Guest pelmetman Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 4:04 PM You may be surprised Dave but I share your sentiments regarding the public's perception of the lack of justice for victims of crime. I never saw anyone go to jail that didn’t deserve to go when I was involved in the criminal law and a goodly number who deserved to go and yet didn’t. It was one reason why I abandoned my involvement in it many years ago now. That said I am firmly of belief that there is much to be done in terms of crime prevention. Locking people up is one way of protecting the public but there comes a time when there need to concerted action to reduce what leads people to commit crime in the first place. The soppy liberals have tried and failed numerous times to change the ways of wrong un's *-) ........ There's only one solution, lock them up for longer.......and immediately deport those foreign criminals as soon as they finish their sentence......ie don't leave them wandering the streets of Wales as they have with that rapist SOPPY LIBERALS had ejected of their plane :-| ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted April 18, 2019 Author Share Posted April 18, 2019 Where is the evidence that locking people up for longer reduces the overall crime rate Dave? I agree with you that prisoners subject to deportation action should be deported before their sentence ends if practicable. Some of course are the persistent offenders serving short sentences so it may not be practicable in all cases. There may be a good argument for saying that when it comes to foreign nationals deportation should be considered at the time they are sentenced and not left to some cumbersome separate procedure that follows later. You should write to the Home Secretary. Hell knows it takes long enough for some people to get before the courts and there could be some preparation of the deportation case before any trial/sentence in the very serious cases at least. I suspect it all comes down to money but I don’t claim to know why it doesn’t happen. As for those interfering “don’t know whats” who stopped the deportation of the Somali rapist it was shameful behaviour, no self-respecting law-abiding citizen would have done that. Their arrogant assumption about the rights and wrongs of a situation they knew nothing about was staggering. Were they all “soppy liberals”? Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-04-17 3:01 PM Bulletguy - 2019-04-17 1:22 PM Afaik commit a crime in a country, assuming a custodial sentence is handed out then the time served is in the country the crime has been committed with deportation following the end. The only exception being if a more serious charge has already been filed by the criminals own country authorities in which case there would be a marker via Interpol. What a insular lefty bubble you live in Bullet *-) ......... You love to preach......yet ignore the damage you folk sow 8-) ...... I can see that was too complicated for you so i'll try this simple question and answer. You commit an offence in Spain which carries a custodial sentence. Which country do you believe you should serve your time in....Spain, or UK? (By the way....in real life crims don't get to pick and choose even if you think they can). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 Violet1956 - 2019-04-17 12:52 PM Exactly Malc. Way back, when I was involved in the criminal law, there weren’t so many prescriptive rules and regulations. Judges could do what they thought was the right thing and interpret the rather simpler laws to support it without opening themselves up to challenge. Unfortunately, there is no category “he’s a bad ‘un and he’s got to go”. The danger in which process is clear - that a judge - who is after all but a fallible human being - makes a poor judgement. As a result the judgement is challenged and found wanting. If the defendant was convicted wrongly, they may be entitled to substantial compensation from the state. If they were found not guilty and freed, but later commit further crimes the victims of those further crimes may, rarely, also be entitled to compensation. There is no "safe" route for a judge, and the worst imaginable guide as to what is appropriate in any case is likely to be "public opinion" - given that all the public is likely to know about any case is what little is reported in the media. Remember also that most cases are argued in front of juries, those 12 "ordinary" people selected more of less at random, and it is the jury that decides on innocence or guilt. If the jury gets it wrong, it is the collective judgement of those 12 "ordinary" people, not the judgement of lawyers or judges. It is the judgement of our peers. Given that much of the media survives by feeding a sense of public indignation at the commission of crimes (most people, being honest citizens, will carry that sense of indignation) it is so easy, as exemplified in this case by the press reports, for the press to play on that sense of indignation, rather than explain the complexities of a particular case. What advocates of summary justice need to do is step back and consider where their preferred form of justice might get them, were they to find themselves on the receiving