Violence

[Guest TC01]

So everyone's agreed, the answer to dealing with criminals lays somewhere between rehabilitation and Sheria law.

[olley]

hi Brian I am not suggesting for a minute that deterrents work anymore than educating them will. (except to commit better crimes) is that an oxymoron?? :-D

 

No look at it from their perspective. break in to a house nick some gear make a couple hundred, deal some drugs make the same, time taken, an hour maybe less. how long does it take you to earn tax free a couple of hundred quid? sounds good even to me :-D chance of getting caught, no idea 1 in 10?? and your going to re-educate them. :-D :-D To spend 5 days working to earn the same, I don't think so, do you.

 

Seeing how you can't come up with a better idea than locking them up and heaving the key, I will stick with that option.

 

Olley

 

PS their is a better way its called lobotomy

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

We'll ignore the comment from our resident nutter, which adds nothing to what I thought was a serious debate and move on to Brian's response, which is in my opinion, totally misguided.

Below is typical of the response from the liberals who are responsible for the state that this country is in today.

Maybe we should just shoot them instead of arresting them.  No trial, no judges, no expensive barristers, you could even send the relatives the bill for the bullet, just like the Chinese.  That'd be bound to work, wouldn't it?  Really get the message across.  Works in China doesn't it?  No?  What, they still steal, rape, and murder?  Well what next?

Who has ever suggested anything so extreme and why trivialise an argument in which people have sincere, if different, views?

And this:

C'mon guys and gals, you're flogging a dead horse (or criminal)!  It has never worked, and it never will.  If criminals were that clever, they'd have worked out the odds already.  They'd never get caught. 

Many criminals aren't clever but many are very clever indeed. What they have worked out is that they can increase their chances of success by carrying a gun or a knife and if using it will help them succeed or evade capture, we've seen that they will. As for the statement that it's never worked and never will it beggars belief!

Just before the abolition of capital punishment we had under 300 homicides a year - we've now nearer 1000. Clearly what doesn't work is today's liberal atitude to crime and criminals.

Many criminals would refrain from killing if they thought that their own life was at stake - some wouldn't, I accept that, but what really irritates me is that it must be obvious to anyone with half a brain that hundreds of people would be deterred and hundreds of lives would be saved.

Locking up murderers for long periods would also save hundreds of lives. Have you any idea how many people are killed each year by criminals who have already committed murder or other very serious crimes and have been let loose after a short time?

Liberals' sentiments are genuine, but they are wrong. It is my opinion that the people responsible for the current situation have the blood of hundreds of innocent people on their hands - people who would not have died had we a sensible prison policy and the ultimate deterrent. I mentioned just three in my previous post.

Brian also said:

The others, for the most part act in a rage, while drunk (self inflicted, so no excuses please), on drugs or steroids (ditto), are plain stupid, are mentally feeble and are led, or are, by degrees, mad. 

I only recommended the death penalty for what our American friends call 'first degree murder'. This would exclude all of the above. But again, liberals can't seem to see that a man who can murder his wife in a fit of jealous passion for instance, or as Brian said 'in a rage' isn't fit to be a member of society. If someone is so selfish and so unstable that he considers murder a reasonable method of expressing his grievances, do we want to see him released after four years with the obvious risk that he may do it again?

What is it about some people that they will devote their lives to the welfare of the criminal? What makes them so passionate about the life of Peter Sutcliffe or Myra Hindley? Where are the chattering classes when it comes to defending the liberties of the ordinary man and woman and to protecting us from the ever-increasing number of thugs and killers that are on our streets today?

