Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
jenevers

another stabbing

Featured Posts

3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

wow!!  what a good idea.   how do you do that then?

if you want to make it a numbers game, it is easy to say that more lives will be saved in the future by hanging murderers than will be lost by judicial mistakes.    ......   but how many of those apparent 'innocents' were actually totally un-involved in the killings?   

Without even bothering Google I can come up with the names of Timothy Evans executed for the crimes of John Christie andall of the Birmingham Six would have been executed 'by mistake' (and don't bother with the carp about how they might have been guilty, they weren't) and if I could be bothered to trouble Google I could produce a long list of those executed 'by mistake'. As the murders committed by Christie (along with John George Haigh, Archibald Hall, Jack the Ripper, et al) clearly demonstrated, Capital Punishment was no deterrent to these offenders, if it didn't work then, why do we think it will somehow work now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

 

all this talk about preventing killings is left-wing wishful thinking PC carp IMHO.  Nobody has demonstrated how to do it in a society like ours.  

Apart from Norway you mean ? Half the murder rate of Sweden and 1/3 the rate of ours. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

and who pays for an 18yr old killer being locked up for long term imprisonment, taking into account that most long-termers do not stay out for long once they've been released on licence because they've been indoctrinated by others in the criminal way of life whilst in prison?  It could easily cost the taxpayer £2milion per convict.  Assume £50,000 per year - that represents the income tax paid by perhaps ten working people just to keep one scrote in a secure and relatively comfortable environment.  Are you happy to pay all your tax just to keep a scrote, who will never reform, in prison for decades?

 

all this talk about preventing killings is left-wing wishful thinking PC carp IMHO.  Nobody has demonstrated how to do it in a society like ours.  

Prisons are indeed expensive to run which is why it is cost effective to employ preventative measures.

 

However, I was replying to your  post saying that executions save lives not it is expensive to keep a prisoner in prison.

 

I do not think it is a mark of a civilised society to execute people because it is inconvenient or expensive otherwise. In my philosophy it is not acceptable for anyone to take a human life.

Edited by churchward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, billS said:

Transportation to New South Wales could be argued to have worked pretty well in its day. Removal, restitution and rehabilitiation all rolled into one...

If only they hadn't taught the so-and-so's to play cricket so well, it would have been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, billS said:

Transportation to New South Wales could be argued to have worked pretty well in its day. Removal, restitution and rehabilitiation all rolled into one...

Not really.  The society of the time may well have got shot of a number of convicted criminals but it did not prevent others from committing crimes or do one thing for why people committed the crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cougie said:

Apart from Norway you mean ? Half the murder rate of Sweden and 1/3 the rate of ours. 

I believe the difference is that Norway looks at what actually works to prevent crime and re-offending, we just look at what the populists want (hang 'em and flog 'em) even though it has proven over the years to be totally ineffective. Norway only imprison 75 people per 100,000 population (the UK imprison pretty much double that at 145, the US imprison something like 700). The Norwegian re-offending rate is about 20% (in the UK its about 30% rising to 64% for those released from a prison sentence of less than 12 months so prison clearly works....not). It is seen as a measure of just how 'hard' we are in having a massive prison population but looking 'hard' and preventing crime are two entirely separate concepts. I remember how the populists enthused over William Whitelaw's 'short, sharp shock' philosophy on juvenile detention back in the 1980's, all it resulted in was fitter yobs, deterrence value zilch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the root cause of most crime (not all) is lack of education and poverty.

I know some on here,and me too came from poor backgrounds,and did not become criminals,but there surely is a link between crime and poor education and poverty.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

In my opinion the root cause of most crime (not all) is lack of education and poverty.

I know some on here,and me too came from poor backgrounds,and did not become criminals,but there surely is a link between crime and poor education and poverty.

A considerable proportion of crime these days appears to be drugs related.

Perhaps if drug taking was viewed as not acceptable, instead of a bit of a laugh at the weekend,some of society's problems may diminish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ian F B said:

A considerable proportion of crime these days appears to be drugs related.

Perhaps if drug taking was viewed as not acceptable, instead of a bit of a laugh at the weekend,some of society's problems may diminish.

err  ................   perhaps if we took the criminal element out of drugs then the crime figures would drop through the floor.

 

legalise drugs - control the supply of drugs - provide drugs to users on condition that they submit themselves to counselling and treatment where appropriate.   no doubt the use of drugs would decrease because the pushers would be out of business.   

 

we would not need more policemen on the beat, we would not suffer from scrotes breaking into our houses and scaring old folk half to death, we would save a fortune on policing, legal costs and prison. 

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

err  ................   perhaps if we took the criminal element out of drugs then the crime figures would drop through the floor.

 

legalise drugs - control the supply of drugs - provide drugs to users on condition that they submit themselves to counselling and treatment where appropriate.   no doubt the use of drugs would decrease because the pushers would be out of business.   

 

we would not need more policemen on the beat, we would not suffer from scrotes breaking into our houses and scaring old folk half to death, we would save a fortune on policing, legal costs and prison. 

You mean like alcohol where there are no problems at all now it is decriminalised and freely available?

You're living in a fantasy world my man.

 

Better idea, take all the drugs held in store for criminal trials, adulterate it with something efficient like anthrax say, and put it on the streets for free.

30 days later, no druggies, no dealers, no problem. Now that's a solution that would work.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

You mean like alcohol where there are no problems at all now it is decriminalised and freely available?

You're living in a fantasy world my man.

 

Better idea, take all the drugs held in store for criminal trials, adulterate it with something efficient like anthrax say, and put it on the streets for free.

