• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Crime and Punishment

Harv

TS Member
Here's one to get the debaters going ;)

What are your opinions on the justice system? Do you feel that it's 'broken' or does it do the job fine? What about Captial Punishment? And what could we do to lessen the crime rate for both new and re-offenders across Britain fairly?

I personally believe that the prison system is failing, and that there should be a new way of dealing with offenders instated. I don't believe in Capital Punishment, but I believe prisoners should be treat like the criminals they are. I'm not sure what we could do to replace the justice system, but I'm eager to hear suggestions from all of you. :)
 
Yes! I've been waiting for a topic like this! I've yet to express my love for killing on the new forum! ;)

I'm a firm believer that capital punishment should exist in one way or another.

There's some criminals in the world who really shouldnt be here... Won't go into detail at this current time as I'm at work and ill just right an essay! :p

Feel free to attack/debate with me about these beliefs though, I won't be offended as long as its not to harsh! :)

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
 
Capital punishment is effectively vengeance and achieves nothing. It should not and certainly will not be restored in this country ever, so people need to stop delluding themselves about it making a comeback.

I am not particularly liberal when it comes to crime however and I believe that prison works. I think they should be building more prisons and sending more people down, particularly repeat offenders - where sentences should rapidly escalate each time.

Certain people need to be removed from society, in some cases forever - but that doesn't mena we should kill them.

Also, as in the case of Ian Brady, I don't believe any prisoner should be allowed to commit suicide while serving their sentence - sane or not.
 
Calling it vengeance depends on your perspective.

I call it punishment/justice.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
 
Fredward said:
Calling it vengeance depends on your perspective.

I call it punishment/justice.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

How is killing someone a punishment? There's no evidence of any afterlife and certainly not a hell. So all you're doing is ending someone's life. They don't know they're dead and they aren't suffering/learning (most people want criminals to do at least one of those things in incarceration).
 
Long post is long....

The police system doesn't work particularly well because successive governments pile statistics and targets on top of each other, so instead of just letting us get on with it using common sense and discretion we spend half our time justifying what we do and why we do it, and generating statistics to print in the Daily Mail. We also spend much of our time dealing with stuff that is the remit of other government agencies (especially social services and mental health teams) as they don't have the resources (like we do!) and when anyone gets stuck with something they phone the police and make it our problem. Doesn't leave us much time to actually get out there and proactively fight crime (which is what just about and copper will tell you is what they want to be doing).

The court system doesn't work particularly well as the same faces getting sent there over and over again are repeatedly given a slap on the wrist, a couple of bail conditions and sent on their way to carry on messing up peoples lives and giving police the run around, tying up even more valuable resources. I can only presume judges are told to keep people out of jail as it costs a lot, without realising it costs a lot more to manage them and deal with them on the streets (in social service, benefits, serco management, policing and the non financial cost to society of their crime) but that cost is not seen so directly so it looks better.

The prison service doesn't work particularly well as it doesn't seem to know what it is for - half of it wants to punish and half of it wants to rehabilitate. There may be a place for both but the way it is now is a mess. What the hell are they doing with playstations in their cells, why is there such easy access to drugs and tobacco? Many people released from prison can't wait to get back there, that is not punishment. Prison should be hell, not a holiday, but with the opportunity for training in useful job skills for good behaviour and towards the end of sentences.

Capital punishment? No, it just can't be right. But forced labour to help pay back a debt to society, and to get them in the habit of working (a habit many of them have never had before) ready for when they are released? Hell yes, an obvious win all round.

With the massive reforms from the current lot at the top they've had the opportunity to fix a lot of this, to strip out all the wasted time and save by being more efficient in what we all do. Instead they've done it by shafting the polices pay and conditions (which we are powerless to do anything about without the right to strike) and outsourcing a ton of rolls when it is bloody obvious that building profit into a system can not be cheaper. We've all seen what a sterling effort G4S have made of the Olympic security, good luck to us all when they are running nearly all of the justice system. We are sleepwalking into the end of British policing and justice as we know it.
 
Re: Re: Crime and Punishment

Tom said:
Fredward said:
Calling it vengeance depends on your perspective.

