Speaking from experiance two yrs ago for a motoring offence spent 2months at ther majesty pleasure and tbh having never been to prison i was scared of course but soon after being there everything is quite an easy ride and routine to be fair jails could do with being a lot harder and more work .


i think the main problem is red tape , if a prisoner doesnt want to do something there is only so much a prison gaurd can do and prison service can do to make some one do something


But i totally agree that prisons shouldnt be as easier as they are.


considering i had tv dvd radio kettle tuck shop blah blah blah.

 

Absolutely. Firstly it will serve as a protection for society in the form of reduced rates of serious crime...

if anyone says the death penalty for murder etc with conditions of course, would not reduce serious crime obviously has not looked into studies of why people offend and re-offend...it's because of the lenient punishment.

As for leaders committing such crimes it should be dealt with very very seriously. What will the people of countries with such leaders be like....twisted....

 

Prisoners per 1000 crimes committed, yes, and thats exactly what the figures I linked to show

 

Anyone convicted of knowingly murdering someone should face the death penalty. Murder is becoming more widespread now since the fear of the death penalty is no longer there. Life seems to be becoming cheaper in the eyes of the criminal. We see more murders now that in the time when the death penalty existed. The State has the right of the sword after all.

Ther is an obvious and easy way to avoid the penalty after all!

Les

 

Only problem with this statement is the evidence does support it (not that this has ever stopped you).

Countries with the DP have a high murder rate than those without it....go figure!

 

but they also seem to show Romania, along with Bulgaria and Solvakia with the lowest crime and Sweden, Belgium and Denmark with the highest

that seems a bit odd

maybe they don't bother to report them in Romania?

 

The problem with that is that certain cases test that principle.

For example, what would you do if a father had knowingly murdered the paedophile who abused his child just hours after it had happened?

Or when someone had intended to kill the person who had been harassing them for years? Maybe they had a fit of rage one night and went out with a hammer or some other implement to do what they felt the police couldn't.

In both those scenarios I bet that a lot of people would feel an injustice was done if the murderer had their life ended. In the first case probably 99% of people would feel an injustice was done if there was even any kind of severe sentence.

Between those extremes and a completely innocent person being murdered you have an endless number of different ways in which someone could be considered 'provoked' to murder someone: the same principle as in the examples above but to various lesser extents.

 

Have there been situations in the past where you would have murdered someone if there had been less of a punishment or even none at all? You would have wanted to murder that person?

 

Problem with that is, if you treat people like animals they will become animals, then what happens when they get released 10yrs down the line?

Prisons like schools need to focus more on re-habilitation and prevention, teach people life skills, give them a trade that is not crime / get rich quick orientated, so as to get them off the dole and out of the crime cycle, most start out as vulnerable kids and are led into a life of crime through lack of choice which centres around lack of education.

The threat of death for a crime will just mean they make sure there are no witnesses to convict, ergo greater danger to the general public.

 

I think they already tried that method in your neck of the woods, and look how that turned out.

Amnesty anybody.

 

FWIW I feel

1) Society goes backwards if it re-introduces the death penalty.

2) They should do away with the mandatory life sentence for murder and be more realistic with sentencing. Example a paedo may go down for a long time but a father who kills his wife's lover or the guy who rapes his kid should be treated with some leniency

3) The murder conviction for ending a life of terminally ill person should be reviewed

4) Much more attention should be paid to people who have a mental health problem

5) People should not come on here with bland statements about deterrents/murder rates etc if they don't actually know the facts.

6) Prisoners should be treated fairly but no luxuries for short terms.

Just my 2 year's worth

dl

 

If it means society going "backwards", if it reduces crime figures then i wouldn't be concerned if the law dated back to 100,132BC.

2 YEARS for this conclusion

 

Ah to an age when Lewis was just a lad, Tel Boy couldn't spell and Bubba only had 10 posts

It has actually taken me around 50 years to realise that the death penalty is wrong - you get more humane as you get older.

Just my 50 pence worth

dl

 

yes agreed maturity comes with age...

This Ratco guy was a fair age but looks like the maturity thing didn't have any effect on this chap.

 

It won't reduce crime though.

