Is Prison always the answer

[Gregor Johnston]

Again I am no constitutional law expert, all I can offer is a humble interpretation

Dicey's principle states that Parliament can make and UNMAKE any law. So therefore as the Lisbon treaty is enacted into UK law by the will of parliament then even if parliament were to give up sovereignty (which I am not sure the Lisbon treaty really does anyway) it could always unmake that law and return sovereignty to itself. Hope that is clear.


As I have previously said my specialism is corporate law rather than constitutional affairs but I do have some basic knowledge of this and you are absolutely correct M.N. in theory that because under our largely unwritten constitutional conventions Parliament is omnipotent, it can effectively enact any legislation to claw back the powers which it relinquishes.

The problem is that in practical terms this can become well nigh impossible in the case of social policy and human rights. If Parliament signs up for various international treaties and then seeks to withdraw from them later on it would of course cause a national and international outcry.

If we take as a topical example the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, this is an international treatise which confers basic fundamental rights on children which we probably take for granted. Only the US and Somalia have not ratified it, but although the UK ratified it in 1992, we have kept until now an opt out in respect of the detention of children without limit of time where necessary for immigration purposes. Under mounting pressure the Government has now decided to cancel the opt out which will mean that we shall no longer be entitled to detain asylum-seeking families indefinitely or for long periods without bringing them before a court or tribunal.

Having abandoned the opt out and incorporated the Convention wholesale, Parliament could still in theory on the Dicey principle to which you refer decide at a future date to legislate that we come out of the Convention, but that simply is not going to happen, because it would be political suicide for any Government as they would be portrayed as being hostile to children and children's rights. In saying this, I am making no comment about whether we should be in or out of this Convention or indeed any of our other international treaties. The point I am making is that these international commitments develop a momentum of their own such that it is extremely difficult for any Government to extricate itself from them once they have signed on the dotted line !

[Marxist Nutter]

As I have previously said my specialism is corporate law rather than constitutional affairs but I do have some basic knowledge of this and you are absolutely correct M.N. in theory that because under our largely unwritten constitutional conventions Parliament is omnipotent, it can effectively enact any legislation to claw back the powers which it relinquishes.

The problem is that in practical terms this can become well nigh impossible in the case of social policy and human rights. If Parliament signs up for various international treaties and then seeks to withdraw from them later on it would of course cause a national and international outcry.

If we take as a topical example the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, this is an international treatise which confers basic fundamental rights on children which we probably take for granted. Only the US and Somalia have not ratified it, but although the UK ratified it in 1992, we have kept until now an opt out in respect of the detention of children without limit of time where necessary for immigration purposes. Under mounting pressure the Government has now decided to cancel the opt out which will mean that we shall no longer be entitled to detain asylum-seeking families indefinitely or for long periods without bringing them before a court or tribunal.

Having abandoned the opt out and incorporated the Convention wholesale, Parliament could still in theory on the Dicey principle to which you refer decide at a future date to legislate that we come out of the Convention, but that simply is not going to happen, because it would be political suicide for any Government as they would be portrayed as being hostile to children and children's rights. In saying this, I am making no comment about whether we should be in or out of this Convention or indeed any of our other international treaties. The point I am making is that these international commitments develop a momentum of their own such that it is extremely difficult for any Government to extricate itself from them once they have signed on the dotted line !

Great Post Gregor

However (no surprise here!!) I disagree on your last point. Government polices that are hostile to children are, in fact very popular. We have record numbers of children in custody and people say we should have more. People are always saying kids lack 'respect' and encourage the government to be tough on them and screw their rights. I think if government were to make a case that the convention stripped them of powers they needed to deal with problem children and asylum seekers they wold enjoy much public support and although some groups such as the NSPCC and Liberty, for example will be very angry there would be no great outcry.

Sorry as this is way off topic :D

[Trouble43]

People are always saying kids lack 'respect' and encourage the government to be tough on them and screw their rights. I think if government were to make a case that the convention stripped them of powers they needed to deal with problem children and asylum seekers they wold enjoy much public support and although some groups such as the NSPCC and Liberty, for example will be very angry there would be no great outcry.

Sorry as this is way off topic :D

Not sure I agree Nutter; I want the government to be tough on the teens and kids that go around mugging and stabbing each other as well as other people, but of course that's not all of them by any means.

But we do need to do something as this seems to be spiralling out of control, at least in MO. I would certainly be very angry at the loss of anyone's rights; we are losing so many of our freedoms already under Brown, to lose more would not be good.

[Marxist Nutter]

Not sure I agree Nutter; I want the government to be tough on the teens and kids that go around mugging and stabbing each other as well as other people, but of course that's not all of them by any means.

But we do need to do something as this seems to be spiralling out of control, at least in MO. I would certainly be very angry at the loss of anyone's rights; we are losing so many of our freedoms already under Brown, to lose more would not be good.

I agree. My point was that the Sun reading masses could not give a toss about people's rights, especially kids.

There is a larger problem tho

Rights are rights and they belong to everyone, as you suggest, so therefore in order to prosecute young people under the age of 10 - this would go against the convention for the rights of a child. However a 10 yr old may have committed a horrendous murder. You only need mention James Bulger to get everyone all in a tizz and up for abolishing rights.

[Trouble43]

I agree. My point was that the Sun reading masses could not give a toss about people's rights, especially kids.

No you're right there - I think a lot of people who read the tabloids are like that though. Especially Daily Mail readers. ;)

Rights are rights and they belong to everyone, as you suggest, so therefore in order to prosecute young people under the age of 10 - this would go against the convention for the rights of a child. However a 10 yr old may have committed a horrendous murder. You only need mention James Bulger to get everyone all in a tizz and up for abolishing rights.

Oh yes, that poor little boy - it is a very emotive subject though isn't it? You are right; rights are rights for everyone. But what about the rights of the victims? Our teens are slaughtering each other with such gay abandon that even one such as me, well used to violence on many levels, is shocked.

How do you combat that kind of violence? If I advocate prison terms for drug users, etc - I could hardly not do the same for someone who has stabbed another person to death for no particular reason.

Like drugs, it seems a very complicated issue and one there is obviously no 'quick fix' for (despite Brown trying to pretend there is.)

[Marxist Nutter]

No you're right there - I think a lot of people who read the tabloids are like that though. Especially Daily Mail readers. ;)



Oh yes, that poor little boy - it is a very emotive subject though isn't it? You are right; rights are rights for everyone. But what about the rights of the victims? Our teens are slaughtering each other with such gay abandon that even one such as me, well used to violence on many levels, is shocked.