I call it punishment/justice.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

How is killing someone a punishment? There's no evidence of any afterlife and certainly not hell. So all you're doing is sending someone's life. They don't know they're dead and they aren't suffering/learning (most people want criminals to do at least one of those things in incarceration).

Well punishment is probably a wrong word... Threat? You need some high stakes to convince someone to reform,

A life of petty crime gets punished with a holiday, and yet the victims minds are scarred for life most everyday.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
 
Interesting to hear people's opinions.

Surely though, capital punishment is just hypocrisy? I mean, "let's murder a murderer for being a murderer" makes little sense.

However, many people are introduced to crime from a young age. In the older days when crime was less common, children feared their elders and thus avoided trouble out of fear. Surely this is the wrong way to go, but perhaps if punishments were severer at home and in school during youth and adolescence, we might see a decrease in crime? The cane seemed to solve many problems back in the older days. Or am I just being barabarian? ???
 
pluk said:
Long post is long....

The police system doesn't work particularly well because successive governments pile statistics and targets on top of each other, so instead of just letting us get on with it using common sense and discretion we spend half our time justifying what we do and why we do it, and generating statistics to print in the Daily Mail. We also spend much of our time dealing with stuff that is the remit of other government agencies (especially social services and mental health teams) as they don't have the resources (like we do!) and when anyone gets stuck with something they phone the police and make it our problem. Doesn't leave us much time to actually get out there and proactively fight crime (which is what just about and copper will tell you is what they want to be doing).

The court system doesn't work particularly well as the same faces getting sent there over and over again are repeatedly given a slap on the wrist, a couple of bail conditions and sent on their way to carry on messing up peoples lives and giving police the run around, tying up even more valuable resources. I can only presume judges are told to keep people out of jail as it costs a lot, without realising it costs a lot more to manage them and deal with them on the streets (in social service, benefits, serco management, policing and the non financial cost to society of their crime) but that cost is not seen so directly so it looks better.

The prison service doesn't work particularly well as it doesn't seem to know what it is for - half of it wants to punish and half of it wants to rehabilitate. There may be a place for both but the way it is now is a mess. What the hell are they doing with playstations in their cells, why is there such easy access to drugs and tobacco? Many people released from prison can't wait to get back there, that is not punishment. Prison should be hell, not a holiday, but with the opportunity for training in useful job skills for good behaviour and towards the end of sentences.

Capital punishment? No, it just can't be right. But forced labour to help pay back a debt to society, and to get them in the habit of working (a habit many of them have never had before) ready for when they are released? Hell yes, an obvious win all round.

With the massive reforms from the current lot at the top they've had the opportunity to fix a lot of this, to strip out all the wasted time and save by being more efficient in what we all do. Instead they've done it by shafting the polices pay and conditions (which we are powerless to do anything about without the right to strike) and outsourcing a ton of rolls when it is bloody obvious that building profit into a system can not be cheaper. We've all seen what a sterling effort G4S have made of the Olympic security, good luck to us all when they are running nearly all of the justice system. We are sleepwalking into the end of British policing and justice as we know it.

+1 pretty much nailed on. Definitely someone with experience in this regard.

Also capital punishment solves nothing and is no deterrent. Case in point, the united states of America


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Speaking from experience of all 3 areas...
It's a long one!



The police system doesn't work. Through no fault of police officers, but more government / home office policy.
There is to much paperwork involved in the smallest of jobs, it's no wonder police don't want to deal with minor incidents when something as simple as the theft of a £1 toilet roll leads to in excess of ten man hours by the time interviews, statements, files, home office crime reports, national statistics recording and then if charged court files... That's before it gets to court! When you think of the cost involved to the tax payer for something so little to run into hundreds of pounds.

Police force is no longer used, it's police service as force gives the wrong impression... But it should be force! Police are encouraged to treat criminals as customers and customer feedback counts!

For something like your average Sunday afternoon domestic if complaints are made you can be into hundreds of man hours work costing thousands of pounds... Even if complaints aren't made most police officers have to take some action (normally one of the party is arrested or removed to another address) and the same paperwork has to be done regardless. The reason for this - if both parties say everything is ok and it was just a little argument but it's all sorted... Police leave and then one attacks the other the police can be disciplined for not acting. It's a lose lose situation.


