Crime and Punishment

[adsyrah]

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.

I'm not saying it'd be easy, but I'd like to think that I'd be able to see that killing someone who'd killed someone close to me is anything other than a vengeful act. It's not justice at all.

I'd much rather that person had their freedom and liberties stripped as a punishment.

 

[MrMutterson]

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?

This is the problem... The majority of society believing criminals have it tough, the so called do gooders (and please don't think I'm insulting anyone on here) hasn't been the victim directly or indirectly of anything more serious than kids standing outside the shops being a but loud or abusive. The majority of society doesn't even know what goes on on a daily basis, what people in there own street have done etc.

When I first worked in security then the police I was amazed at how many sex offenders, drug dealers etc live amongst us. People leaping to the defence of random offenders might have a different view if they found out their next door neighbour has a record for GBH and the bloke over the road is on the sex offenders register or the woman down the road had one of her kids taken away for abusing it.

Two wrongs don't make a right but making excuses for offenders is never going to make steps towards solving the problem. With the right help in prison people can turn there lives at round, but they need to want to!

 

[BigT]

This is the problem... The majority of society believing criminals have it tough, the so called do gooders

I don't think it's a majority of society that think like that! Thank goodness.

 

[Martin]

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.

Of course, if someone I knew was raped, murdered or anything like that, there's a good chance I'd want the person responsible to be severely punished, to be put to a slow, painful death, preferably by my own hands. But justice isn't about that. It's not about what the victim and their families want, it's about what is right. Emotion can not cloud it.

As for capital punishment in general, well, to be blunt, anyone who supports it is, as far as the issue is concerned, quite simply, stupid or ignorant. Not only is it morally bankrupt, disgusting, hypocritical and pure evil, it is also a useless deterrent that statistics prove is demonstrably ineffective at preventing serious crime. There is simply no sound argument for advocating murder and that's that.

 

[Jonathan]

Just found this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju ... sfeed=true

 

[Harv]

You know, Blaze, whilst I often disagree with you, I've always had an underlying respect for your posts - and that respect has just been strengthened. What you said there has really enlightened the situation on what justice should be, and I can see what you mean by emotion clouding decisions. Thanks for making things clear, I agree with that post highly.

 

[Jonathan]

Regarding my previous post, Warren Hill has been granted a stay of execution.

 

[Oli]

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.

tl;dr
Also, not going to read it... Summarize it please.

 

[Jonathan]

^Essentially, capital punishment is wrong and should not happen under any circumstances whatsoever. I know I went on a bit, but to be honest, I felt that I needed to say it.

And adsyrah - cheers for bringing up the offences which are punishable by death in other parts of the world. Some countries in the Middle and Far East use execution as punishment for drug trafficking. Some have adultery, apostasy and homosexuality as capital offences. One or two countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, hold executions in public, using mobile cranes (Iran), stoning (Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia) and beheading (Saudi Arabia). Executions are bad enough, but doing them in public? The thought of that makes me feel sick.

 

[Oli]

^Essentially, capital punishment is wrong and should not happen under any circumstances whatsoever. I know I went on a bit, but to be honest, I felt that I needed to say it.

And adsyrah - cheers for bringing up the offences which are punishable by death in other parts of the world. Some countries in the Middle and Far East use execution as punishment for drug trafficking. Some have adultery, apostasy and homosexuality as capital offences. One or two countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, hold executions in public, using mobile cranes (Iran), stoning (Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia) and beheading (Saudi Arabia). Executions are bad enough, but doing them in public? The thought of that makes me feel sick.

I don't think we should ever kill someone, just mentally torment them.

If they steal a loaf of bread (for no good reason), they have their eyelids stolen.
If they kill someone, the have their whole body sand papered.
etc.

 

[delta79]

There is some very interesting posts here. I do agree that capital punishment, should stay in the past forever.

But I want to single out part of one post to show it in a real situation.

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.

Some of you will have read my post in "the I feel down" topic.

For the ones that have not, I have a Problem stepson. let me list part of his crim sheet.

arson x2 (trying to set fire to his bedroom and setting fire to field).
battery (his mum)
affray x4 (stabbing a knife into a door someone is holding closed),
blade weapon in the street
Criminal damage x 12 (soon to be 13)
Drunk and disorderly x 2 ( both drinking away from home)

So as you can see he has quite a list, but he has just been slapped on the wrist time and time again by the courts.

he has had so many slaps on the wrist, when he gets another by the courts (last 5 time) he says " got away with that".

That line from him just makes me feel so sick. The police go though the process, to get him into court. I am hoping the courts will back up what we are trying to teach him. BUT no they just tell him off.

Then he tries a couple of times to use the justice system to get back at me, by accusing me of attacking him. both times where after the battery of his mum, and the police officer that came out both times. Is a straight up guy that told him to grow up, or next time he knick him and question me. and his parent battery charge will mean i go free.