How do you combat that kind of violence? If I advocate prison terms for drug users, etc - I could hardly not do the same for someone who has stabbed another person to death for no particular reason.

Like drugs, it seems a very complicated issue and one there is obviously no 'quick fix' for (despite Brown trying to pretend there is.)

Again there is a larger issue about how governments seem to make law these days. One emotive issue can lead to legislative changes. Often these are not thought thru and are made on the basis of 'freak cases' and are largely to appease the daily Mail readers.

Of course the Bulger case was awful and the boys got punished for it (although i think they are free now) but there are always issues about locking up the very young - even if they do horrendous things - do they need punishment or support - why did they do it (unlike u I don't believe in evil)? Are there mental health problems to consider? It is a very complicated one indeed.

[Trouble43]

Again there is a larger issue about how governments seem to make law these days. One emotive issue can lead to legislative changes. Often these are not thought thru and are made on the basis of 'freak cases' and are largely to appease the daily Mail readers.

I think these sorts of changes are more 'knee jerk' reactions to public opinion rather than to the case in point. However I do think in the case of Jamie Bulger, something had to be done. Whilst its rare for children as young as his killers were to carry out acts of such depraved violence, it still happens and something had to be put in place to be able to deal with it.

Of course the Bulger case was awful and the boys got punished for it (although i think they are free now) but there are always issues about locking up the very young - even if they do horrendous things - do they need punishment or support - why did they do it (unlike u I don't believe in evil)? Are there mental health problems to consider? It is a very complicated one indeed.

Yes they are free - but with new identities (as have their families). I do believe in evil; the fact that they led Jamie Bulger for two miles before they started the beatings that would finally kill him, even to putting off adults that approached them, means they knew what they were doing. They had more than enough time to turn back, to hand him over to an adult and leg it. To not do what they did. I think killers like that, regardless of age, need to be dealt with. Locking up is necessary to ensure they don't carry out such attacks again - but also physciatric assessment to find out why they did it and if there is a chance they would do it again.

Its hard to know what to do for the best; I think people find it both extremely horrifying and deeply disturbing when children kill other children. It's a bit like when mothers/women kill children; I think, deep down, its something we feel is even more freakish than a man murdering children.

I think its because women are meant to be nurturing; to look after children and be the ones to protect them. To find that they've done the exact opposite unsettles us all, because a deeply rooted belief (however unknowing) has been shown to be false.

Likewise children are considered 'little innocents'; at most, meant to be the victim. To find a child/ren has shown a side that we expect from adults (and, in the Bulger case, only the most depraved adults), again throws all our carefull sculpted expectations about life into turmoil.

I remember a child being killed by a bloke in local area at the same time the Bulger case was occuring. Everyone was sympathetic to the child, ooohing and aahing about the 'poor little mite'. But the reaction to the boys who murdered Jamie Bulger was astonishing. I was very upset and thought they deserved a prison/physciatric detention indefinitely verdict. But I do truly believe that many locals to me (this was in Camberley in Surrey, miles away from where Jamie Bulger died) would have lynched those two boys if they could.

Some called for the death penelty to be brought back for them, even saying they would offer to pull the switch to hang them themselves. It was a hugely emotive situation; but I do think our reactions were based as much on the fact it was two little boys who killed a toddler at all, let alone in the way they did it, than the fact a toddler was murdered.

OUr own knee jerk reaction is to howl for retribution, for a message to be sent to all others that these horrifying actions will not be tolerated. Not only because they are terrible, but because we do not want our own accepted standards and expectations to be upset.

Of course, what is the logical and unemotional reaction is lost amongst the upset, shock and horror - in a very emotional backlash.

Just MO though.

[Marxist Nutter]

I think these sorts of changes are more 'knee jerk' reactions to public opinion rather than to the case in point. However I do think in the case of Jamie Bulger, something had to be done. Whilst its rare for children as young as his killers were to carry out acts of such depraved violence, it still happens and something had to be put in place to be able to deal with it.



Yes they are free - but with new identities (as have their families). I do believe in evil; the fact that they led Jamie Bulger for two miles before they started the beatings that would finally kill him, even to putting off adults that approached them, means they knew what they were doing. They had more than enough time to turn back, to hand him over to an adult and leg it. To not do what they did. I think killers like that, regardless of age, need to be dealt with. Locking up is necessary to ensure they don't carry out such attacks again - but also physciatric assessment to find out why they did it and if there is a chance they would do it again.

Its hard to know what to do for the best; I think people find it both extremely horrifying and deeply disturbing when children kill other children. It's a bit like when mothers/women kill children; I think, deep down, its something we feel is even more freakish than a man murdering children.

I think its because women are meant to be nurturing; to look after children and be the ones to protect them. To find that they've done the exact opposite unsettles us all, because a deeply rooted belief (however unknowing) has been shown to be false.

Likewise children are considered 'little innocents'; at most, meant to be the victim. To find a child/ren has shown a side that we expect from adults (and, in the Bulger case, only the most depraved adults), again throws all our carefull sculpted expectations about life into turmoil.

I remember a child being killed by a bloke in local area at the same time the Bulger case was occuring. Everyone was sympathetic to the child, ooohing and aahing about the 'poor little mite'. But the reaction to the boys who murdered Jamie Bulger was astonishing. I was very upset and thought they deserved a prison/physciatric detention indefinitely verdict. But I do truly believe that many locals to me (this was in Camberley in Surrey, miles away from where Jamie Bulger died) would have lynched those two boys if they could.

Some called for the death penelty to be brought back for them, even saying they would offer to pull the switch to hang them themselves. It was a hugely emotive situation; but I do think our reactions were based as much on the fact it was two little boys who killed a toddler at all, let alone in the way they did it, than the fact a toddler was murdered.

OUr own knee jerk reaction is to howl for retribution, for a message to be sent to all others that these horrifying actions will not be tolerated. Not only because they are terrible, but because we do not want our own accepted standards and expectations to be upset.

Of course, what is the logical and unemotional reaction is lost amongst the upset, shock and horror - in a very emotional backlash.

Just MO though.

Very understandable opinion it is too. Like the drugs debate tho I think we are coming at it from radically different perspectives which oddly enough allows to agree on many points whilst disagreeing on what action should be taken. Not wanting to go over the details of any specific case, in general I tend to think prison is a bad thing. Much like the drugs debate, I think it does not work. It is counter productive for the individual imprisoned, for society that has to pay for it and the families of people put in prison. Now I think the ONLY legitimate use of Prison is to incarcerate people who are a clear danger to themselves and/or others. We simply cannot afford to lock up everyone who breaks the law. It just seems so counter productive.