 

You can accuse me of profiling or whatever if you must, but my money says with a name like that, the OP might just have an axe to grind because of who Mladic's victims were. By the same token, I'd also question whether they'd be so keen to see the death penalty reinstated, if the tide of war in ex-Yugoslavia had taken a different turn than it did, and it was the Serbs who'd ended up taking a whipping and being ethnically cleansed. I'm guessing probably not quite so much.

Last but not least, the jurisdiction that Mladic is being tried under (ICTY) never had the death penalty to begin with, so it's slightly moronic to argue that you could 'bring it back'.

 

Is any murderer truly 'sane'? I think people should be made to pay for their crime regardless of age/mental health etc. It's all just an excuse when it comes to things like this, it shouldn't be looked on as acceptable because they have 'issues'!

On another note, I found this link showing Sarajevo 15 years ago and now from the OP's link quite interesting!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pict...?frame=2221182

 

So you think we should have the mentally ill killed, in cold blood, in our name?

Sorry but that is just wrong

 

If someone purposefully takes a life (ie not an accident) then they lose the right to their own in my opinion, regardless of 'issues' if not then what next, letting off people with hay fever? Dyslexia? A verruca?

If someone kills someone else then they MUST have mental issues, it's not a normal thing to do and they need to be removed so they don't do it again!

I'm not on about rounding up all the mentally ill and doing away with them, just the murderous ones.

 

It's not an excuse, it's a reason. To blame people for having an illness is totally wrong. dl

 

Do you think Hitler was 'sane'? Would you have let him off?

 

^^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[/thread]

TX.

 

But if you were to treat them differently then effectively you would be allowing them to murder the other people! Is that the message you want to give to the world? 'It's not ok to kill unless they pissed you off first'?

 

That seems a ridiculous statement, for one you are presuming that the Muslims would have partaken in the worst crimes in Europe since the second world war, ignoring the fact that Serbians still have extreme views on nationalism and still have passionate racism running through the country, that is something the Bosnian Muslims never had. I can also guarantee that the rest of the world would have been involved MUCH faster if it was the other way around. There are plenty of murderers and rapist still at large in Serbia simply because too many people there from the top to the bottom have no moral issue with the Genocide they attempted. Your other presumption if is that the OP would not care if Muslims attempted Genocide, what bullsh!t that alone reveals a lot more about what runs through your head than you think.

 

Have you been drinking

TX.

 

On a slightly different note, who do we get to kill all the killers? and How, does that person not then become a murderer?

You'd have to be pretty unhinged to want a job like that, what would said person put on the application form?

 

Point 1, once somebody's dead, killing the perpetrator doesn't bring that person back, regardless of whatever motive or mitigation (or lack thereof) might be involved, so to say anything is 'allowing' a murder to happen in this context is nonsensical. The only way to prevent a murder from happening is for the victim not to be killed in the first place.
Point 2, there are sliding scales, or varying levels of punishment applied for just about every crime on the statute books, depending on the circumstances of each case. Applying a blanket rule of capital punishment for all murder convictions without exception would make it unique among the hundreds or thousands of offences you can currently be charged with in this country, which is pretty tough to justify.

 

To save DL a bit of typing, I'm pretty sure that sentence was supposed to read '... or murders the guy who rapes his kid'.

It's abundantly obvious in fact, from later posts.

 

There isn't the tiniest shred of doubt in your mind that if there'd been a genocide in some part of the world 15 or 20 years ago carried out by a majority Muslim country or region, and the presumed chief orchestrator of that atrocity was now sitting in a UN court facing charges, the OP would have been equally motivated to sign up to SNet for the sole purpose of starting a thread calling for the guy to get the death penalty? Not sure exactly what tint of glasses it is you're wearing, but it must be a very 'interesting' view of the world you get through them

 

To summarise this topic then, murderers who do it on purpose are probably in one way or another a bit 'different' to others, you could say 'mentally unstable' so should not be executed because it's not their fault they are different. People who kill for revenge can justify it so this can be tollerated and again should not be killed for their crimes! Let's just send them all on a fully inclusive holiday for a few years and then see if they do it again when they get out! Oh hang on a minute...