[Brian Kirby]

olley - 2006-12-20 4:07 PM hi Brian I am not suggesting for a minute that deterrents work anymore than educating them will. (except to commit better crimes) is that an oxymoron?? :-D No look at it from their perspective. break in to a house nick some gear make a couple hundred, deal some drugs make the same, time taken, an hour maybe less. how long does it take you to earn tax free a couple of hundred quid? sounds good even to me :-D chance of getting caught, no idea 1 in 10?? and your going to re-educate them. :-D :-D To spend 5 days working to earn the same, I don't think so, do you. Seeing how you can't come up with a better idea than locking them up and heaving the key, I will stick with that option. Olley

Answer 1, if working life is so bad, why do we all do it instead of just stealing.  There must be some advantage!  That is what they have to be forced to accept.

Answer 2, don't know if the "you" was intended to be retorical, but assuming it wasn't, I thought I had outlined an idea. 

Start using prison for education and reform instead of just for punishment.  Those who won't initially accept this and reform, just remain inside until they do accept, until they die if necessary. 

That way they control when, and if, they get out.  If they then get back inside again, they just have to work much harder to convince the authorities that they have, genuinely, reformed.  No benefit of the doubt for re-offenders.

My argument was that present prison sentences all have time limits.  If the inmate knows he'll get out after less than half his sentence if he just keeps his nose clean, so he (mostly) tends to keep his nose clean.  Then, when he gets out, having learned nothing except better blagging, he goes back to blagging, and so on. 

My suggestion was that, after a first offence (benefit of the doubt etc.), he should simply be sentenced to prison until reformed.  His release would then depend entirely on what he does, and how he responds to his re-training and re-education.  But, no set time limit, so no release date in sight.  No co-operation, no improvement = no release: that must be the first lesson.

It could never be 100%, nothing ever could, and it won't suit all cases.  But, since all who get released would have to have demonstrated, on an individually formulated and moderated programme, that they understand concepts such as right and wrong, and can make judgements based on that understanding, will have learned to read and write if they couldn't, will have had to learn such English and maths etc, as to be at least employable, will have been taught money management and how to manage their own home, and will have been completely weaned off drugs and/or alcahol, they would leave prison far better equipped for life outside then they were when they went in.  They should be released into a structured hostel, and remain tagged and under supervision until they show they can hold down a job and behave responsibly.  Then they get freedom.  If they subsequently re-offend, the bar for full release just gets set higher and higher.

The idea, surely, is to get some payback to society for the cost of prison.  Some ex-prisoners with jobs, paying tax - even if not in every case - would surely be better than the present situation where most simply endlessly re-offend and go back again and again on a revolving door principle?  Must be worth a try.

[michele]

So Seem's to me that in this country there will be a revolt............

Make no bones it's coming. When I don't know but the people have had enough. I would not vote for BNP because I do not agree with the violence but having worked in a surgery for years in the East end of London . Getting spat on then worrying if you had TB I can understand why people do . It's not for me . However in saying that I would like to see a stop to people coming into the country we have enough to deal with .

I am not politically minded and I am really probably out of my dept once again with you guy's But enough is enough . I still believe in prison ?

Just no TV No violence and any one who display's it should get the crap beaten out of them by a special hit squad .....Actually better still have you seen the film with John Travolta FACE OFF they have to wear big heavy metal boot's and if they kick off the floor is magnetic . That would be good I would leave em standing for day's locked to the floor. My husband believes in an eye for an eye and is sick to the back teeth of the Police force . We are so frightened to say what we really feel or think .

for fear of being branded racist myself i dont think color should come into it

If the satistic show that the majority of black people comit crime the news should reflect it and the same with every creed or color.

 

My husband say's he deals with the same s**t different place everyday ?

No point in nicking em no room at the inn .

So back to the USA prison for me .

Boot camp chain gangs no TV no congical rights no steeling cut off the arms no killing as you will be killed .

Like my old man say's RIGHTLY / WRONGLY.

If your in a war say viet kong Spelling sorry? you walk into a village and one of your guy's is shot. Take the first jap and his family shoot em put em on the front of your vehicle drive through the village show you mean business . I bet they would give up charlie quickly enough then .

