Capital punishment

[malc d]

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 10:39 AM

 

 

Finally, do you know how many murderers have been released and gone on to kill again? That's one statistic you really should look up. If the killers in question had been hanged .................

 

 

 

.... or if the killers in question hadn't been released.

 

 

It's the sentencing that is the problem.

 

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 1:28 PM

 

Capital punishment for dogs,whatever next, why don't you know, it's never the dogs fault, it's the owner, in which case it begs the question.....................................

 

:D

Nice one, Michael, I think that you are going a bit far, but a mandatory life ban on keeping a dog/dogs that have been 'put down' following a dog attack would be a good start -- helping us toward the eradication of all 'pet' dogs! :-> (hooray!)

 

Colin.

[Guest pelmetman]

Symbol Owner - 2013-07-04 1:03 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 12:01 PM

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 9:32 AM

I'm genuinely puzzled by Dog owners who actively encourage animals to share their personal bedding has nothing to do with intellectual superiority, just basic hygiene I would have thought, perhaps the odd trace of dog faeces, and saliva is perfectly OK though eh.

 

Not to mention the fleas, hair(s), stink, diseases, parasitic worms, danger of being bitten/infected with (possibly) fatal conditions, i.e., parvovirus, rabies, capnocytophaga canimorsus, etc., etc., I could go on............................................. most dogs need capital punishment >:-) >:-( most certainly ALL dogs that have attacked/bitten a human or another dog.

 

Colin.

 

But if you believe what Michael Douglas has alleged ;-).................having carnal relationships with the opposite sex is even worse 8-) ................its wonder any of us have survived to become dog owners :D

[Symbol Owner]

pelmetman - 2013-07-04 4:04 PM

 

Symbol Owner - 2013-07-04 1:03 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 12:01 PM

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 9:32 AM

I'm genuinely puzzled by Dog owners who actively encourage animals to share their personal bedding has nothing to do with intellectual superiority, just basic hygiene I would have thought, perhaps the odd trace of dog faeces, and saliva is perfectly OK though eh.

 

Not to mention the fleas, hair(s), stink, diseases, parasitic worms, danger of being bitten/infected with (possibly) fatal conditions, i.e., parvovirus, rabies, capnocytophaga canimorsus, etc., etc., I could go on............................................. most dogs need capital punishment >:-) >:-( most certainly ALL dogs that have attacked/bitten a human or another dog.

 

Colin.

 

But if you believe what Michael Douglas has alleged ;-).................having carnal relationships with the opposite sex is even worse 8-) ................its wonder any of us have survived to become dog owners :D

 

I'll give you that one, Dave -- nice one! :D

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

[Guest pelmetman]

Symbol Owner - 2013-07-04 5:08 PM

 

I'll give you that one, Dave -- nice one! :D

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

That's ............."The Joy of Chatterbox".............Colin ;-)...................one thread can veer from........ capital punishment..........to dogs............to oral sex (lol) (lol)............

 

Certainly makes it entertaining to us folk who enjoy a bit of random thinking :D

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 10:39 AM

 

God, you're just strange and as well as being strange you can't even read properly. Where did I say that Cregan was insane? I said the opposite. Go back and read my post slowly and try to understand.

 

And once more, I used the example of the death penalty for killing police officers as an example of a deterrent that may have stopped him. I have never once advocated such a law and have stated to you that I'd hang all murderers.

 

You really do seem totally incapable of understanding the simplest of arguments, so once again I'll ask you:

 

If Cregan had committed crimes that warranted just life imprisonment do you think that if he knew that killing the police women would ensure his execution that he wouldn't have considered his actions?

 

Now any sane person will understand that in this case he would probably have not even put the plot in place in the first case. It gained him nothing whatsoever and most of us understand that he may well have refrained from these murders. He knew the net was closing and that he would most likely be caught.

 

Your obvious diversions to avoid this obvious question fool no one. Constantly banging on about the effects of a law protecting police officers when I've suggested no such law but merely used it as an example, twisting clearly written words to suggest that I've called Cregan insane, reek of a desperation to avoid the real issue.