The courts are discouraged from custodial sentences due to over crowding and do gooders thinking criminals should be given endless chances.... One example I had, an offender ages mid twenties has 128 convictions against his name, glassed someone in nightclub and was given 3 months, who was out after 6 weeks... An career offender committing a serious offence and that's the best the courts could do!

The prison service, again they must treat offenders as customers and can't offend them or take away there human rights.... They must be allowed 3 hit meals a day, entertainment facilities, gyms, education services access to tv and media services.


Criminals owe a debt to society but the way they are treated is more like society owes a debt to them.
Not convinced capital punishment is the way forward but violence and physical pain is the only language some of these people understand.

Don't get me wrong, not all criminals are scum, some fall in with the wrong crowd, some make bad judgement calls and some get themselves into serious trouble when all they wanted to do was help someone else. Some serve there time and move on.

For the repeat offenders and the ones who constantly cause misery and suffering the existing system fails on all levels, maybe a much harsher line would discourage there behaviour but I doubt it.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Re: Re: Crime and Punishment

Fredward said:
Tom said:
Fredward said:
Calling it vengeance depends on your perspective.

I call it punishment/justice.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

How is killing someone a punishment? There's no evidence of any afterlife and certainly not hell. So all you're doing is sending someone's life. They don't know they're dead and they aren't suffering/learning (most people want criminals to do at least one of those things in incarceration).

Well punishment is probably a wrong word... Threat? You need some high stakes to convince someone to reform,

A life of petty crime gets punished with a holiday, and yet the victims minds are scarred for life most everyday.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Whoa, you're in favour of capital punishment for, like, shoplifting and stuff?

Good job we have such virtuous people in power around to administer justice to the unruly poor, isn't it?

How about making society fairer so that crime doesn't pay instead? Jesus, you think being in prison is a holiday? Care to try iy out then? Send us a postcard?

Maybe prison conditions aren't that different to the abject misery that constitutes some people's lives. If you can't see why that should be fair then how about listening to people who want a fairer society for everyone, not where people who withhold billions from the public treasury get applauded for it, while others steal a pack of coffee to help them subsisit in some damp hellhole and are packed off to jail, or in your world, dispatched to Kingdom Come with a rope for it.
 
Ah, law. My area of expertise. (Most of you probably know by now that I'm one year through a three-year Law degree.)

One thing which really gets on my nerves is prison. It's often said that prisoners have an easy ride, and repeatedly offend to go back there because it's a better life in prison for them than outside. This may be true in some cases, but in others, it can be really tough for them being away from people they love. In the early hours of this morning, I was watching a programme I'd recorded from March called 'Crime and Punishment', being presented by Louise Minchin and Gethin Jones. Gethin went to HMP Bristol to go through the process that prisoners would go through upon arrival, and was left in a cell for just a few minutes. He didn't like it much (although he may have been playing it up for the camera, but the cell didn't look all that wonderful). Perhaps if conditions in prison were tougher, it would make people think twice about re-offending. Alongside this, as has been pointed out, education programmes should be implemented to help inmates have a better chance at life when outside prison, and to try to stop them from re-offending, perhaps more towards the end of their sentences to serve as the rehabilitation part of their sentence. (There are six recognised theories behind sentencing: retribution (punishment); denunciation; deterrence; reform & rehabilitation; incapacitation; and reparation. The purposes of sentencing were confirmed and brought into law by section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.)

On a little bit of a side note, I've actually been inside a prison van, and was locked in one of the cells in there for a few minutes. (Don't worry, I hadn't done anything wrong - it was as part of a court visit to Bodmin Magistrates Court in 2007.) It was small and cramped, and I wouldn't have wanted to be in there for a terribly long period of time at all.

Another bugbear of mine is that people don't seem to understand the 'life sentence'. It is true that the sentence is a life sentence, but it doesn't necessarily mean life in prison. (For purposes of clarity, I'm going to use murder as the example, which is the one area where people seem to get most annoyed.) With murder, the sentence is a mandatory life sentence, and has been since the death penalty was abolished for murder back in 1965, but the judge sets a tariff (that is a period of time before the person can be considered for parole) of a certain number of years, the minimum being 12. After the tariff is up, the person can be released into the wider community again, but they are monitored very heavily, as the 'life' portion of the sentence is still hanging over them, and if they put a toe out of line, they can be recalled to prison at any time. This seems to act as a deterrent part of the sentence, in that prisoners should (hopefully) be scared into not re-offending, which - let's be honest - doesn't always work, and it's never going to work for 100% of criminals. There is also the option of a 'whole-life' sentence, where a criminal can be sentenced to be in prison for the rest of his/her life, which is what Mrs Justice Rafferty sentenced Levi Bellfield to back in 2008 for two murders and one attempted murder. (He was later found guilty of the murder of Milly Dowler, and was given another whole-life sentence - not that it would have mattered very much.)