 

We are not hard enough . As for our prison system what system we have no prisons . The money go's on other things I wonder what ? I know one thing for sure I'm paying for it . Papillion Maybe ? The rock ? Bloody hard time toil sweat & tears for mummy .

[chas]

I would like to ask any liberal thinking people out there, who believe we should try to help cold calculating murderers , rather than have them put down one simple question. Could they say honestly hand on heart, they would still think the same way if they had a loved one butchered in the street, had their elderly mother raped and then murdered, and other ways too terrible to mention, would they change their minds on capital punishment.

 

If they were still to answere NO, then they and others of same opinion would be leaving the future generation of this country doomed.

 

The old chestnut of what if the person was not guilty, can now be dismissed, for if the proof of forensic and DNA testing proves without dought that that person is guilty, I think any jury would convict without question. chas

[Brian Kirby]

Well, Frank, we mustn't hog all the debate, but I do think I may not have taken seriously enough what you wrote.  When you said:

“China started to have a drugs problem so the authorities rounded up 6000 dealers and after due process shot them in the back of the head.”

I didn’t realise you were seriously suggesting we should copy, so if my reply appeared as levity it was because I intended it as no more than a continuation in the same vein.  So when I said:

“Maybe we should just shoot them instead of arresting them.  No trial, no judges, no expensive barristers, you could even send the relatives the bill for the bullet, just like the Chinese.  That'd be bound to work, wouldn't it?  Really get the message across.  Works in China doesn't it?  No?  What, they still steal, rape, and murder?  Well what next?”

I was exaggerating for effect, not to trivialise.  As to who it was who suggested anything so extreme, from the quote above it seemed to be you, with your apparent approval of the Chinese shooting the 6,000 drug dealers, which I thought so extreme I thought you couldn’t possibly be serious.  Oh, and yes, the Chinese are reported as asking the relatives to pay for the bullets, so that seemed just to go with the territory.  I therefore continued for a while in that vein. 

Now, being serious then, you say:

“Many criminals aren't clever but many are very clever indeed. What they have worked out is that they can increase their chances of success by carrying a gun or a knife and if using it will help them succeed or evade capture, we've seen that they will. As for the statement that it's never worked and never will it beggars belief!” and you continue:

“Just before the abolition of capital punishment we had under 300 homicides a year - we've now nearer 1000. Clearly what doesn't work is today's liberal attitude to crime and criminals.”

However, what you refer to is not cleverness in the proper sense.  Animal cunning yes, but not clever.  This is not rational, thinking, behaviour; it is low intelligence working to a single, very simple, end.  My statement that increasingly severe penalties have never worked shouldn’t really beggar belief, unless one is so wedded to that solution that no other can be contemplated.  Before the abolition of capital punishment, we lived in a different world (and remember the legal definition of murder has since changed).  The drugs came before the gangs, and the guns and the shootings followed both.  If I believed capital punishment would deter killers, I should reluctantly accept it on the proviso that the conviction was truly watertight.  However: a) I don’t believe it would make a significant difference and b) I do not believe – DNA tests or not - that all convictions can ever be that secure.  Therefore, I am against.  This is not concern for the criminal; it is concern for the innocent who may thereby loose his life.

You go on:

“Many criminals would refrain from killing if they thought that their own life was at stake - some wouldn't, I accept that, but what really irritates me is that it must be obvious to anyone with half a brain that hundreds of people would be deterred and hundreds of lives would be saved.”

I will therefore merely plead that I have the other half of that brain.  If you have the half that sees a solution in increasingly draconian punishments, I have the half that sees the solution in education and reform.  Make no mistake though; I do not think my suggestion would be any bed of roses.  Those experiencing it would never have worked so hard in their lives.  They would have to confront themselves stripped of all their swagger and bluster, confront their base instincts, and contemplate their own futures.  I’m not talking about school; I’m talking about reform.  What I have in mind would be far closer to Clockwork Orange for the miscreant, than to his local comprehensive.