 

And as for deterrents, comparing the USA with Sweden for instance is pointless. There is ample evidence that the death penalty in some US states has reduced the homicide rate.

 

But what amazes me about the anti brigade is their blindness to acknowledge that many people will be deterred if they thought they would be executed. Not everyone will be for reasons we acknowledge but every scrap of evidence in all our lives proves that deterrents work, for most people!

 

Liberals are so anti the death penalty that they wilfully ignore this obvious truth about human nature.

 

You and your ilk are indirectly responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. There are hundreds out there who would be alive now if we had the ultimate deterrent. Argue about its morality all you like but don't ignore this one obvious truth - deterrents work!

 

There is one obvious statistic here in the UK. Since abolition the U.K.'s homicide rate has gone up dramatically. criminals routinely carry guns and will shoot innocent bystanders and police officers without compunction. Why do you think this has happened?

 

Finally, do you know how many murderers have been released and gone on to kill again? That's one statistic you really should look up. If the killers in question had been hanged that another large number of innocent people who would still be alive. But what do you care? As long as you can assuage your 'right-thinking liberal conscience' it matters not a jot how many innocents die.

 

And then you'll fight like hell to make their lives in prison as comfortable as possible. God save us all!

 

 

First, I apologise for misreading your statement about Cregan being insane. However, you still insist on knowing that he would have considered the punishment before carrying out his murders - I ask you again, how on earth could you possibly know this? Your conclusion is based on your prejudice rather than any evidence at all.

 

Second, you claim there is "ample evidence" that the death penalty has reduced the murder rate in some US states. I am not aware of any such evidence so perhaps you will enlighten me. All the evidence that I am aware of shows that the murder rate is as high (and sometimes higher) in states with the death penalty.

 

You express amazement at the refusal of some to accept that the death penalty would be a deterrent. Perhaps if you presented evidence then others might be willing to accept the point. I am aware of no evidence to support your conclusion.

 

As for the "hundreds out there" who would be alive if we had the death penalty - well, once again I ask you for proof. True some released killers have re-offended but the number is very small and how can you or anybody else say that it is greater than the number of killers who were given the benefit of the doubt by juries reluctant to send them to their deaths?

 

So, in conclusion, you make sweeping generalisations based on your prejudices and produce absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. And because you have no argument you make ridiculous claims that I am responsible for deaths and that I would campaign to make prison life more comfortable.

 

I may have misread one statement that you made but at least I haven't made myself look stupid by throwing totally unjustified insults at you.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

One for the anti capital punishment apologists *-)

 

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Grove-demanding-answers-killer-freed/story-19475092-detail/story.html#axzz2Y6Edyr1r

 

If this muppet had dangled on a string an innocent person would be alive today *-) .................would the liberal elite members kindly do the maths of how many innocent people have been hung................divided by those who have been murdered by CONVICTED murderers *-)................?

 

What price should innocent people pay for your principles eh? :-S

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-07-04 6:47 PM

 

One for the anti capital punishment apologists *-)

 

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Grove-demanding-answers-killer-freed/story-19475092-detail/story.html#axzz2Y6Edyr1r

 

If this muppet had dangled on a string an innocent person would be alive today *-) .................would the liberal elite members kindly do the maths of how many innocent people have been hung................divided by those who have been murdered by CONVICTED murderers *-)................?

 

What price should innocent people pay for your principles eh? :-S

 

And perhaps you could do the sums too - including in them the number of murderers who were allowed to go free to murder again by juries reluctant to impose the death penalty. What price should innocent people pay for YOUR principles?

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-07-04 6:53 PM

 

And perhaps you could do the sums too - including in them the number of murderers who were allowed to go free to murder again by juries reluctant to impose the death penalty. What price should innocent people pay for YOUR principles?

 

 

Well I guess my sum's are easier to do than yours ;-)

[antony1969]

John 47 - 2013-07-04 8:37 AM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 6:16 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 5:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 4:05 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 2:54 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

 

I simply can compare figures John . As for the victims of any crime , how can the victims needs be less than the criminals ever ? remember they are the ones who have suffered not the poor misunderstood criminal type who's just turned your world upside down without a second thought .