Just MO tho.

[Self Moderation: Trouble I think we should leave it here as we are going way off topic. Maybe open a new thread in Law and order if you want to continue]

[Trouble43]

Very understandable opinion it is too. Like the drugs debate tho I think we are coming at it from radically different perspectives which oddly enough allows to agree on many points whilst disagreeing on what action should be taken. Not wanting to go over the details of any specific case, in general I tend to think prison is a bad thing. Much like the drugs debate, I think it does not work. It is counter productive for the individual imprisoned, for society that has to pay for it and the families of people put in prison. Now I think the ONLY legitimate use of Prison is to incarcerate people who are a clear danger to themselves and/or others. We simply cannot afford to lock up everyone who breaks the law. It just seems so counter productive.

Just MO tho.

[Self Moderation: Trouble I think we should leave it here as we are going way off topic. Maybe open a new thread in Law and order if you want to continue]

I think though that, with the more extreme cases (such as the one mentioned here), sometimes incarceration is in the interests of the criminals as I think the public would lynch them if they were merely released into the care of a physciatric unit.

Also the perpetrators of any murder need to feel the consequences of their actions, otherwise there is not deterent. As for drugs I think an addict needs to be in a 'prison' where they can be taken off drugs completely and under the guidance of qualified helpers.


[Yeah if you want to open another thread Nutter, more than happy to continue the debate over there.]:)

[Marxist Nutter]

My view is that Prison should only be used as a way of protecting society from those who present a clear danger; and that we lock up far too many people. Prison is often counter productive and does more harm than good for everyone concerned including the Tax payer. Is it not time that we looked to alternative forms of punishment (which do exist already) and shift attention away from retribution and consider what is in the best interests of everyone victim, perp, and society included.

Open debate...please share your views

[Marxist Nutter]

Debate on law and prisons moved to

http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debate/10691-prison-always-answer.html

inorder to continue the debate on Islam and the UN

MN

Mods...Is it possible to merge some of the stuff here into the other thread?

[Trouble43]

My view is that Prison should only be used as a way of protecting society from those who present a clear danger; and that we lock up far too many people. Prison is often counter productive and does more harm than good for everyone concerned including the Tax payer. Is it not time that we looked to alternative forms of punishment (which do exist already) and shift attention away from retribution and consider what is in the best interests of everyone victim, perp, and society included.

Open debate...please share your views

I think the boys who killed James Bulger did present a clear danger; but also people who murder, especially unprovoked, knifings are posing a threat; what sets them off? I remember one teen saying the other teen he stabbed (but who recovered), "looked at me wrong".....what does that mean? A smirk, an arched eyebrow, or just glancing at him as he past him? Any one a 'look' that a passerby might give.

[Maxus]

Prison doesn’t appear to be working , most people who get sent down seem to go back and consequently they’re usually full so you need to do something pretty bad to get sent down in the first place and if you’re good when you’re inside you are usually out before too long. All my life the accepted wisdom has been “don’t be nasty to be criminals, it only makes things worse” and that could be right, I’ve always believed it, largely because the people who appear to challenge the accepted wisdom are usually on the right and I’m not.

I’m not a instinctively liberal, in fact I’m often accused of being a Stalinist but I do believe that those of us who go to work every day and try not to hurt other people have some rights, for example the right to walk home from the pub without being beaten up and stuff.

The only people who are scared of prison are people who don’t go there but ASBOs, Community Service etc aren’t doing the trick either so I’ve got an idea. Let’s identify anyone who commits an act of violence against someone they don’t know, someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and be unpleasant to them; if you like we’ll wait until they’ve done it twice.

Then let’s send them somewhere really unpleasant, let’s cut their hair, give them a uniform and a number, keep em isolated, shout at them and all that nasty stuff. Let’s take away their right to compensation if a screw hurts their feelings or refuses them a phone card etc and see how it goes. If necessary we can go private pay someone else to do, maybe a developing country that could do with the money.

If we try it for a year or two and it doesn’t work we can go back to calling them ‘service users' and putting a chocolate on their pillow.

[Tete123]

Another fine topic of debate Marxist.

Well It's apparent that prison reform is an area that needs much consideration, the evidence quite clearly supports the notion that Prison is not working, with almost two-thirds of prisoners re-offending within 2 years of their release.

Dr Carol Hedderman, Prof of Criminology at the University of Leicester and a former Home Office researcher contributing to an article in the Independent (20th July 08) shows that there is a direct link between an increase in the prison population and the increase in re-offending rates.

Nu Labs 'Tough in Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime' has led to England and Wales boasting the highest prison population rates per 100,000 persons in Western Europe. They have created over 3,000 new offences, introduced more than 50 bills and over 20 Criminal Justice Acts since taking office in 1997. To put this in perspective - between 1925 and 1985 only 6 Criminal Justice Acts had been put on the statute book.

It's hard to see the role of prisons in todays society; are they there to rehabilitate, punish or both? Whatever the intention the figures make for a poor claim that rehabilitation is being achieved, and, the public perception of prison 'holiday camps' indicates neither is justice.

Now, short of considering the true or real sense of what justice would entail to appease both the public at large and specifically the victims of crime, the main role of prisons in my opinion should be rehabilitation. Personally I would like to see less state control and prisons run by the private sector, with government funding based on population size but above all else results. Increased educational facilities introduced, and made a requirement of detainment, to provide the inmate with either a skill or qualification upon release. Segregation within the system of similar crime types, hopefully reducing the chance of minor criminals obtaining additional schooling in criminal activity. Thorough mental assessment prior to release of every prisoner, to ensure the risk to society is minimised and finally, complete after release support, with integration back into society and help with employment opportunities.

Punishment should work alongside the target of rehabilitation. A reclassification of the prison system; no more holiday camp 'cat D' institutions. Maybe a 2 tier system, with higher security facilities for murderers, rapist and terrorists and a general level that caters for the remainder. The Conservatives have pledged (when they win the next election) to tear up the human rights act and replace it with a UK bill of rights, and I completely support this measure. The bill of rights discourse has usually arisen during the debate on deportation of foreign nationals, convicted of crimes, but this measure would outline the rights and expectations of all British citizens. Therefore, once convicted of a crime by a court the prisoner would have his 'rights' striped to the basic level - the right to live. Our prisons should be feared, not laughed at. Mandatory sentences carried full length, if you are sentenced to 5 years you WILL serve 5 years.

