Earthing a water pipe??

[John D v2.0]

Well, we could have massive penalties for everything, but there has to be an ordering for severity. I guess what you're saying is can solve the housing crisis by just building more prisons.

 

[JohnW2]

Well, we could have massive penalties for everything, but there has to be an ordering for severity.

I would imagine that that is what most people think, but it seems that BAS may have a different view (to which he is obviously entitled).

There obviously has to be a 'ceiling' to penalties. Assuming that we don't want to return to the days as death, torture and mutilation as possible penalties, that ceiling is going to be 'decades in prison' (potentially most/all of ones' remaining life) and/or unlimited financial penalties (including 'confiscation of all assets').

BAS would seem to feel that such 'ceiling' penalties should be applied to crimes such as falsifying electrical test results or facilitating the import of potentially dangerous Chinese products. Whilst those crimes do, indeed, carry a risk (albeit probably numerically very small) of resulting in harm to people (including death) or property, I think that most people would feel that, for example, the penalties for people who had actually done serious harm (murder, rape, sexual assaults on children etc. etc.) should be greater than the penalties for the sort of crimes we're talking about, which carry a (small) risk of resulting in serious harm in the future.

Another problem of very severe penalties (for any crime) is that they impact on innocent third parties, particularly dependants of the criminal. BAS seems to imply that he regards it as a 'positive' thing that the dependants should suffer long-term deprivation of the family's breadwinner and/or his/her assets, but I would imagine that many people would be less comfortable about that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, we could have massive penalties for everything, but there has to be an ordering for severity.

Why?

Binary choice, you play by the rules or you are removed from society. If you want to remain in society you play by the rules. Not a hard thing to grasp.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Another problem of very severe penalties (for any crime) is that they impact on innocent third parties, particularly dependants of the criminal. BAS seems to imply that he regards it as a 'positive' thing that the dependants should suffer long-term deprivation of the family's breadwinner and/or his/her assets, but I would imagine that many people would be less comfortable about that.

It's very easy for people to avoid that happening to their family.

 

[JohnW2]

It's very easy for people to avoid that happening to their family.

Yes, but that doesn't help the (innocent) families of those who have decided not to avoid it.

I think a more practical problem in relation to your approach is that the evidence seems to be that serious penalties do not seem to have anything like as much of a deterrent effect as one might expect, probably at least partially because perpetrators often assume that they will never be caught. Whilst I accept that would not be case with Amazon/eBay etc., it probably is true of many of those who falisfy electrical test results. Indeed, they are probably 'right', in as much of the chances of their crime being found out is very small.

In any event, when adequate laws already exist, penalties (whatever we may choose) are useless unless the crimes are adequately 'policed' - waiting for the very occasional (extremely rare) death before we take action is hardly a satisfactory situation.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes, but that doesn't help the (innocent) families of those who have decided not to avoid it.

Are they innocent?

They are enriched by the family member who has cynically decided that the rules should not apply to him. They sometimes know what he is up to.

If they suffer because of his misdeeds then their complaint should be against the person who cynically decided that the rules should not apply to him, not to the state.

I think a more practical problem in relation to your approach is that the evidence seems to be that serious penalties do not seem to have anything like as much of a deterrent effect as one might expect, probably at least partially because perpetrators often assume that they will never be caught.

Precisely.

So if we cannot increase the chances of them getting caught we increase the penalties.

In any event, when adequate laws already exist, penalties (whatever we may choose) are useless unless the crimes are adequately 'policed' - waiting for the very occasional (extremely rare) death before we take action is hardly a satisfactory situation.

It is not.

And if we cannot educate people about the desirability of doing right, if we cannot inculcate in them a sense of honour and decency (and this site is stuffed full of examples of behaviour showing that some people simply do not have any high standards of those), then we find ways to leave them in no doubt that their behaviour is unacceptable, and that if discovered they will be removed from society. The message must be uncompromising - if you won't play by the rules then you don't play, you no longer have a place in society, you are gone, goodbye.

 

[JohnD]

since Ban raises the issue:

Are they innocent?

They are enriched

A sweeping and false assumption.

If for example the criminal is violent, or a drug abuser, he will not be enriching his family.

If he is locked up for dangerous driving, his crimes will not have enriched his family.

If he has enriched his family by tax evasion, he will probably not be locked up.

 

[JohnD]

So if we cannot increase the chances of them getting caught we increase the penalties.

Severity of penalty is not a deterrent.

For example, the maximum penalty for smoking cigarettes is death, usually a slow and painful one.

That penalty didn't deter people from taking up or continuing smoking. It didn't even deter people from selling and advertising cigarettes, even though they knew what they were doing to their customers.

An effective deterrent has to be certain, immediate, and personal.

 

[securespark]

So do you also apply main bonding to toothbrush racks, door handles, metal cabinets?

Only during the 15th Ed.....

 

[bernardgreen]

Some polly tish uns need to be grounded..............

 

[securespark]

You're a total d*ck you are.
you two bit to**er.

Just imagine how much more impact your post would have had without these statements.
I assume you are an adult. Act like one and use your intelligence and knowledge of the English language to get your point across without resorting to vulgar insults.

 

[JohnW2]

Are they innocent?

They could well be. They could be unaware of the misdoings of the person supporting them, and they have not necessarily benefited from those wrongdongs.

So if we cannot increase the chances of them getting caught we increase the penalties.

I think it would be very wrong for the PTB to "increase penalties" (to above the level currently deemed to be appropriate) simply because they were not policing the crimes adequately. In any event, if they continued not to police effectively, few people would be prosecuted and subjected to the 'increased penalties', no matter how severe they were.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think the fear of getting caught is the main deterrent, so, if there is no chance of getting caught unless someone dies then there is hardly any deterrent.

This appears to be the policy with such regulations. Only when someone is killed or injured is it stated that there is someone to blame and they may have broken a law. This gives the impression that those in charge are actually doing something beneficial for the population when, in fact, no policing is done.
The offender could just as easily be prosecuted for manslaughter.
After all, the only illegal electrical thing one can be charged with regarding installations is not notifying the LA for very few types of work.

This is akin to not enforcing the speed limit and only prosecuting someone for speeding after having caused a fatal accident.
However, there is a lot of money involved in enforcing the speed limits - even fatuous ones (3am outside schools during the holidays).

 

[stillp]

fter all, the only illegal electrical thing one can be charged with regarding installations is not notifying the LA for very few types of work.

As well as failing to make adequate provisions for safety, surely?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Oh yes, that too.