 

 

Quite simply, comparing costs achieves nothing; comparing outcomes is the only important thing. If one goal can be achieved by spending £1 and the other goal needs £2 spent on it then it matters not a jot that one goal cost twice as much as the other; what matters is that both goals have been achieved. You imply that I said the victim's needs were less but this is not so - I was not talking about needs but costs. It would help if you tried reading what you criticise.

 

I implied no such thing , I asked a question . Don't try scoring points from nothing .

Of course the cost is relevant , these days more than ever . If we spend thousands on educating a rapist not to rape again but he does , is that money well spent ? Would a further victim of a rapist appreciate the money used to cage the beast , have highly payed social workers , shrinks and the likes try to educate him that his crimes are horrendous would she really think when her life's in ruins that all that effort and money spent on the vile beast was worthwhile ? I doubt it .

 

You would clearly argue that black is white! I quote you: " how can the victim's needs be less than the criminals ever?" If you weren't implying that this is what I said, then who were you talking to? I repeat, it is outcomes that are important, not costs - so comparing costs is irrelevant. You indeed unwittingly agree with this in your example - spending vast sums of money on failure is not a good idea!

 

Yes I was talking to you , asking a question you prat , not implying anything for the second time .

As for you claiming costs are not important , spoke like a true Labour supporter , brilliant .

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Blimey he does like an argument, maybe it was all those years spent with unruly kids that teachers no longer have any control over, and all those years of frustration comes out on here.

 

Drop of rain here yesterday, still nice and warm though. ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 7:08 PM

 

Blimey he does like an argument, maybe it was all those years spent with unruly kids that teachers no longer have any control over, and all those years of frustration comes out on here.

 

Drop of rain here yesterday, still nice and warm though. ;-)

 

I thought that about most of my teachers :D..................coz..... I always asked those difficult questions that usually earn't me a blackboard rubber in the chops 8-)...........

 

Plus its lovely here today in NE Linc's..............lovely and warm mini heatwave forecast B-) ........................

 

 

 

 

shame we're off to Cornwall where its forecast to be cooler *-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Ah but look on the bright side, plenty of lovely free Aires down there. :D

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-04 8:05 PM

 

Ah but look on the bright side, plenty of lovely free Aires down there. :D

 

Aaaaah.................... but I managed to find the only campsite in Cornwall in July for under 20 quid a night B-)....................

 

 

Unless you include the 50p a shower :-S................but if we shower together it works out at £19.50 a night :-D

 

 

I guess it all boils down to if I behave myself with the soap >:-)

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-04 6:27 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 10:39 AM

 

God, you're just strange and as well as being strange you can't even read properly. Where did I say that Cregan was insane? I said the opposite. Go back and read my post slowly and try to understand.

 

And once more, I used the example of the death penalty for killing police officers as an example of a deterrent that may have stopped him. I have never once advocated such a law and have stated to you that I'd hang all murderers.

 

You really do seem totally incapable of understanding the simplest of arguments, so once again I'll ask you:

 

If Cregan had committed crimes that warranted just life imprisonment do you think that if he knew that killing the police women would ensure his execution that he wouldn't have considered his actions?

 

Now any sane person will understand that in this case he would probably have not even put the plot in place in the first case. It gained him nothing whatsoever and most of us understand that he may well have refrained from these murders. He knew the net was closing and that he would most likely be caught.

 

Your obvious diversions to avoid this obvious question fool no one. Constantly banging on about the effects of a law protecting police officers when I've suggested no such law but merely used it as an example, twisting clearly written words to suggest that I've called Cregan insane, reek of a desperation to avoid the real issue.

 

And as for deterrents, comparing the USA with Sweden for instance is pointless. There is ample evidence that the death penalty in some US states has reduced the homicide rate.

 

But what amazes me about the anti brigade is their blindness to acknowledge that many people will be deterred if they thought they would be executed. Not everyone will be for reasons we acknowledge but every scrap of evidence in all our lives proves that deterrents work, for most people!

 

Liberals are so anti the death penalty that they wilfully ignore this obvious truth about human nature.