You go on to say:

“If someone is so selfish and so unstable that he considers murder a reasonable method of expressing his grievances, do we want to see him released after four years with the obvious risk that he may do it again?”

Here is the crux of my point.  As I have said, he should not be released until he deemed no longer a risk, and then only released on license, with a tag, into a controlled hostel, until he has proved his ability to work, and function, normally.

This is not about the Sutcliffes or the Hindleys, who are/were not freed, except in this respect.  Indefinite detention would be the sentence for all who did not accept the requirement to reform, and fundamentally change their attitudes.  However, it would be their decision.  If they wouldn’t play, they’d just stay inside, until they died if that was their choice.

As to what the chattering classes think, who knows?  However, when it comes to “defending the liberties of the ordinary man and woman, and to protecting us from the ever-increasing number of thugs and killers that are on our streets today”, please don’t confuse a lack of faith in the old remedies with a desire to feather bed criminals.  What I want is a penal system that, for the first time in our history, actually works to turn around the criminal and make him useful within society, rather than leaving him caged up for a while, and then releasing him to repeat endlessly his crimes. 

I want a new way, one that actually works to reduce the number of criminals rather than just freezing the number at a particular level.

[olley]

Brian Kirby - 2006-12-20 4:42 PMStart using prison for education and reform instead of just for punishment.  Those who won't initially accept this and reform, just remain inside until they do accept, until they die if necessary. 

That way they control when, and if, they get out.  If they then get back inside again, they just have to work much harder to convince the authorities that they have, genuinely, reformed.  No benefit of the doubt for re-offenders.

My argument was that present prison sentences all have time limits.  If the inmate knows he'll get out after less than half his sentence if he just keeps his nose clean, so he (mostly) tends to keep his nose clean.  Then, when he gets out, having learned nothing except better blagging, he goes back to blagging, and so on. 

My suggestion was that, after a first offence (benefit of the doubt etc.), he should simply be sentenced to prison until reformed.  His release would then depend entirely on what he does, and how he responds to his re-training and re-education.  But, no set time limit, so no release date in sight.  No co-operation, no improvement = no release: that must be the first lesson.

It could never be 100%, nothing ever could, and it won't suit all cases.  But, since all who get released would have to have demonstrated, on an individually formulated and moderated programme, that they understand concepts such as right and wrong, and can make judgements based on that understanding, will have learned to read and write if they couldn't, will have had to learn such English and maths etc, as to be at least employable, will have been taught money management and how to manage their own home, and will have been completely weaned off drugs and/or alcohol, they would leave prison far better equipped for life outside then they were when they went in.  They should be released into a structured hostel, and remain tagged and under supervision until they show they can hold down a job and behave responsibly.  Then they get freedom.  If they subsequently re-offend, the bar for full release just gets set higher and higher.

The idea, surely, is to get some payback to society for the cost of prison.  Some ex-prisoners with jobs, paying tax - even if not in every case - would surely be better than the present situation where most simply endlessly re-offend and go back again and again on a revolving door principle?  Must be worth a try.

Hi Brian I don't understand how you define "reformed" nutters get sent away and after awhile convince the doctors their ok, are let out and promptly rape and kill again, so how would anybody be sure they weren't just keeping their noses clean. Much as they do now.Your idea is basically a deterrent system and you have already said they don't work.As for teaching them money management :-D :-D why should educating them make them model citizens? Crippen was well educated, but that didn't stop him killing.And as for being completely weaned of drugs/alcohol, you obviously don't know any ex druggies/alcoholics. Jimmy Greaves said it a few years back, "every morning I wake up and decide I will not drink today" your always an alcoholic/druggie. YOU have to decide not to be, nobody can do it for you. Thats why the success of even the best rehabilitation programs is so low, most of them just don't want to.Olley

[howie]

chas - 2006-12-20 10:05 PM

 

I would like to ask any liberal thinking people out there, who believe we should try to help cold calculating murderers , rather than have them put down one simple question. Could they say honestly hand on heart, they would still think the same way if they had a loved one butchered in the street, had their elderly mother raped and then murdered, and other ways too terrible to mention, would they change their minds on capital punishment. chas

And i,m afraid thats where the problem lies Chas. The lawmakers and minority groups who advocate the soft approach are so far removed from the reality of everyday life that only a short sharp dose of the brutality and thuggery that most of us see, or are sadly even personally involved in, will bring them to their senses....