A little bit of history for you regarding criminal trials. Normally, trials will take place in the court which is closest to where the crime took place. For example, if a murder took place in Penzance, then the trial would happen at Truro Crown Court. However, if circumstances dictated otherwise, then the trial could happen at another Crown Court - perhaps even the Old Bailey (formally called the Central Criminal Court). This was made possible back in 1856 with the passing of the Central Criminal Court Act, all thanks to one man from Rugeley in Staffordshire - William Palmer, a doctor who was accused of poisoning and murdering several people. It was alleged that he would not receive a fair trial due to public revulsion regarding the alleged crimes, so this Act of Parliament was passed to allow the trial to take place in a more neutral location. (He was found guilty and executed.) I don't have any statistics for this, but I would assume that this power is very rarely used today.

Now for the big one. Capital punishment. Just imagine that you're in the dock in Court 1 of the Old Bailey in the 1950s, having been convicted of murder. The judge places a black square of fabric on his head informs you that you are to be taken to a prison and shall be hanged by the neck until you are dead. Imagine how the defendants must have felt upon hearing those words, knowing that they only realistically had a few weeks left to live. I for one can't imagine that. I'm firmly against the use of capital punishment. I find it illogical to execute people to show them that killing others is wrong. Also, some criminals actually want to be executed to make themselves martyrs. Look at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 plot. He's said that if he gets executed for what he did, then he'll be happy with that, as he'll be a martyr. The best thing to do in this case would be to lock said person up for life in solitary confinement. That way, the convict would be punished for what he/she had done to a standard that most people would probably find acceptable without the person actually being executed. The world is generally becoming more abolitionist with regard to the death penalty, with 140 countries being abolitionist in law or practice, and 58 retaining it, with about 20 of those retentionist countries using the death penalty in 2011. (Sourced from Amnesty International's latest report on the judicial use of the death penalty, available from their website. The report only covers the judicial use, and makes for some quite interesting reading, if it's the kind of thing you're interested in.) The country with the most executions is China, who allegedly execute more people than every other country put together, although the number of Chinese executions is a state-guarded secret. I believe that no matter what a person has done, they should not be executed, as they could be seen as martyrs, and they would have no chance to change who they are and become better people. (The one case which started an interest in capital punishment, and formed my opinion that it doesn't work, was that of Stanley Tookie Williams III, who was executed in 2005 in San Quentin Prison in California, despite pleas for clemency and that he had been a strong critic of gang culture whilst in prison, despite having been in a gang [The Crips] beforehand.)

William Blackstone, a famous 18th Century juror, wrote that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - a principle which goes back many more years, but still stands true today. A person in English and Welsh law is regarded as innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution, who must do so beyond all reasonable doubt. Whilst this is a long-standing principle, the case which confirmed it is from 1935. It is, perhaps, the single most important principle in criminal law today. Despite this, people who are found innocent of crimes are quite often still considered guilty by the general public - Michael Jackson being the perfect example of this, as he was found innocent of all the child molestation charges against him back in 2005, yet so many people still thought he was guilty. This can ruin people's lives to an extent.

I could go on about changes that I think need to be made to the criminal justice system, but I think I'll save that for another post when I've had a chance to go through my notes from college and uni.
 
The abolition of nuclear weapons and diverting the funds to increasing prison capacity would be the best thing this country could do.

Also, I don't oppose lenient/suspended sentences for minor crimes commited by people with no previous convictions. However, repeat offenders should be subjected to mandatory custodial sentences with a rapid increase in sentence durations for continuously-offending people.

Early release for good behaviour should be outlawed as the original setence should reflect the crime.

Murderers (planned killing) should have 20-year minimum terms, all of which would involve forced work/labour, with parole considered only if having demonstrated remorse and impecable behaviour.