end of such a system. It is in the fine details of cases that justice is found, not in subsequent newspaper headlines. The newspapers do not have to answer for their reports - those directly involved in the trials of alleged criminals do. That is the safety vale that generally ensures that justice is served through our courts system - albeit it sometimes take more than one try to get it right. Judges who consistently get things wrong can be (and are) removed, others can be (and are) "re-trained" to plug gaps in their knowledge. Its a bit like that WW1 cartoon of two tommies hiding from a barrage in a shell hole - the one saying to the other "If you know a better hole - go to it!" If you want what you think would be a better legal system, spell out how it would differ from the one we have now, and how that would make it better. Me? I'll take what we have now, warts and all, because it is at least fair and, when it gets things wrong, there are appeal procedures that allow correction. Judging other human beings, and the reasons they do as they do, is not an exact science - which is why the people who pass sentence are called judges - it is what they do: they judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 Violet1956 - 2019-04-18 10:03 AM Where is the evidence that locking people up for longer reduces the overall crime rate Dave? It's basic common sense ;-) .......... Seeing as 60% of those who serve less than 12 months re offend within 12 months :-| .......... If they're locked up for longer........they cant re offend for longer can they? :D ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-04-19 9:31 AM If they're locked up for longer........they cant re offend for longer can they? :D ......... Absolutely true - --- but it's also basic common sense that the longer they are in prison the more they learn about the art of criminality - so they are likely to be much more professional at it when they do get out. Difficult choice really. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 malc d - 2019-04-19 10:04 AM pelmetman - 2019-04-19 9:31 AM If they're locked up for longer........they cant re offend for longer can they? :D ......... Absolutely true - --- but it's also basic common sense that the longer they are in prison the more they learn about the art of criminality - so they are likely to be much more professional at it when they do get out. Difficult choice really. :-| So they need a deterrent ;-) .......... Every time they re offend their prison time should automatically double :-| ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-04-19 10:20 AM malc d - 2019-04-19 10:04 AM pelmetman - 2019-04-19 9:31 AM If they're locked up for longer........they cant re offend for longer can they? :D ......... Absolutely true - --- but it's also basic common sense that the longer they are in prison the more they learn about the art of criminality - so they are likely to be much more professional at it when they do get out. Difficult choice really. :-| So they need a deterrent ;-) .......... Every time they re offend their prison time should automatically double :-| ...... Depends on the crime. If they are in prison for tax dodging - they are being held at taxpayers expense - So the more times they dodge paying taxes - the more we taxpayers spend on keeping them in jail. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 malc d - 2019-04-19 10:37 AM pelmetman - 2019-04-19 10:20 AM malc d - 2019-04-19 10:04 AM pelmetman - 2019-04-19 9:31 AM If they're locked up for longer........they cant re offend for longer can they? :D ......... Absolutely true - --- but it's also basic common sense that the longer they are in prison the more they learn about the art of criminality - so they are likely to be much more professional at it when they do get out. Difficult choice really. :-| So they need a deterrent ;-) .......... Every time they re offend their prison time should automatically double :-| ...... Depends on the crime. If they are in prison for tax dodging - they are being held at taxpayers expense - So the more times they dodge paying taxes - the more we taxpayers spend on keeping them in jail. :-( As a non-taxpayer that won't bother Pelmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted April 19, 2019 Share Posted April 19, 2019 malc d - 2019-04-19 10:37 AM pelmetman - 2019-04-19 10:20 AM malc d - 2019-04-19 10:04 AM pelmetman - 2019-04-19 9:31 AM If they're locked up for longer........they cant re offend for longer can they? :D ......... Absolutely true - --- but it's also basic common sense that the longer they are in prison the more they learn about the art of criminality - so they are likely to be much more professional at it when they do get out. Difficult choice really. :-| So they need a deterrent ;-) .......... Every time they re offend their prison time should automatically double :-| ...... Depends on the crime. If they are in prison for tax dodging - they are being held at taxpayers expense - So the more times they dodge paying taxes - the more we taxpayers spend on keeping them in jail. :-( I reckon the "proceeds of crime act" will be deterrent enough for anyone who fiddles their taxes ;-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.