, criminals are being let off with a slap on the wrist and nothing more. Theft for example. If a thief appears before a magistrate's court having already committed three former thefts, he still has only a 12% chance of being put in prison. If he has over six former convictions, he still only has a 20% chance of going to prison. Something is badly wrong there....

I honestly can't believe there are people out there who would try and defend these useless, parasitic scum.....

[This message has been edited by Oz (edited 28-01-2000).]

johnfelstead

ACT 50/02/99, 18/12/1999

FACTS AND FIGURES ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Revised 18 December 1999

1. Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries
Over half the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Amnesty International's latest information shows that:
70 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes
13 countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes
23 countries can be considered abolitionist de facto: they retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more
making a total of 106 countries which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
90 other countries retain and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller (see below).
(Reference: List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries, September 1999, AI Index: ACT 50/01/99)

2. Progress Towards Worldwide Abolition
More than two countries a year on average have abolished the death penalty in law since 1976 or, having abolished it for ordinary crimes, have gone on to abolish it for all crimes.
Over 30 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes or for all crimes since 1990. They include countries in Africa (examples include Angola, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa), the America (Canada, Paraguay), Asia (Cambodia, Hong Kong, Nepal), Europe (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland) and the Pacific (New Zealand).
(Reference: List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries)

3. Moves to Reintroduce the Death Penalty
Once abolished, the death penalty is seldom reintroduced. Since 1985, over 35 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or, having previously abolished it for ordinary crimes, have gone on to abolish it for all crimes. During the same period only four abolitionist countries reintroduced the death penalty. One of them - Nepal - has since abolished the death penalty again; one, the Philippines, has resumed executions, but there have been no executions in the other two (Gambia, Papua New Guinea).
(Reference: List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries)

4. Death Sentences and Executions
During 1998 at least 2,258 prisoners are known to have been executed in 37 countries and 4,845 sentenced to death in 78 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true figures are certainly higher.
As in previous years, a small number of countries accounted for the vast majority of executions recorded. Amnesty International received reports of 1,700 executions in China, over 100 executions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 68 executions in the USA and 66 executions in Iran . These four countries alone accounted for 86% of all executions recorded by Amnesty International worldwide in 1998. Amnesty International also received reports of hundreds of executions in Iraq but was unable to confirm most of these reports.
(Reference: Death Sentences and Executions in 1998, AI Index: ACT 51/01/99)

5. Use of the Death Penalty Against Child Offenders
International human rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime being sentenced to death. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child all have provisions to this effect. More than 100 countries have laws specifically excluding the execution of child offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of countries, however, continue to execute child offenders.
Six countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime - Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. The country which carried out the greatest number of known executions of child offenders was the USA (10 since 1990).
(Reference: Juveniles and the Death Penalty: Executions Worldwide since 1990, AI Index: ACT 50/11/98)

6. The Deterrence Argument
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the UN in 1988 and updated in 1996, concluded: "Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis..."
(References: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, revised edition, 1996, p. 238, paragraph 328)

7. Effect of Abolition on Crime Rates
Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and crime rates, a study prepared for the UN in 1988 and updated in 1996 stated that "the fact that all the evidence continues to point in the same direction is persuasive a priori evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty".
Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has remained relatively stable. In 1993, 17 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 2.19 per 100,000 population, 27 per cent lower than in 1975. The total number of homicides reported in the country fell in 1993 for the second straight year.
(References: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, p. 187, paragraph 253; When the State Kills..., pp. 11-12)

8. International Agreements to Abolish the Death Penalty
One of the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption of international treaties whereby states commit themselves to not having the death penalty. Three such treaties now exist:
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has now been ratified by 40 states. Three other states have signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to it at a later date.
The Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ('European Convention on Human Rights'), which has now been ratified by 33 European states and signed by six others.
Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which has been ratified by six states in the Americas and signed by two others.
Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is an agreement to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. The other two protocols provide for the total abolition of the death penalty but allow states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime as an exception.
(Reference: Ratifications of International Treaties on the Death Penalty, AI Index: ACT 50/03/99)

9. Execution of the Innocent
As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.
Three hundred and fifty people convicted of capital crimes in the USA between 1900 and 1985 were innocent of the crimes charged, according to a 1987 study. Some prisoners escaped execution by minutes, but 23 were actually executed.
A US Congressional report by the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights in October 1993 listed 48 condemned men who had been freed from death row since 1972. The report blamed inadequate legal safeguards to prevent wrongful executions and listed numerous inherent flaws in the criminal justice system. The report concluded: "Judging by past experience, a substantial number of death row inmates are indeed innocent, and there is a high risk that some of them will be executed."