30 days later, no druggies, no dealers, no problem. Now that's a solution that would work.

Considering how much of our history we as a species have spent getting shitfaced on one substance or another and to be frank, how many people are actively taking drugs of some sort, that's a destructive and fairly pointless idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boater Sam said:

You mean like alcohol where there are no problems at all now it is decriminalised and freely available?

You're living in a fantasy world my man.

 

 

you have singularly missed the point.   

why don't you try switching to receive instead of transmit?

 

................  and I ain't 'your man', please don't patronise me.   :banghead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

err  ................   perhaps if we took the criminal element out of drugs then the crime figures would drop through the floor.

 

legalise drugs - control the supply of drugs - provide drugs to users on condition that they submit themselves to counselling and treatment where appropriate.   no doubt the use of drugs would decrease because the pushers would be out of business.   

 

we would not need more policemen on the beat, we would not suffer from scrotes breaking into our houses and scaring old folk half to death, we would save a fortune on policing, legal costs and prison. 

I find myself in total agreement:huh:. How many businesses in the history of the world have ever been put out of business by restricting supply? none that I can think of but I'm happy to be corrected if anyone can think of one. The simple law of supply and demand means that if you try to cut off the supply, the price goes up making it even more worthwhile to deal in the product. That is why I don't get remotely excited about any big drug seizure since it merely creates bigger profits for those who have drugs that haven't been seized. The experiment in controlling the market was tried (and failed) in the US during prohibition with much the same result we get today, gangsters killing people to maintain control of the market. Clearly the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history.

2 hours ago, Boater Sam said:

You mean like alcohol where there are no problems at all now it is decriminalised and freely available?

You're living in a fantasy world my man.

 

Better idea, take all the drugs held in store for criminal trials, adulterate it with something efficient like anthrax say, and put it on the streets for free.

30 days later, no druggies, no dealers, no problem. Now that's a solution that would work.

So to follow you logical argument, since alcohol is also a cause of problems, why not make it illegal? or to discourage its use put methyl alcohol in it? Might it be that restrictions have been tried and failed (much the same as current legislation regarding drugs going back to the 1971 Act), to keep repeating the same actions and expecting a different result is, I believe, regarded as one of the signs of insanity:rolleyes:

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/10/2019 at 19:17, jenevers said:

I wish someone on TV would say "Once the person responsible for this stabbing is found, they are going to spend the rest of their life locked up in a prison cell!"

It might make these morons think twice before committing these crimes.......maybe not though. Maybe interview an offender in jail to drive home the point.

The person doing the stabbing might of had his mooring pinched by a plastic hire boater. So the stabbing would be quite justified. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Laurie.Booth said:

The person doing the stabbing might of had his mooring pinched by a plastic hire boater. So the stabbing would be quite justified. :)

Or....Steve Hayward...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/10/2019 at 22:10, billS said:

Well, they are a professional couple, with no previous convictions. I can't think of any other facts that would be pertinent.

 

It is probable that she is fall asleep, the car was checked for faults and none were found. I was surprised that the legal advice was to plead guilty when there was at least some degree of doubt.

 

Notwithstanding that, a person died and a jail sentence is mandatory in that case. Who benefits though? It's hardly likely that she constitutes a danger to society.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect She was imprisoned because she caused death by negligence. Something we could all do so easily. There was no intent.

Stabbing/ knife carrying involves intent and is deliberate.

 

Other countries criminal justice system manages the first case better, weekend imprisonment and night time curfew for example. They make life miserable, ie punishment, but allow normal function ie work and childcare, as well as preventing deterioration of relationships. Seems cheaper and more civilised.

 

if you have ever worked in prisons you realise what a complete waste of resources they are, and  entering a lifers wing is beyond belief.

 

The crowd please statements of the current Home Secretary show a complete lack of understanding, and zero compassion.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/10/2019 at 18:33, roland elsdon said:

 

See post 43,it would appear that a 17 year old who had smoked cannabis, ran down and killed two men crossing the road,is the exception to this rule,regarding imprisonment.!

On 25/10/2019 at 18:33, roland elsdon said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ian F B said:

See post 43,it would appear that a 17 year old who had smoked cannabis, ran down and killed two men crossing the road,is the exception to this rule,regarding imprisonment.!

 

They need to be charged and convicted of the Death by Dangerous or Careless driving offences for the imprisonment to become a factor. I have no idea of why the the 17 year old you are referring to wasn't charged with either of these offences and was merely charged of driving with drugs above the legal limit, but that appears to have been the case. Without further information as to why I would not wish to comment further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/10/2019 at 22:13, Wanderer Vagabond said:

They need to be charged and convicted of the Death by Dangerous or Careless driving offences for the imprisonment to become a factor. I have no idea of why the the 17 year old you are referring to wasn't charged with either of these offences and was merely charged of driving with drugs above the legal limit, but that appears to have been the case. Without further information as to why I would not wish to comment further.

Mail on Sunday,last Sunday,an interesting read.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ian F B said:

Mail on Sunday,last Sunday,an interesting read.?

as my dear Irish wife would say, I would rather eat a bowl of snotters than read that rag.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

as my dear Irish wife would say, I would rather eat a bowl of snotters than read that rag.

Very interesting article on an aluminium fuel cell,also good crosswords and puzzles to prevent the onset of senility.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ian F B said:

Very interesting article on an aluminium fuel cell,also good crosswords and puzzles to prevent the onset of senility.?

For those reading the Mail (I will credit the Mail on Sunday as being slightly better than it's sister paper) it may already be too late?.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.