 

You and your ilk are indirectly responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. There are hundreds out there who would be alive now if we had the ultimate deterrent. Argue about its morality all you like but don't ignore this one obvious truth - deterrents work!

 

There is one obvious statistic here in the UK. Since abolition the U.K.'s homicide rate has gone up dramatically. criminals routinely carry guns and will shoot innocent bystanders and police officers without compunction. Why do you think this has happened?

 

Finally, do you know how many murderers have been released and gone on to kill again? That's one statistic you really should look up. If the killers in question had been hanged that another large number of innocent people who would still be alive. But what do you care? As long as you can assuage your 'right-thinking liberal conscience' it matters not a jot how many innocents die.

 

And then you'll fight like hell to make their lives in prison as comfortable as possible. God save us all!

 

 

First, I apologise for misreading your statement about Cregan being insane. However, you still insist on knowing that he would have considered the punishment before carrying out his murders - I ask you again, how on earth could you possibly know this? Your conclusion is based on your prejudice rather than any evidence at all.

 

Second, you claim there is "ample evidence" that the death penalty has reduced the murder rate in some US states. I am not aware of any such evidence so perhaps you will enlighten me. All the evidence that I am aware of shows that the murder rate is as high (and sometimes higher) in states with the death penalty.

 

You express amazement at the refusal of some to accept that the death penalty would be a deterrent. Perhaps if you presented evidence then others might be willing to accept the point. I am aware of no evidence to support your conclusion.

 

As for the "hundreds out there" who would be alive if we had the death penalty - well, once again I ask you for proof. True some released killers have re-offended but the number is very small and how can you or anybody else say that it is greater than the number of killers who were given the benefit of the doubt by juries reluctant to send them to their deaths?

 

So, in conclusion, you make sweeping generalisations based on your prejudices and produce absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. And because you have no argument you make ridiculous claims that I am responsible for deaths and that I would campaign to make prison life more comfortable.

 

I may have misread one statement that you made but at least I haven't made myself look stupid by throwing totally unjustified insults at you.

 

 

Here's one for you to begin with. A study into the effect of the death penalty concluded that for every execution five homicides were not committed.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html

 

As for Cregan I have never claimed that I knew what was in his mind. What I have said is that if he knew that his actions would have resulted in an automatic death sentence he may well have reconsidered killing two women, an act that gained him nothing.

 

Are you not deterred by the law? Do you never speed because you're a terribly moral person? Do you never have that large glass of wine because of your high values, even though you're a mile from home and know in your heart that you're probably safe to drive?

 

Most of don't do these things because we're frightened of the consequences and that occurs at every level of crime.

 

Deterrents do work and to deny it is stupid to the point of insanity. The death penalty may not deter every criminal but simple common sense tells us that it must deter some.

 

Here's another one you won't like about the number of repeat offenders who have gone on to kill. Thirty people dead because you and your ilk are soft on crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

 

You recently asked me to give you an example of terrible crimes that even you may consider warrant execution. I would have thought that my quote about killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and gypsies might have given you a clue but here goes:

 

I have asked twice if their is no crime so abhorrent that you and your kind consider deserved the death penalty.

 

So I ask you - would you have agreed with capital punishment for Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein all of whom were mass murderers? Would you agree that Fred West deserved to die for his crimes?

 

So come on John47, after a fair trial would you have considered that the crimes of these men deserved the death penalty? Or do you really believe that imprisoning them in a nice comfortable prison is sufficient punishment? And remember, that you have already stated that a prison sentence should only be about loss of liberty, nothing else.

 

I repeat, abolitionists have the blood of hundreds of innocent people on their hands. People who would be alive today if we had the death penalty. And I've supplied the evidence in the article in the Washington Post.

 

 

 

 

 

[nightrider]

Rumour on the street is that Cregan gave himself up to the police knowing full well that he may have been shot by the police as a mad dog killer. That's what the local villains are saying.

[Guest Had Enough]

knight of the road - 2013-07-05 1:23 AM

 

Rumour on the street is that Cregan gave himself up to the police knowing full well that he may have been shot by the police as a mad dog killer. That's what the local villains are saying.