Murderers of children should be subjected to 40-year minimum terms under the above conditions, with multiple child murderers and/or murders sexual abuse of children should never be released nor have visiting rights. All possible measures should be taken to prevent them being able to commit suicide.
 
.EDIT: directed at Simon! :)


No, no I'm not....

I quoted lyrics from a song...


I may go into detail of my beliefs later... Hold off the torch and pitchforks for later.


Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
 
Erm, well that only works if:

a. It looks like song lyrics (it doesn't)
b. I know the song (I don't)
c. You make it clear that what you're posting isn't really relevant to your argument (you didn't).

So put the condescending comments away for later.

EDIT: Mollified somewhat by a PM from Fredward saying it wasn't meant to come across like that... :)
 
I think more focus should be put on the causes of crime. Most crime comes from poverty, from people with few opportunities to better themselves or climb the social ladder, and people with very low expectations in life. I'm not saying that this absolves them from the crimes as they are obviously still responsible for their actions, but the point is - It could have been prevented from happening in the first place if society sat up and actually took notice, instead of closing popular community centres. Social policy and justice go hand in hand. Justice is to administer punishment when it's already too late, where as social policy actually prevents the criminality from arising. This can even apply to those who commit crimes from a wealthy background, but for a whole different set of social reasons. Every criminal has a story behind them, reasons why they committed the crime and opportunities where society could have intervened but were left neglected.

I despise Tony Blair but the slogan: 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime', is a very intelligent stance to take (even if Labour are too incompetent to actually carry it through).

As for Capital punishment; that is just plain murder. The justice system should be setting the moral standard and I see no difference at all between a state sanctioning a murder then the accused party who stabbed someone. It's the same thing.
 
I disagree that most crime comes from poverty..., stupidity, greed, addiction, lack of respect all play equal parts.

There is a common believe that seems to be held by a reasonable proportion of society that council / tax credit house holds are the lowest of the low (please note this is not my opinion!!) I have dealt with numerous well off, high flying owning£250k+ house holds, business execs, that deal in drugs, stolen property, violent offences etc. I've also found pedophiles and sex offenders that are very Wealthy from respected families and areas. On the flip side some of the poorest and most unfortunate people I've encountered are the politest, most hard working and respectable people you could wish to meet.

Crime doesnt fit any one profile

Some do it because of upbringing, some because they see no other way, some because they just like it!

I think one of the biggest problems is the people that think the world owes them a favour... The ones that could work but chose not to as society will pay for them. I have dealt with more robberies, burglars, shop lifting, no insurance, no driving licence no tax etc that fit the people in the above category than anything else.

There is a culture that thinks a criminal record or a prison sentence is some sort of fashion accessory and this is a big problem too.

As for those that do get sent down, I don't for one minute think that tvs, gyms and such makes up for being away from family and freedom but the majority (not all!) have a choice to turn it around and had the choice not to be there in the first place.
 
I'm so glad to see some voices of reason on here (Meat-Pie, Simon, Jonathan etc.)

Capital punishement is abhorrent. The "eye for an eye" mentality lowers those calling for "justice" to the exact same level as the criminal. I put justice in quote marks as vengence is a much better word to describe this outlook.

Plus when you think of some of the reasons people are killed in the world in the name of justice (homosexuality, adultery, petty crimes...) you have to ask yourself why some societies don't value human life at all. Just because the crime that's been commited may have involved a lack of thought towards a human being doesn't mean that should be society's response to the criminal.

Crime should come with a punishment, yes, but there also needs to be a level of forgiveness and lots of rehabilitation that comes with it. Without that, reoffending rates won't come down and the same faces will appear in the dock time and time again. This is why I'm all for the prison population being given opportunities they might not have had before - education, apprenticeships, libraries etc. - as without it they'll leave prison in exactly the same predicament they were before they went in.
 
adsyrah said:
Crime should come with a punishment, yes, but there also needs to be a level of forgiveness and lots of rehabilitation that comes with it.

But would you feel differently if it was your relative who had been raped and killed?

I won't pretend that capital punishment is anything but barbaric, but how could you allow somebody who killed a family member to walk the streets and become 'forgiven'? That's why I'm so mixed about this debate.
 
Top