The above suggestions I feel would improve the actual prison system, making it a determent from criminal activity and hopefully rehabilitating prisoners for a full reintegration into society but the main focus should be keeping as many people out of prison as possible. I read an article by Ross Clarke in the Times (23rd Sept 2008) where a 30 year old single mother was recruited as a drug mule by a local drugs gangs.. the offer to educate her children. She will likely serve around 8 years for this offence. We need a clear message on drugs - supply and use are crimes (or not, depending on your views). George Michael was recently caught under the influence of drugs, his second offence of this kind in 18 months, yet he was cautioned and released, and this is true of many drug users caught in possession. I would like to dispute Troubles assertion that Prison offers the best opportunity for drug users to rehabilitate their habits.. drugs are in regular supply within the prison system, with many inmates continuing their habits.. so I feel that prison most certainly isn't in the best interests of drug users and would rather see rehab programmes outside the institution of prison for these people. Returning to the single mother, her children will now enter state care, losing their remaining parental figure, while she serves 8 years for attempting to improve their educative opportunities.. this isn't justice!

I have other ideas and would like to gauge the response to this post before I add more.

[Marxist Nutter]

Another fine topic of debate Marxist.

Well It's apparent that prison reform is an area that needs much consideration, the evidence quite clearly supports the notion that Prison is not working, with almost two-thirds of prisoners re-offending within 2 years of their release.

Dr Carol Hedderman, Prof of Criminology at the University of Leicester and a former Home Office researcher contributing to an article in the Independent (20th July 08) shows that there is a direct link between an increase in the prison population and the increase in re-offending rates.

Nu Labs 'Tough in Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime' has led to England and Wales boasting the highest prison population rates per 100,000 persons in Western Europe. They have created over 3,000 new offences, introduced more than 50 bills and over 20 Criminal Justice Acts since taking office in 1997. To put this in perspective - between 1925 and 1985 only 6 Criminal Justice Acts had been put on the statute book.

It's hard to see the role of prisons in todays society; are they there to rehabilitate, punish or both? Whatever the intention the figures make for a poor claim that rehabilitation is being achieved, and, the public perception of prison 'holiday camps' indicates neither is justice.

Now, short of considering the true or real sense of what justice would entail to appease both the public at large and specifically the victims of crime, the main role of prisons in my opinion should be rehabilitation. Personally I would like to see less state control and prisons run by the private sector, with government funding based on population size but above all else results. Increased educational facilities introduced, and made a requirement of detainment, to provide the inmate with either a skill or qualification upon release. Segregation within the system of similar crime types, hopefully reducing the chance of minor criminals obtaining additional schooling in criminal activity. Thorough mental assessment prior to release of every prisoner, to ensure the risk to society is minimised and finally, complete after release support, with integration back into society and help with employment opportunities.

Punishment should work alongside the target of rehabilitation. A reclassification of the prison system; no more holiday camp 'cat D' institutions. Maybe a 2 tier system, with higher security facilities for murderers, rapist and terrorists and a general level that caters for the remainder. The Conservatives have pledged (when they win the next election) to tear up the human rights act and replace it with a UK bill of rights, and I completely support this measure. The bill of rights discourse has usually arisen during the debate on deportation of foreign nationals, convicted of crimes, but this measure would outline the rights and expectations of all British citizens. Therefore, once convicted of a crime by a court the prisoner would have his 'rights' striped to the basic level - the right to live. Our prisons should be feared, not laughed at. Mandatory sentences carried full length, if you are sentenced to 5 years you WILL serve 5 years.

The above suggestions I feel would improve the actual prison system, making it a determent from criminal activity and hopefully rehabilitating prisoners for a full reintegration into society but the main focus should be keeping as many people out of prison as possible. I read an article by Ross Clarke in the Times (23rd Sept 2008) where a 30 year old single mother was recruited as a drug mule by a local drugs gangs.. the offer to educate her children. She will likely serve around 8 years for this offence. We need a clear message on drugs - supply and use are crimes (or not, depending on your views). George Michael was recently caught under the influence of drugs, his second offence of this kind in 18 months, yet he was cautioned and released, and this is true of many drug users caught in possession. I would like to dispute Troubles assertion that Prison offers the best opportunity for drug users to rehabilitate their habits.. drugs are in regular supply within the prison system, with many inmates continuing their habits.. so I feel that prison most certainly isn't in the best interests of drug users and would rather see rehab programmes outside the institution of prison for these people. Returning to the single mother, her children will now enter state care, losing their remaining parental figure, while she serves 8 years for attempting to improve their educative opportunities.. this isn't justice!

I have other ideas and would like to gauge the response to this post before I add more.

I do see your point, in a way but disagree.

I have never liked mandatory sentences and could never understand why the Tories support them. I mean u wanna let Teachers get on with their job without interference and doctors and nurses SO WHY NOT JUDGES?

Every case is different there can be all sorts of circumstances that cannot be foreseen when enacting legislation. I say let the judge work out the best sentence, I mean it is their job after all.

The other issue is cost. I mean do we really want to lock people up for 20 years when it is clear to a parole board they are fully reformed after 10? Is it not a waste of money - in fact a double whammy waste of money. 1. wasting tax payers money and 2. loss to the economy of a potentially economically active citizen.

Also as I've said rights are rights. I do not believe in stripping someone of human rights, civil rights maybe.

Again why prison? If they are not a clear threat to anyone they simply should not be locked up in my view.

Also prisons are like unis for crims. The rate of recidivism is a real worry. Is very high with kids as well. Evidence shows that kids re-offend more seriously after having already been in custody. Prison makes a bad criminal worse. This is no surprise once you are out nobody will employ you, even tho u have payed your debt to society you are not really supported having been institutionalized - all you know is crime. So prison just breeds criminals and makes them worse.

We should support people coming out of prison or else they'll be straight back there. Again this is no good thing for the taxpayer or for society

P.S Prisons run by the private sector would be very scary indeed. There's no profit in it, there's no place for a market here. Its just a crazy suggestion that can only end in an extra tax burden and unnecessary suffering of inmates

[Tete123]

I do see your point, in a way but disagree.

I have never liked mandatory sentences and could never understand why the Tories support them. I mean u wanna let Teachers get on with their job without interference and doctors and nurses SO WHY NOT JUDGES?

Every case is different there can be all sorts of circumstances that cannot be foreseen when enacting legislation. I say let the judge work out the best sentence, I mean it is their job after all.

Well the Tory position is Min and Max sentence handed down by the judge, the main issue I have with the current system is the sentence is irrelevant, they (the judges) know the prisoner will not serve the duration of their sentence..


The other issue is cost. I mean do we really want to lock people up for 20 years when it is clear to a parole board they are fully reformed after 10? Is it not a waste of money - in fact a double whammy waste of money. 1. wasting tax payers money and 2. loss to the economy of a potentially economically active citizen.