10. The Death Penalty in the USA
68 prisoners were executed in the USA in 1998, bringing to 500 the total number executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in 1977.
Over 3,500 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1 April 1999.
38 of the 50 US states now provide for the death penalty in law; the death penalty is also provided under US federal military and civilian law.


take a look at this site if you feel the need to be educated on the facts.

krisw

I thought this thread had died. Obviously not! Its the subjectivity of the views that I found most disturbing. It all started off in the vein of "what if it was your loved one that was the victim". Of course I admit that it was my wife or kids that had been the victims of this madman that started it all off then my initial reaction would be extreme anger and a wish to get revenge. But my point was that we cant set laws and punishments on the basis of individuals reactions to personal tragedies. Presumably even this complete maniac didnt actually set out to kill anyone however reckless his driving. Ive read some pretty hair raising accounts of high speed activities on this board. What if one of your loved ones inadvertantly got involved in this with tragic results (subjective again Im afraid!) What punishment then? Please lets not hear any more talk of vigilantes, revenge attacks, amputations etc. It can only result in a brutalised society with everyone looking after themselves. And I m afraid justice and politics are inexorably linked,you cant have improved justice without legislation unless you want anarchy.

Oz

>But my point was that we cant set laws and punishments on the basis of individuals reactions to personal tragedies.
-I've never suggested that we set laws based upon reaction to tragedy. I'm suggesting that the law does not punish criminals severely enough in this country. This tragedy (and the sentence awarded to the offender) is merely evidence to support my suggestion...


>Presumably even this complete maniac didnt actually set out to kill anyone however reckless his driving.
-No, it wasn't murder. But it was manslaughter which sprang from the direct result of other illegal and negligent behaviour. This should all be factored into the sentence. Does anyone honestly believe five years is enough for what he has done?


>What if one of your loved ones inadvertantly got involved in this with tragic results (subjective again Im afraid!) What punishment then?
-Irrelevant. I support a change in the law. I don't theorise about the personal implications of that change. What's the point?

>And I m afraid justice and politics are inexorably linked,you cant have improved justice without legislation unless you want anarchy.
-Obviously justice and politics are linked. But the desire for stronger sentencing, while traditionally part of the more right-wing manifesto, is not intrinsically bound to any particular political persuasion. The majority of my political leanings are left-wing but I feel strongly on this subject.


Johnfelstead> it may have been an idea just to print the relevant section (i.e. death penalty seems to have no effect on offending rate) and posted a link to the rest. I think it would have made the point more clearly.

MorayMackenzie

Well done John Felstead! I am glad you included all the text, even if others aint!

It is interesting that Oz has chosen to believe that only one section of the text is relevent, personally I think all the information is useful, and the more information we take on, the more informed an opinion we can form. I would point out to Oz that the section on the execution of innocent persons is particularly relevant, even if it works against your own opinions on the subject!

The govenment is good at picking and choosing which statistics to use in making it's point, hence gatsos and zero tolerance for speeding etc...

Moray
(Maybe my parents didn't beat me enough when I was a child?! )

BTW: It's the weekend, have a good one guys!

Oz

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, Moray.

My opinion is that criminals get it pretty easy. The use of the death penalty is an extreme solution and is not one that I have made continued reference to (aside from pointing out that there is little point to Mr. Deveson being alive as he is a drain on society). The central gist of argument has been to suggest that we should punish criminals more for their crimes.

The majority of people feel a similar way to me (just count the posts on this topic). A recent newspaper survey for the Daily Mail suggested 92% of their readers felt the same as me.

Maybe it's time someone started doing something about it....

johnfelstead

And based on your opinions, that SOMETHING will be a policy that ignores all the facts and is based on your gut feeling, not research.

You simply can't ignore solid research by people who spend there entire working life studying the effects of inhumain practicies.

The current legal regime we live in is obviously not working properly but to simply put forward the opinion that locking people up for ever or executing them is the answer is simply absurd.