 

You may well be right. It's obvious to anyone with a grain of common sense that most people are deterred from doing something that will result in the loss of their own life.

 

But of course when he decided to have his last evil act of revenge by killing two women, he knew that he would not suffer any extra punishment, so there was no deterrent to dissuade him.

 

Now if the punishment for killing police officers had been death, he may well have decided that he'd rather live!

 

And just to explain to those who seem incapable of understanding anything more complex than a nursery rhyme, I'm not suggesting that only the murder of police officers should attract the death penalty. I'm merely using this as an example of how a deterrent works.

 

 

[John 47]

antony1969 - 2013-07-04 7:06 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-04 8:37 AM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 6:16 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 5:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 4:05 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 2:54 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

 

I simply can compare figures John . As for the victims of any crime , how can the victims needs be less than the criminals ever ? remember they are the ones who have suffered not the poor misunderstood criminal type who's just turned your world upside down without a second thought .

 

 

Quite simply, comparing costs achieves nothing; comparing outcomes is the only important thing. If one goal can be achieved by spending £1 and the other goal needs £2 spent on it then it matters not a jot that one goal cost twice as much as the other; what matters is that both goals have been achieved. You imply that I said the victim's needs were less but this is not so - I was not talking about needs but costs. It would help if you tried reading what you criticise.

 

I implied no such thing , I asked a question . Don't try scoring points from nothing .

Of course the cost is relevant , these days more than ever . If we spend thousands on educating a rapist not to rape again but he does , is that money well spent ? Would a further victim of a rapist appreciate the money used to cage the beast , have highly payed social workers , shrinks and the likes try to educate him that his crimes are horrendous would she really think when her life's in ruins that all that effort and money spent on the vile beast was worthwhile ? I doubt it .

 

You would clearly argue that black is white! I quote you: " how can the victim's needs be less than the criminals ever?" If you weren't implying that this is what I said, then who were you talking to? I repeat, it is outcomes that are important, not costs - so comparing costs is irrelevant. You indeed unwittingly agree with this in your example - spending vast sums of money on failure is not a good idea!

 

Yes I was talking to you , asking a question you prat , not implying anything for the second time .

As for you claiming costs are not important , spoke like a true Labour supporter , brilliant .

 

And what was the point of that question unless you were assuming that I had said the victim's needs were less? A tip for you: you don't get out of the difficult situations by pretending they never happened.

 

As for your reaction to my statement that outcomes are important not costs I can only assume that you are willing to salve your conscience by throwing lots of money at something that doesn't work. Personally, I prefer to spend the money where it is likely to be most effective.

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 11:26 PM

 

 

Here's one for you to begin with. A study into the effect of the death penalty concluded that for every execution five homicides were not committed.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html

 

As for Cregan I have never claimed that I knew what was in his mind. What I have said is that if he knew that his actions would have resulted in an automatic death sentence he may well have reconsidered killing two women, an act that gained him nothing.

 

Are you not deterred by the law? Do you never speed because you're a terribly moral person? Do you never have that large glass of wine because of your high values, even though you're a mile from home and know in your heart that you're probably safe to drive?

 

Most of don't do these things because we're frightened of the consequences and that occurs at every level of crime.

 

Deterrents do work and to deny it is stupid to the point of insanity. The death penalty may not deter every criminal but simple common sense tells us that it must deter some.

 

Here's another one you won't like about the number of repeat offenders who have gone on to kill. Thirty people dead because you and your ilk are soft on crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

 

You recently asked me to give you an example of terrible crimes that even you may consider warrant execution. I would have thought that my quote about killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and gypsies might have given you a clue but here goes:

 

I have asked twice if their is no crime so abhorrent that you and your kind consider deserved the death penalty.

 

So I ask you - would you have agreed with capital punishment for Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein all of whom were mass murderers? Would you agree that Fred West deserved to die for his crimes?

 

So come on John47, after a fair trial would you have considered that the crimes of these men deserved the death penalty? Or do you really believe that imprisoning them in a nice comfortable prison is sufficient punishment? And remember, that you have already stated that a prison sentence should only be about loss of liberty, nothing else.