I do see your point and this is an area that needs much consideration but 'soft' or heavily reduced sentences will not deter crime.


Also as I've said rights are rights. I do not believe in stripping someone of human rights, civil rights maybe.

Despite their infringement on another's human rights? I admit the balance needs to be right but I do not feel that the criminal should enjoy the privileges of those that are law abiding.



Again why prison? If they are not a clear threat to anyone they simply should not be locked up in my view.

Also prisons are like unis for crims. The rate of recidivism is a real worry. Is very high with kids as well. Evidence shows that kids re-offend more seriously after having already been in custody. Prison makes a bad criminal worse. This is no surprise once you are out nobody will employ you, even tho u have payed your debt to society you are not really supported having been institutionalized - all you know is crime. So prison just breeds criminals and makes them worse.

It does depend on the crimes that are committed, 'clear threat' is ambiguous - Are they a threat economically, violently, emotionally. These all need to be considered.

I completely agree with your second point and touched upon it myself. I thing that by limiting the contact of prisoners with other crime types it may help, also massive investment is needed in providing increased education facilities in prisons, to provide the skills and qualifications to assist the transition back into society. This is where the private sector involvement will produce opportunities for profits.


P.S Prisons run by the private sector would be very scary indeed. There's no profit in it, there's no place for a market here. Its just a crazy suggestion that can only end in an extra tax burden and unnecessary suffering of inmates

I am not talking of complete private ownership, the funds for prison upkeep and inmate provisions will be provided by the government of the day. The Tory's propose PFI to build new prisons in return for the land where the old prison were situated, this is a start and the involvement of the private sector should be encouraged to provide employment opportunities for recently released inmates.

[Marxist Nutter]

Despite their infringement on another's human rights? I admit the balance needs to be right but I do not feel that the criminal should enjoy the privilages of those that are law abiding.

Agreed otherwise what's the point?


It does depend on the crimes that are committed, 'clear threat' is ambiguous - Are they a threat economically, violently, emotionally. These all need to be considered.

I mean a clear physical threat. rapists, murderers, violent robbers, severe assaults and terrorists and THAT'S IT. Nobody else should be in prison.



I completely agree with your second point and touched upon it myself. I thing that by limiting the contact of prisoners with other crime types it may help, also massive investment is needed in providing increased education facilities in prisons, to provide the skills and qualifications to assist the transition back into society. This is where the private sector involvement will produce opportunities for profits.



I am not talking of complete private ownership, the funds for prison upkeep and inmate provisions will be provided by the government of the day. The Tory's propose PFI to build new prisons in return for the land where the old prison were situated, this is a start and the involvment of the private sector should be encouraged to provide employment opportunities for recently released inmates.


The thing is this private sector will be payed for by the tax payer. Look at tagging it's run by private companies, is mismanaged underfunded (to max profits) and costs the taxpayer a bundle. When will the Tories learn you can't solve everything with privatization especially where there is no market. I mean look at trains...how many more will have to die coz profit is put above human safety?

[Tete123]

Agreed otherwise what's the point?

Withdrawl of their civil rights only goes so far. As I said the balance needs to be right in ensuring that punishment is feared, yet the criminal has incentives to improve their situation over time. I would like to adjust an earlier point that early release could be one of these incentive, depending on the progress made and willingness of the inmate.



I mean a clear physical threat. rapists, murderers, violent robbers, severe assaults and terrorists and THAT'S IT. Nobody else should be in prison.

What about burglars? - They infringe in the most personal and intimate way, often leaving both emotional and economic consequences, and not many burglaries are opportunist. They are planned exercises of crime. Con man/women who often prey on the elderly and less fortunate - How would they face punishment? I accept that many offenders should remain outside the prison system but the consequences of these types of crime often leave a long lasting fear or emotional scar.



The thing is this private sector will be payed for by the tax payer. Look at tagging it's run by private companies, is mismanaged underfunded (to max profits) and costs the taxpayer a bundle. When will the Tories learn you can't solve everything with privatization especially where there is no market. I mean look at trains...how many more will have to die coz profit is put above human safety?

The companies would be required to propose for these contracts with a clear plan and would be reviewed and monitored closely. The fact is privatization creates the employment opportunities in this country. While we all want an ever increasing improvment in public services we all, without fail, bemoan the high level taxation required. The present centralised government attempting to micro-manage every aspect of the country has been an unmitigated disaster.

[Marxist Nutter]

Withdrawl of their civil rights only goes so far. As I said the balance needs to be right in ensuring that punishment is feared, yet the criminal has incentives to improve their situation over time. I would like to adjust an earlier point that early release could be one of these incentive, depending on the progress made and willingness of the inmate.




What I mean is inorder to incarnate someone u need to withdraw their right to freedom

What about burglars? - They infringe in the most personal and intimate way, often leaving both emotional and economic consequences, and not many burglaries are opportunist. They are planned exercises of crime. Con man/women who often prey on the elderly and less fortunate - How would they face punishment? I accept that many offenders should remain outside the prison system but the consequences of these types of crime often leave a long lasting fear or emotional scar.
Well restorative justice (I know a nulab buzzword) has potential here. I do not think if they are not violent they should be in prison. Monitored maybe, have to pay the victim back in some way perhaps?


The companies would be required to propose for these contracts with a clear plan and would be reviewed and monitored closely. The fact is privatization creates the employment opportunities in this country. While we all want an ever increasing improvment in public services we all, without fail, bemoan the high level taxation required. The present centralised government attempting to micro-manage every aspect of the country has been an unmitigated disaster.
As has privatization of trains and energy companies, for example. In fact I can only think of one example of Tory privatization actually working as it should - British Airways (as there is a competitive market there). Everything else they privatized has been an utter failure and who have been the losers - not business - the public thats who! There are some things that are simply the job of government, Prisons is one of them, as are the police and army (would u privatize them as well?). I mean after a while u have to wonder what is the point of government, if everything is controlled by unelected business people who only care about money and not the welfare of the country. Government's job is ensure a safe society. It is simply not the job of business they already have too much power, control too much and remain unaccountable.

[Tete123]

What I mean is inorder to incarnate someone u need to withdraw their right to freedom

Of course but that alone isn't a deterrent, as both the current crime figures and rising prison population show. Measures need to be introduced to limit any comforts the offender may expect as a fundamental right - I admit I am slightly digressing here into material possessions etc but I think we must make criminals face certain hardships, and encourage willingness to improve before we return these rights (I fear that you will not consider this a true example of rights and I would agree, but I am tired and can't think of a better term right now).