So to answer the question 'Do the courts work' well, no, they are too soft on repeat offenders.

 

[delta79]

I don't think we should ever kill someone, just mentally torment them.

If they steal a loaf of bread (for no good reason), they have their eyelids stolen.
If they kill someone, the have their whole body sand papered.
etc.

It may just be the First aider ingrained into me, but that just worries and sickens me a bit.

 

[Jonathan]

Torture should never happen under any circumstances whatsoever. Evidence extracted under torture is inadmissible in court, and torture is prohibited under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Torture's banned for good reason - if a suspect is tortured, then the likelihood that they'll say anything to make the torture stop is probably quite high.

 

[Oli]

Torture should never happen under any circumstances whatsoever. Evidence extracted under torture is inadmissible in court, and torture is prohibited under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Torture's banned for good reason - if a suspect is tortured, then the likelihood that they'll say anything to make the torture stop is probably quite high.

Or likely to do anything... eg. Stop doing stupid stuff which gets them arrested.

Basically, what I'm saying here is: we don't kill them, we force them to live with what they have done and give them a constant reminder of it.

 

[Jonathan]

Surely, if the person is guilty and is found guilty, then living with that guilt is enough of a punishment.

 

[Meat Pie]

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

So you disagree that there are reasons and causes for crime and it's just people being greedy? It's much easier to blame everything on the perpetrator of crime then realise what leads them to do it, but doing so inconveniently solves nothing, as the crimes rates continue exactly the same.

It is just a statistical fact that poverty breeds crime and there has to be a reason for that correlation. You can disagree with my conclusions about social mobility and what the causes are but you cannot pretend that there are no causes. I'm not saying there isn't crime in the wealthier sectors of society, far from it, but the proportion is admittedly lower (and that's bitterly coming from a born and bred working class guy). Just look at http://www.police.uk/ where poorer income areas consistently have higher crime figures. But again I want to reiterate, even crimes committed by richer people have their origin in social issues, although I think they are often more difficult to define.

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.

The world does owe them a favour as it owes a favour to me and it does to you. Instead of ignoring all the social problems, we should be looking out for each other and be funding genuinely good education for poorer children, giving them opportunities and raising aspirations. Almost all studies into criminology show that those who had the biggest range of opportunities are the least likely to live a life of crime.

Every crime is society's failure. It's our responsibility to stop crime before it happens. Now that doesn't mean I think criminals shouldn't be punished, as that is also a necessary part of the justice system, but pinpointing why the crime happened in the first place and dealing with that is what I want to see heavily prioritised, as it is much, much more effective.

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.

That strikes me as being exactly what I meant by having low aspirations in life. You must see that? Surely?

 

[BarryZola]

I'm a big fan of the death penalty for murderers. It would be a great deterrent for would be killers (in most cases). I know someone will probably drag up some stats, but if I were in the situation where I was on the edge of wanting to murder someone and thought that I could probably be free again in about 15 years, rather than my life being completely ended, I'd probably be more inclined to do it. I'd also go as far to say that public executions would be good to plant the seed in people's brains that murder shouldn't be considered as there would be dire consequences. Plus, it would make for a decent community spectacle/event.

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

I don't think we should ever kill someone, just mentally torment them.

If they steal a loaf of bread (for no good reason), they have their eyelids stolen.

Bit harsh :/

 

[Martin]

I don't think we should ever kill someone, just mentally torment them.

If they steal a loaf of bread (for no good reason), they have their eyelids stolen.
If they kill someone, the have their whole body sand papered.
etc.

That's disgusting and worrying. You're saying a loaf of bread is as valuable as sight? That a one time, minor crime, (in reality probably committed out of desperation, not for no good reason), is worth a lifetime of disability? An eye for an eye I can almost see the logic in. Two eyes for a loaf of bread I just can not understand.

I'm a big fan of the death penalty for murderers. It would be a great deterrent for would be killers (in most cases). I know someone will probably drag up some stats, but if I were in the situation where I was on the edge of wanting to murder someone and thought that I could probably be free again in about 15 years, rather than my life being completely ended, I'd probably be more inclined to do it. I'd also go as far to say that public executions would be good to plant the seed in people's brains that murder shouldn't be considered as there would be dire consequences. Plus, it would make for a decent community spectacle/event.

If it's a good deterrent why do all the facts show that it is actually the opposite of that?

I think if you tried being an inmate for 25 years, you'd change your mind.

Decent community event/spectacle? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really see the attraction of watching a stranger be put to death for something which didn't affect me. I find that pretty weird.

>> edit >> Sazzle >> removed one sentence following post report - try and keep the heated debate heated and not over personal or derogatory! Thanks

 

[Tom]

There is no evidence that an active death penalty serves as any sort of deterrent, in fact it has the opposite effect in the United States. You only need to look at the amount of psychotic and bizarre killings that frequently take place there to see that.