 

I repeat, abolitionists have the blood of hundreds of innocent people on their hands. People who would be alive today if we had the death penalty. And I've supplied the evidence in the article in the Washington Post.

 

 

 

 

 

A very interesting article about the deterrent value of the death penalty. The most interesting thing about it was the statement that these studies have not been tested and that previous similar "studies" have been discredited. How about sticking instead to actual figures? These for example: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

in which you can clearly see that almost without exception, those States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it.

 

And I see you are still pretending to know what went on in the mind of someone who clearly wasn't acting rationally. I can only assume that means you have an insight into the irrational mind. :-D

 

I see also that you are repeating the nonsense about you or I being deterred so it must work. As I said before, we would not commit murder (hopefully) even if the penalty was a £50 fine. You cannot equate the actions of most law-abiding and rational people with those of an irrational being.

 

You produce an article that talks about murderers who have reoffended. I have never denied that this happens; I simply introduced balance by stating that research has shown that juries are less likely to convict if the penalty is death. It therefore follows that some murderers have been returned to the streets when they might have been jailed if the death penalty hadn't existed at that time. The reality is that innocent people have died under ALL systems. This happens because the decisions are made by human beings and human beings are not infallible. It therefore follows that we should avoid making decisions that are irreversible.

 

And I assume that you will apologise for misquoting me as I apologised for misquoting you. I have never said that prisons should be comfortable, nor have I said that prisons are solely about depriving people of liberty. I believe a long and uncomfortable prison sentence punishes someone far more than a quick death.

 

There are situations in which I could justify killing others in order to avoid them killing but none of those involve the judicial process. No doubt you will find this strange if you don't think about it but I could see a case for assassinating Hitler but had he been captured and put on trial I can see no case for hanging him.

 

 

[antony1969]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 9:40 AM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-04 7:06 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-04 8:37 AM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 6:16 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 5:31 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 4:05 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-03 2:54 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-03 1:36 PM

 

 

Looking after victims does not compete at all or even come close . Last year more money was spent just on feeding inmates drug habits than victim support , shocking .

First your a victim of crime then all the help goes on that poor little sod that had to break into your house and swipe everything you've worked all your life for .

 

You cannot simply compare figures. The needs of victims may indeed be met at less cost than looking after prisoners. More can always be done but it isn't necessarily done by pouring money at the problem. It might be that the particular needs of a particular victim require little expense but a lot of consideration.

 

I simply can compare figures John . As for the victims of any crime , how can the victims needs be less than the criminals ever ? remember they are the ones who have suffered not the poor misunderstood criminal type who's just turned your world upside down without a second thought .

 

 

Quite simply, comparing costs achieves nothing; comparing outcomes is the only important thing. If one goal can be achieved by spending £1 and the other goal needs £2 spent on it then it matters not a jot that one goal cost twice as much as the other; what matters is that both goals have been achieved. You imply that I said the victim's needs were less but this is not so - I was not talking about needs but costs. It would help if you tried reading what you criticise.

 

I implied no such thing , I asked a question . Don't try scoring points from nothing .

Of course the cost is relevant , these days more than ever . If we spend thousands on educating a rapist not to rape again but he does , is that money well spent ? Would a further victim of a rapist appreciate the money used to cage the beast , have highly payed social workers , shrinks and the likes try to educate him that his crimes are horrendous would she really think when her life's in ruins that all that effort and money spent on the vile beast was worthwhile ? I doubt it .

 

You would clearly argue that black is white! I quote you: " how can the victim's needs be less than the criminals ever?" If you weren't implying that this is what I said, then who were you talking to? I repeat, it is outcomes that are important, not costs - so comparing costs is irrelevant. You indeed unwittingly agree with this in your example - spending vast sums of money on failure is not a good idea!

 

Yes I was talking to you , asking a question you prat , not implying anything for the second time .

As for you claiming costs are not important , spoke like a true Labour supporter , brilliant .

 

And what was the point of that question unless you were assuming that I had said the victim's needs were less? A tip for you: you don't get out of the difficult situations by pretending they never happened.