Well restorative justice (I know a nulab buzzword) has potential here. I do not think if they are not violent they should be in prison. Monitored maybe, have to pay the victim back in some way perhaps?

Well restorative Justice and Reparation to vicitms has been proposed in a Conservative Party Green paper, but doesn't restrict these measures to victim-offender mitigation or restorative boards but would require reparation payments to victim even if handed a prison sentence. I fully support these measures. While I agree many crime do not require prison time, those that invade into the lives of the victims should have the possibility of prison time.


As has privatization of trains and energy companies, for example. In fact I can only think of one example of Tory privatization actually working as it should - British Airways (as there is a competitive market there). Everything else they privatized has been an utter failure and who have been the losers - not business - the public thats who! There are some things that are simply the job of government, Prisons is one of them, as are the police and army (would u privatize them as well?). I mean after a while u have to wonder what is the point of government, if everything is controlled by unelected business people who only care about money and not the welfare of the country. Government's job is ensure a safe society. It is simply not the job of business they already have too much power, control too much and remain unaccountable.

I agree that trains and energy company privatization have been largely unsuccessful (at least a large proportion of our energy companies are now in state hands:mad:). I am not a 'free market' apologist (that bloody word again) but feel that closer links between government and the business community, working together for the good of both parties would be more successful than the current system of top down, micro-managed and state interference. Politicians do not always know best. And lets face it, if rail and energy had stayed in the public sphere we would be paying more tax and getting an even worse deal. I am not advocating the sale of the prison estate and control of prisons by business, merely more private money and ties to provide opportunities to a group within our society that needs employment probably more than any other.

[Marxist Nutter]

Of course but that alone isn't a deterrent, as both the current crime figures and rising prison population show. Measures need to be introduced to limit any comforts the offender may expect as a fundamental right - I admit I am slightly digressing here into material possessions etc but I think we must make criminals face certain hardships, and encourage willingness to improve before we return these rights (I fear that you will not consider this a true example of rights and I would agree, but I am tired and can't think of a better term right now)

I simply don't agree that making prison less comfortable (these claims are always made by people who have never sen the inside of one, I notice) is going to make it more of a deterrent. Most people simply dont think they will get caught. Also how is that people can argue BOTH that prison is soft and cosy AND overcrowded . Most reports I've read on British prisons (Prisons inspectorate) show that most inmates do not enjoy much human rights anyway and live in unsanitary and overcrowded conditions. Don't know where all this sky tv and trips to theme park stuff comes from. Some lazy Sun Journo probably :rolleyes:


Well restorative Justice and Reparation to vicitms has been proposed in a Conservative Party Green paper, but doesn't restrict these measures to victim-offender mitigation or restorative boards but would require reparation payments to victim even if handed a prison sentence. I fully support these measures. While I agree many crime do not require prison time, those that invade into the lives of the victims should have the possibility of prison time.


Well maybe but that is for a Judge to decide - I mean u criticize NULab for micromanaging yet that's exactly what u want to do to judges. I think the only point of prison is to protect society from violent crims, now if a judge wants to lock up a con man then I think in extreme cases it should be allowed (so not to interfere to much about individual cases) but it should be strongly discouraged.

A quick side note about Labour and miro managing and law and order policy...
Many of your (Tory) arguments against NuLab are pretty crappy if u ask me, now I am no fan of them but I few things should be noted. The Tories have done so much worse. NuLab have reduced crime, for a start. It kept going up and up and up when Micheal Howard was HS. They also reduced unemployment that was at a record high under the Tories. So really by quoting Tory policy u hardly speak from a position of strength. I know I am being a Labour apologist (that word again) but the thing is I would only defend them against the Tories who have done immeasurable damage to this country.


I agree that trains and energy company privatization have been largely unsuccessful (at least a large proportion of our energy companies are now in state hands:mad:). I am not a 'free market' apologist (that bloody word again) but feel that closer links between government and the business community, working together for the good of both parties would be more successful than the current system of top down, micro-managed and state interference. Politicians do not always know best. And lets face it, if rail and energy had stayed in the public sphere we would be paying more tax and getting an even worse deal. I am not advocating the sale of the prison estate and control of prisons by business, merely more private money and ties to provide opportunities to a group within our society that needs employment probably more than any other.

Privatization = profit over people = death, in the case of the Hatfiled train crash. I am not being over dramatic to say Tory polices kill people. Now if anyone should be in Prison it's Maggie Thatcher.

The problem in this case is there is no money in it for business. I do not understand this conservative/labour image (u guys have) of business riding in to rescue the public sector and investing money to save the taxpayer and help our services.
1. It has never happened. However government has rescued business often enough at taxpayer's expense
2. Business does not work like that. They will never employ people and pour money into an unprofitable area like prisons...no no..u've all been watching too much Robocop (and look how that turned out too)

More private money? But why would they invest when they get no estate, no land and have to run a tough business dealing with hardened criminals. No way Tete - they'd tell u where to go ...UNLESSS you offered them a huge amount of tax payers money as a subsidy, this how these things usually work. Now you say we'd pay more tax for trains if it was not privatized, now I don't agree. We already pay huge amounts of tax to subsidize train company profits. This is how privatization a la Thatcher really works. Mates of Tory MPs run large companies. They pay money in secret to their Free Mason Chums in the Tory party who in turn choose them to have a contract in a newly privatized public sector (trains was the most obvious example of this and it did continue under labour to be fair - the recent change of train company contracts were very very doggy). Now as there is not much profit in these sectors - LESS SO IN PRISONS! they need taxpayers money to bail them out.

The sad story is this. Tories whine about tax money going to help the poor on benefits but in reality they hand over far more of it to private business and banks either to bail them out or "stimulate the economy" (Help out their Eton chums). I find this whole practice sick....sorry for going a little off topic but is still sort of relevant. As that is exactly what your scheme to get private money into prisons would look like in practice. It would cost the taxpayer MORE!

[Tantal]

Some people just need to have their genes removed from the gene pool. No matter how you try to dissect it, there will always be certain individuals that just don't play well with others. The best that we can hope to do is to protect society from these idiots by keeping them off of our streets. I think the U.S. could use about 1,500 Joe Arpaio's (Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ). He's got incarceration down to a science.

Then there's my radical idea of installing a new bunghole in the center of these miscreants' foreheads during the commission of their offenses.:D

Short of that, anyone who doesn't think that these predators should go to prison should be required to keep them at THEIR place.

[pauli007001]

Some people just need to have their genes removed from the gene pool. No matter how you try to dissect it, there will always be certain individuals that just don't play well with others. The best that we can hope to do is to protect society from these idiots by keeping them off of our streets. I think the U.S. could use about 1,500 Joe Arpaio's (Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ). He's got incarceration down to a science.

