Are full prisons really an excuse for judges to allow leaner sentances/early release for our ever growing band of serious criminals?
Prisons
- Thread starter ricicle
- Start date
Sponsored Links
no but what choice do they have
p.s. just done a massive uni assignment on prisons so coul start a massive debate, which i just can be arsed to do.
p.s. just done a massive uni assignment on prisons so coul start a massive debate, which i just can be arsed to do.
Sponsored Links
I think they should all be put to work until they have paid there debt to society, literally, none of this " oh we have had too much benefit, 20,000 worth " but they never have to pay it back and they still get benefits to live on, it should be stopped until the debt is paid................ 
The worst criminals - the lifers should be gassed. That'll free up some space. Sorted. You think China has full prisons? I tell you now, you feel safer walking about in China than you do in a UK city. Go figure.
Softus said:
I'm sure you'll find a few here who'll be capable of gassing them
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=7
Err yeah. Why not? With my hand on my heart, I could do that without a second thought. If you knew me you'd know I mean it. I'm not proud of this sort of thing, but to be honest, I see very little difference between animals and humans at times. Some people don't deserve to live - if we have this opinion, we must be able to be the one to do the exterminating - I have no issue with this at all Softus.Softus said:
Did I miss something?ninebob said:
ninebob said:
I don't understand how you can have an opinion that you're not proud of. Surely you'd seek to either (a) justify it to yourself, or (b) stop holding it.
That aside, and without any wish to restart "this one again", it doesn't make sense to me to kill someone whose own crime was to kill someone. The logical progression of that argument is that the executioner should himself be killed.
Or is it your argument that the murder of murderers should be legalised? If so, what's your plan for dealing with miscarriages of justice that are discovered too late, i.e. after an innocent person was convicted of murder and then murdered?
That aside, and without any wish to restart "this one again", it doesn't make sense to me to kill someone whose own crime was to kill someone. The logical progression of that argument is that the executioner should himself be killed.
Or is it your argument that the murder of murderers should be legalised? If so, what's your plan for dealing with miscarriages of justice that are discovered too late, i.e. after an innocent person was convicted of murder and then murdered?
What I meant is, that I don't think it's a clever or smart opinion, just how I feel.Softus said:I don't understand how you can have an opinion that you're not proud of. Surely you'd seek to either (a) justify it to yourself, or (b) stop holding it.
Who's talking about killing murderers? I'm talking about extinguishing the lives of people that commit attempted murder, I'm not bothered whether they actually manage it or not - attempted murder warrants execution in my opinion. Has any of your family been subjected to attempted murder Softus?Softus said:
Not legalised as such so that the public have free reign, that's not what I mean. The death penalty needs re-introducing.Softus said:
There will always be the odd case that goes wrong, sh*t happens and I accept that. I accept that there would be big compensation claims every now and then, but in my opinion (and that's all I can offer) wiping out the scum of the Earth is a bigger benefit.Softus said:
But you said this:gcol said:
So are you now saying that you only wish you could, not that you actually would?
You are - you wrote this:Softus said:
Or did you mean that you would gas lifers except murderers?
Er, you've lost me. I now can't work out who you want to kill and who you want to preserve.
Not that I'm aware of, but what's that got to do with a discussion of whether or not the state should legislate to kill people?
The death penalty is currently illegal, so introducing it would mean legalising the murder of murderers, or the killing of killers, whichever way you want to express it. It would also mean the murder of wrongly convicted non-murderers, or the killing of wrongly convicted non-killers.
So let me see if I've got this right...
You seriously wish that the law should be changed so that all people convicted of murder should be killed. If someone was later found to be innocent, then you'd give that person's family some money. But if no evidence of the dead person's innocence emerged, then you wouldn't give their families anything.
Have I got that right? Is that how you see it would work?
So would you give money to the family of the murderer's victim? Or is the killing supposed to be the compensation?
Have you asked your MP to table this proposal in parliament? Or don't you feel strongly enough about it to write to your MP? It would be odd if you didn't, since you felt strongly enough about it to suggest it on the open forum.
Just in case you have, I'll now write to my MP and ask him to ensure, at every opportunity that he ever has, to vote against the death penalty. If everyone who had a strong belief did this, then the very thing that was made illegal in 1999 would never again be legal.
Sponsored Links