Sorry to interupt this thread, but this laptop looks like its finally about to give up the ghost, so in case I don,t get the opportunity again this side of Christmas, let me wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and happy New Year. Howard.

[Forester]

Brian Kirby - 2006-12-20 10:42 PM

Here is the crux of my point.  As I have said, he should not be released until he deemed no longer a risk, and then only released on license, with a tag, into a controlled hostel, until he has proved his ability to work, and function, normally.

This has been done and is still being done let out to kill again read the papers watch the news its all in there time & time again. It dosen't work!. Tag them. They know how to get the tag off  and put it back on again. BTW where would all these hostels be and come from I wouln't like one near me. I think we all know the problem, its just trying to convince our peers.

[euroanchor]

michele - 2006-12-20 6:14 PM

 

So Seem's to me that in this country there will be a revolt............

Make no bones it's coming. When I don't know but the people have had enough. I would not vote for BNP because I do not agree with the violence but having worked in a surgery for years in the East end of London . Getting spat on then worrying if you had TB I can understand why people do . It's not for me . However in saying that I would like to see a stop to people coming into the country we have enough to deal with .

I am not politically minded and I am really probably out of my dept once again with you guy's But enough is enough . I still believe in prison ?

Just no TV No violence and any one who display's it should get the crap beaten out of them by a special hit squad .....Actually better still have you seen the film with John Travolta FACE OFF they have to wear big heavy metal boot's and if they kick off the floor is magnetic . That would be good I would leave em standing for day's locked to the floor. My husband believes in an eye for an eye and is sick to the back teeth of the Police force . We are so frightened to say what we really feel or think .

for fear of being branded racist myself i dont think color should come into it

If the satistic show that the majority of black people comit crime the news should reflect it and the same with every creed or color.

 

My husband say's he deals with the same s**t different place everyday ?

No point in nicking em no room at the inn .

So back to the USA prison for me .

Boot camp chain gangs no TV no congical rights no steeling cut off the arms no killing as you will be killed .

Like my old man say's RIGHTLY / WRONGLY.

If your in a war say viet kong Spelling sorry? you walk into a village and one of your guy's is shot. Take the first jap and his family shoot em put em on the front of your vehicle drive through the village show you mean business . I bet they would give up charlie quickly enough then .

 

We are not hard enough . As for our prison system what system we have no prisons . The money go's on other things I wonder what ? I know one thing for sure I'm paying for it . Papillion Maybe ? The rock ? Bloody hard time toil sweat & tears for mummy .

 

 

Well it looks like I've found my soul mate. Good on you Michelle for having the balls 8-) to say what so many are thinking.

[Forester]

HEAR-HEAR

[Forester]

How would you deal with this bastard!!

htpp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/622033.stm

[chas]

Having read today that an arsonist and his wife have been sentanced to 32yrs and 11 years for killing a couple in their own home, which the judge as recommended there to be no parole untill the sentances are served, now work out how much that is going to cost the tax payer!

 

Last figures I heard was it costs aprox £1000 per WEEK to keep a person in jail, get your calculators out , for 32 years.

 

Far better to have passed a SUSPENDED sentance. chas

[olley]

chas - 2006-12-21 1:01 PM

 

Having read today that an arsonist and his wife have been sentanced to 32yrs and 11 years for killing a couple in their own home, which the judge as recommended there to be no parole untill the sentances are served, now work out how much that is going to cost the tax payer!