Then there's my radical idea of installing a new bunghole in the center of these miscreants' foreheads during the commission of their offenses.:D

Short of that, anyone who doesn't think that these predators should go to prison should be required to keep them at THEIR place.

Joe Arpaio has it down pat,his methods do work to change violent offenders and house burglar types and after release from his jails they have a lower incidence of re offending,drug users do not do so well under his methods,and no i do not advocate a softy approach to drug using criminals,i also disagree with the death penalty but would have no problem with removing druggies from society perminantly!Perhaps for instance a lifelong stay in a facility for habitual drug addicted offenders(not jail but not a holiday camp either)might be a good idea,perhaps make it self sufficent by the work of its inmates?

[Citizen Smith]

Some people just need to have their genes removed from the gene pool. No matter how you try to dissect it, there will always be certain individuals that just don't play well with others. The best that we can hope to do is to protect society from these idiots by keeping them off of our streets. I think the U.S. could use about 1,500 Joe Arpaio's (Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ). He's got incarceration down to a science.

Then there's my radical idea of installing a new bunghole in the center of these miscreants' foreheads during the commission of their offenses.:D

Short of that, anyone who doesn't think that these predators should go to prison should be required to keep them at THEIR place.
So...... these people are just lost causes, they weren't formed by society, (E.g, our western culture displays a life full of cash and consumer products, not everyone can earn this much, people go to illegal methods to get what they are told they need...)
And there is absolutely no way to look at the causes of behavior that is harmful, only ways to punish it?

[Citizen Smith]

Joe Arpaio has it down pat,his methods do work to change violent offenders and house burglar types and after release from his jails they have a lower incidence of re offending,drug users do not do so well under his methods,and no i do not advocate a softy approach to drug using criminals,i also disagree with the death penalty but would have no problem with removing druggies from society perminantly!Perhaps for instance a lifelong stay in a facility for habitual drug addicted offenders(not jail but not a holiday camp either)might be a good idea,perhaps make it self sufficent by the work of its inmates?
Sounds pretty good to me, also very possible to.
Definitely something that should be used more.

[Tantal]

So...... these people are just lost causes, they weren't formed by society, (E.g, our western culture displays a life full of cash and consumer products, not everyone can earn this much, people go to illegal methods to get what they are told they need...)
And there is absolutely no way to look at the causes of behavior that is harmful, only ways to punish it?I live a life without loads of cash, high-end electronics, flashy cars, and expensive jewelry, so why can't they? Eventually, a man has to take responsibility for his own actions. I was raised with Christian values, so, even during the times that I was poor, I worked more, worked harder, or went without certain things. This whole "society made me do it" is a pretty cowardly excuse for criminal behavior, and I refuse to accept it.

[pauli007001]

I live a life without loads of cash, high-end electronics, flashy cars, and expensive jewelry, so why can't they? Eventually, a man has to take responsibility for his own actions. I was raised with Christian values, so, even during the times that I was poor, I worked more, worked harder, or went without certain things. This whole "society made me do it" is a pretty cowardly excuse for criminal behavior, and I refuse to accept it.

This much is true of mant of us particulary those in your proffession who sacrifice their opportunities to acheive wealth in order to serve their fellow citizens.Yes no doubt people must take responsibility for their actions,and have no one else to blame,if i want something i buy it,i am able to buy it because i have worked for 25 years to be able to do so.The luxuaries i have i have earned and spent many years of suffering to get them no one can justify stealing them and then blaming me for it.I buy jewelary for my wife and hope for the crims sake that they never try to take it fron her she holds a LTC and always wears her diamonds to work,a 32 in the hands of as capable a marksperson as my missus is a valuable deterrent.Personally i hate guns and refuse to carry one i never wear any valuables(exept my Kilt etc which includes in the outfit a skien dubh which i will use,i also have a sporran if i get mugged i might as well enjoy it)so who would try to rob me?
Punishment for criminals should (IMO) be a punishment,no tvs no pampering,it should be the loss of freedom and strict discipline combined with rewards for acheivement with a view to rehabilitation.Society has rewards for this and expects self discipline,that is the price of freedom,lose self discipline and commit crime then you lose your freedom,it is that simple!

[Gregor Johnston]

I live a life without loads of cash, high-end electronics, flashy cars, and expensive jewelry, so why can't they? Eventually, a man has to take responsibility for his own actions. I was raised with Christian values, so, even during the times that I was poor, I worked more, worked harder, or went without certain things. This whole "society made me do it" is a pretty cowardly excuse for criminal behavior, and I refuse to accept it.


You make a very valid point there Tantal about Christian principles. Thrift and saving may have become unfashionable values in our acquisitive society in recent years, but we are now seeing the results of the reckless borrowing cycle in the turmoil on the world markets. I feel that more emphasis should be placed in the educational curriculum on basic financial management so that young people can be taught of the risks inherent in the buy now pay later philosophy. As far as blaming society for crime, I agree with you that this is the coward's way out, and indeed would add that it is another basic tenet of Christianity that we must take personal responsibility for the consequences of our own actions.

[Marxist Nutter]

You make a very valid point there Tantal about Christian principles. Thrift and saving may have become unfashionable values in our acquisitive society in recent years, but we are now seeing the results of the reckless borrowing cycle in the turmoil on the world markets. I feel that more emphasis should be placed in the educational curriculum on basic financial management so that young people can be taught of the risks inherent in the buy now pay later philosophy. As far as blaming society for crime, I agree with you that this is the coward's way out, and indeed would add that it is another basic tenet of Christianity that we must take personal responsibility for the consequences of our own actions.

Not to mention the old Christian value of poverty!! U never see poor Clergy anymore or monks. At some point Christianity morphed from religion OF (and for) the poor and meek into a religon to exploit the poor and meek. Jesus hated traders....and now it is the flagship religion of capitalism...HOW PERVERTED?...When did this happen...historical research needed; but my guess is around the 13th/14th centuries...

[Gregor Johnston]

Not to mention the old Christian value of poverty!! U never see poor Clergy anymore or monks. At some point Christianity morphed from religion OF (and for) the poor and meek into a religon to exploit the poor and meek. Jesus hated traders....and now it is the flagship religion of capitalism...HOW PERVERTED?...When did this happen...historical research needed; but my guess is around the 13th/14th centuries...