 

As for your reaction to my statement that outcomes are important not costs I can only assume that you are willing to salve your conscience by throwing lots of money at something that doesn't work. Personally, I prefer to spend the money where it is likely to be most effective.

 

John , it was a question plucked from my tiny brain , that's all , no need to analize why I asked it .

Personally I don't want to spend money on the vast majority of inmates , I don't want to offer them better grub than a pensioner may be able to afford . I don't want to spend millions on druggies inside in fact I don't want to spend much on them at all .

Thanks for the tip by the way , its one you may want to take on board yourself then you may not have so many violent threats made to your health as you disclosed to us all earlier .

 

 

[John 47]

antony1969 - 2013-07-05 10:29 AM

 

 

John , it was a question plucked from my tiny brain , that's all , no need to analize why I asked it .

Personally I don't want to spend money on the vast majority of inmates , I don't want to offer them better grub than a pensioner may be able to afford . I don't want to spend millions on druggies inside in fact I don't want to spend much on them at all .

Thanks for the tip by the way , its one you may want to take on board yourself then you may not have so many violent threats made to your health as you disclosed to us all earlier .

 

 

I have a more open mind. If spending a lot helps to lower the crime rate then I will go along with it; if it doesn't then I agree with you. But to blindly say that it never works is to ignore the evidence - as well as solving nothing.

 

And in answer to your question (to no-one it seems) - no, the victims needs are certainly not less important than those of the criminals and no-one has ever said they were. Bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question, that.

 

As for the question of threats of violence, I have always found that to be the last resort of someone who has run out of things to say. I have never had to resort to such tactics - but I find it interesting that a few others do on a regular basis. Have a nice day

:-D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Well you certainly never seem to run out of things to say do you. :D

 

Perhaps when people run out of options, or get totally frustrated by another, people do out of character things, like Prescott with the egg thrower, I'm guessing he would think very carefully about chucking another egg if a punch on the nose resulted.Just as someone may react in a face to face situation say for example a direct insult to them, what's the old saying, actions sometimes speak louder than words.

 

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 11:31 AM

 

Well you certainly never seem to run out of things to say do you. :D

 

Perhaps when people run out of options, or get totally frustrated by another, people do out of character things, like Prescott with the egg thrower, I'm guessing he would think very carefully about chucking another egg if a punch on the nose resulted.

 

If people have run out of options, as you say, then surely that means they have lost the argument. If that makes them angry enough to resort to violence, I suggest it says a lot more about the attacker than about the attacked.

 

As for thinking twice about throwing eggs if a punch on the nose resulted, well if that were true then all the world's crimes could be solved overnight. But it doesn't work like that, does it - as I think you were saying earlier on, when I agreed with you. :-D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

I am absolutely convinced that the medium of anonymous chat completely distorts normal human interaction, I am further convinced that many remarks and attitudes displayed on here would absolutely not happen in a live situation, I find myself wondering more and more about the absolute futility of it all.

[antony1969]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 11:15 AM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-05 10:29 AM

 

 

John , it was a question plucked from my tiny brain , that's all , no need to analize why I asked it .

Personally I don't want to spend money on the vast majority of inmates , I don't want to offer them better grub than a pensioner may be able to afford . I don't want to spend millions on druggies inside in fact I don't want to spend much on them at all .

Thanks for the tip by the way , its one you may want to take on board yourself then you may not have so many violent threats made to your health as you disclosed to us all earlier .

 

 

I have a more open mind. If spending a lot helps to lower the crime rate then I will go along with it; if it doesn't then I agree with you. But to blindly say that it never works is to ignore the evidence - as well as solving nothing.

 

And in answer to your question (to no-one it seems) - no, the victims needs are certainly not less important than those of the criminals and no-one has ever said they were. Bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question, that.

 

As for the question of threats of violence, I have always found that to be the last resort of someone who has run out of things to say. I have never had to resort to such tactics - but I find it interesting that a few others do on a regular basis. Have a nice day

:-D

 

Mmmmm , maybe if you did as the rest of us and resorted to such tactics then we wouldn't have to read so much of your drivel .

Nice day to you also .