 

Last figures I heard was it costs aprox £1000 per WEEK to keep a person in jail, get your calculators out , for 32 years.

 

Far better to have passed a SUSPENDED sentance. chas

 

Sorry, do you mean that unless they kill again they stay out of prison?

 

Olley

[chas]

No Olley - I mean suspended 6ft off the floor, by rope! chas

[Forester]

Justice for my name-sake, The lad from Rochdale who got shot by a Jordanain has been sentenced to death. Good it should happen more in this country.

[michele]

First offence steeling 1) Locked up for 2 years Beaten with a tazar gun everyday ....Life a misery treaten like scum

 

First offence Paedophile Dead sorry but firstly locked in the stocks stamped on his /her head peadophile kiddie fiddler with an iron brand like what you use for cattle. Stocks supplied with plenty of rocks stones left for a week for the whole town to see. Parents there to see how badly treated and after that removed to prison . No good doer's allowed .

only people that laugh ..............

Nailed to a tree like jesus straight through the hands. in the grounds with the cameras watching someone witha big knife would then be allowed to walk up and cut of his manhood one by one 3 go's that's good I would volenteer for it leave him to bleed to death (dont come back with what if it's a women ) I can think of something just as bad.

Rape Sorry 10 years no is no if your not sure then it's bloody no .....

Date rape 10 years .......hard labour chain gangs the works no clothes nno visits no phone calls lock down boots ...........

Foreigners come stay for 6 months prove you have a job put in the pot commit no crimes have a visa carry ID everyone ..........

 

I would have this country sorted in no time .... Someone tell me what I am

a lefty or a righty or just in the bloody middle fed up with it all.

 

I want to move to France I' already moved from london to get out of it ?

perhaps I'm wrong? perhaps my views are extreme but I gaurantee no one would be doing any of the above . & as for making paedophiles hide underground further I would stop spending money tax payers money on imigration and employ a squad to find em then hang em after I cut the ball's off of course. ;-)

[Forester]

You have my vote.

[michele]

Thanks Betty boothroyd ?

 

The eye's to the right 8-)

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ;-)

[michele]

Sorry Please excuse the language on my upper thread .

 

Forgot myself inbetween pulling up the next round of drugs for the little one.

was trying to do it all a women thing multi tasking.

Now there's another topic who will start first women verses men .......

 

i new the women would win behind every great man there's an even greater women ... Ps this is chit chat sorry o/t your thread wayne ...

[Brian Kirby]

olley - 2006-12-20 11:00 PM Hi Brian I don't understand how you define "reformed" nutters get sent away and after awhile convince the doctors their ok, are let out and promptly rape and kill again, so how would anybody be sure they weren't just keeping their noses clean. Much as they do now. Your idea is basically a deterrent system and you have already said they don't work. As for teaching them money management :-D :-D why should educating them make them model citizens? Crippen was well educated, but that didn't stop him killing. And as for being completely weaned of drugs/alcohol, you obviously don't know any ex druggies/alcoholics. Jimmy Greaves said it a few years back, "every morning I wake up and decide I will not drink today" your always an alcoholic/druggie. YOU have to decide not to be, nobody can do it for you. Thats why the success of even the best rehabilitation programs is so low, most of them just don't want to. Olley

Well, Olley, since you asked I'll answer, but then I'll say no more.

I assume your "nutters" are those who are insane.  They should continue to be dealt with through the secure mental establishments, just as they are now.

Those who are not insane can, and should, be psychologically evaluated on sentence and subjected to a rehab programme.  This can be done.  It is done every day with those who suffer breakdowns and other forms of mental disturbance, and with numbers of people, mainly young, who are disruptive but have not, actually committed crimes.  Rehabilitation is not an easy option, but it is, in most cases, possible.  So, my idea is not intended as a deterrent: it is intended to ensure, so far as possible, that when ex cons are released they do not go back to re-offend.  However, if it did work as a deterrent, which for reasons stated I do not believe would be likely, so much the better.  Every little helps.

Money management, household management, why not?  Many of the occupants of our prisons are, in reality, inadequate.  I would add that by far the great majority are not there for murder, but for various forms of robbery, car crimes, GBH/ABH etc.  Much of this seems to be related to drugs/alcahol.  I would also add that Crippen was criminally insane, and many who are in that category are indeed, genuinely clever, and some brilliant.  However, they should go to the secure mental hospitals and not the prisons.

What is obvious to you from what I say is not reliable in this case.  I have met many people, among them alcaholics in both pre, and post, recovery phases.  I have also encountered a few on and off drugs, and you are right that they are never any more than drug addicts/alcaholics who are not at that time taking.  And yes, they do have to want to get there before they can arrive.  However, as above many people do take the treatment and recover sufficiently to live quite normal lives.  Because someone has resorted to criminality, as well as to alcahol or drugs, should not mean that they can never stop.  Not all criminals re-offend, so even the blunt instrument of prison can bring some to their senses.  Given a bit more effort to sort them out while inside that number would reduce and we should all benefit.  The problem with a lot of the rehab programmes is that they are not, as you say, voluntary.  It is no good taking someone off whatever it is and then saying "away you go, now you're fixed".  It requires far more than just detoxification.  That is the obvious start, but the craving has to be overcome and the underlying psychological disorders addressed.  If, and only if, the individual can be fully rehabilitated should they be realased.  That is why I said that if they have just put on a sufficiently good act to fool everyone, and then reoffend, they would have to go through the whole process again but there would be no benefit of the doubt extended to them and, if they don't satisfy, they stay in, until they die if necessary.

Of course you could lock them all up for life, but look at the cost of that.  The main reason they are released so quickly today has nothing whatever to do with prison reform, or being nice to convicts, it is because the prisons are all full and new criminals keep on turning up.  We have had a huge prison building programme over that past 20 or so years, yet many of the old Victorian prisons, that were supposed to have been demolished, are still in use just because of the numbers.  If we are to lock more of them away for even longer the cost will rise and rise - and Frank won't like that because his taxes will go up! 

So if we can't keep them in, and we can't let them out, what?

As I assume transportation is out of the question today (who'd have them?  Australia has all the bowlers it now needs.) one alternative would presumably have to be capital punishment.  However, with so few of the present inmates candidates for that (broadly, sane murderers), the sentence would have to be applied to a lot more crimes than presently attract life sentences. 

Alternatively it would just have to be a case of three stripes and you swing!

There has been a lot of emotion and hot air (or hot type) on here, but no one seems to me to be offering realistically affordable, and thought through, solutions that look likely to work in the real world.  Tricky, isn't it?

[olley]

Hi Brian, I agree that their must be a better way, but I don't believe you have found it, anymore than I believe in the present system.

 

So whats the answer? your way sounds as expensive as the existing, and relies on so called experts deciding when someone can be released.

 

I think technology could come to the rescue but I doubt they would allow it, couple the tags being used with an electric shocker, go beyond a certain radius from home and you get zapped until you go back.

 

I recall their was a film made where the tag was around your neck, go too far and it blew your head off. :-D

 

I did say lobotomy in jest before, but thinking more about it why not? cheap to do, all you need is an ice pick, and as a deterrent it might actually have some limited effect.

 

I did think Frank was right wing, but after reading Michelle's post I realise he's pinko liberal (no offence meant Frank) (lol) (lol)

 

Merry xmas

 

Olley

 

 

[michele]

Olley ,

So what am I then the jokes totally over my head ?

I think that I am my own wing (GOVENOR) haha...............

 

[olley]

Hi Michelle, cutting their balls off, torture, stoning, death squads. Were you by any chance a member of the Gestapo in a previous life? :-D :-D ;-) ;-)

 

Olley