If you haven't done the historical research perhaps you could refrain from making such generalisations. The income of clergymen is restricted by their stipend which is annually fixed and they usually do not enter the ministry to exploit anyone or as a profiteering venture, but in answer to their religious "calling". And Jesus did not hate anyone, far less traders- I suspect you are confusing this with the occasion when he upset the tables of the merchants in the temple in protest at the fact they were using a house of God for money-making. As far as trade being the flagship of capitalism is concerned, trade is the bedrock of any economy and the means by which wealth can be generated and shared.

I suspect that you are seeking to ridicule Christianity which is of course your right to do, but you do so without any factual basis.

[Tete123]

I suspect that you are seeking to ridicule Christianity which is of course your right to do, but you do so without any factual basis.

Christians hold an illogical 'faith' in God without any factual basis, so isn't it a bit rich to stipulate factual evidence for the ridicule of Christianity?

[Marxist Nutter]

If you haven't done the historical research perhaps you could refrain from making such generalisations. The income of clergymen is restricted by their stipend which is annually fixed and they usually do not enter the ministry to exploit anyone or as a profiteering venture, but in answer to their religious "calling". And Jesus did not hate anyone, far less traders- I suspect you are confusing this with the occasion when he upset the tables of the merchants in the temple in protest at the fact they were using a house of God for money-making. As far as trade being the flagship of capitalism is concerned, trade is the bedrock of any economy and the means by which wealth can be generated and shared.

I suspect that you are seeking to ridicule Christianity which is of course your right to do, but you do so without any factual basis.

Done a fair bit of the historical research prob more than you as it happens. Fact what the hell have facts ever had to do with Christianity. I will assume u r a disgruntled Christian as you do not seem very well informed on either history or scripture. MAYBE DO SOME READING B4 YOU ACCUSE THE BETTER INFORMED OF NOT DOING THEIR RESEARCH! How do you know Jesus did not hate anyone, u met him? More likely u think u r him! Don't dress your personal attack up as anything else. I am not a stupid corporate CEO. I have a clue.

I think u will find The Pontiff executed and chased many who preached poverty such as the Franciscans in the 14th century as their teachings clashed with the church's own greed.... Many have preached the poverty doctrine in the Puritan side of the church as well. Why don't u do the research Gregor or are u too busy being a corporate apologist! I know u r a capitalist and maybe Christian (the only explanation why you need so much to reconcile the two) but don't force your own crappy self justifications down our throat that's between u and your God. just remember 'It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven then for a Camal to pas thru the eye of the needle......'the meek shall inherit the Earth'.

I love the way so many Christians pick and choose bits of their religion to suit their own greed and love for profit AND THEN TALK ABOUT FACTS - like you know anything about this Gregor!!!! I'm not surprised my words hit so close to home. if you are a Christian and work for greedy corporations for a living according to the bible you are going to hell. that's your problem. Don't take it out on me saying that I have not done the research. You deliberately blind yourself to things of faith that u dont like...like so many others.

[Gregor Johnston]

Done a fair bit of the historical research prob more than you as it happens. Fact what the hell have facts ever had to do with Christianity. I will assume u r a disgruntled Christian as you do not seem very well informed on either history or scripture. MAYBE DO SOME READING B4 YOU ACCUSE THE BETTER INFORMED OF NOT DOING THEIR RESEARCH! How do you know Jesus did not hate anyone, u met him? More likely u think u r him! Don't dress your personal attack up as anything else. I am not a stupid corporate CEO. I have a clue.

I think u will find The Pontiff executed and chased many who preached poverty such as the Franciscans in the 14th century as their teachings clashed with the church's own greed.... Many have preached the poverty doctrine in the Puritan side of the church as well. Why don't u do the research Gregor or are u too busy being a corporate apologist! I know u r a capitalist and maybe Christian (the only explanation why you need so much to reconcile the two) but don't force your own crappy self justifications down our throat that's between u and your God. just remember 'It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven then for a Camal to pas thru the eye of the needle......'the meek shall inherit the Earth'.

I love the way so many Christians pick and choose bits of their religion to suit their own greed and love for profit AND THEN TALK ABOUT FACTS - like you know anything about this Gregor!!!! I'm not surprised my words hit so close to home. if you are a Christian and work for greedy corporations for a living according to the bible you are going to hell. that's your problem. Don't take it out on me saying that I have not done the research. You deliberately blind yourself to things of faith that u dont like...like so many others.


I will avoid descending to the level of personal abuse in which you indulged in your last post, but in relation to the central issue, Jesus did indeed preach love and forgiveness and there is no evidence in scripture of him having felt or expressed hatred for anyone. I will also take no moral lecture from someone who in another thread of the forum admitted to being a former drug dealer. My career in which I have devoted myself to advising corporations and small businesses is perfectly valid and lawful, I have worked hard to achieve the status I have and I certainly have no trouble reconciling being a capitalist with my Christian conscience. But the purpose of this thread was not for either you or I to bring in our own personal career paths, so perhaps we could stick to the issues ?

[Opinionated74]

Christians hold an illogical 'faith' in God without any factual basis,
That is true, so please forgive me as I quote from the bible in order to try and contribute to this thread.
Mark10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
According to the gospels Jesus did teach that love of material posessions was a barrier to salvation.

Jesus did not hate anyone, far less traders- I suspect you are confusing this with the occasion when he upset the tables of the merchants in the temple in protest at the fact they were using a house of God for money-making.
John2v14-16 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise

I think it was specifically the use of the temple as a market that Christ objected to. I would suggest that many in the church have been guilty of doing the same, making a personal fortune through their "ministry" and I think I am safe in saying Christ would in the very least admonish them!

Gregor I think you are right that Christ being love, did not hate the traders but he was far from happy with their behaviour and as Christians we are supposed to strive to be "Christ-like"; now I am certainly not very successful at this and the bible does say:
Romans 3v23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
It is still our duty to defend the poor and weak, to be peacemakers. Until we acknowledge that we have failed to show an example in the world when it comes to greed and helping the hopeless we are impotent! The church does have a history of being apologists for capitolism.

When I was little there was an extraordinary man who used to come to church on his bike. He lived in a caravan without electricity or running water. He'd faught in the war and worked as a farm labourer. He kept the ten percent of his wage (the usual amount to "tythe") and gave the rest to the church and various charities. Now, given the nature of his life-style he smelt particularly unpleasant and the women in the church took it in turns to provide him weekly with a warm meal, a bath and washed his clothes and congratulated themselves at their charitable jesture. I'm still not convinced it was for Arthur's benefit as it was far nicer sitting in the same room with him post-shower! Considering his life-style he lived into his ninetees and always lived as simple and "Christ-like" a life as possible, humble to the end. After he died they found a bundle of letters in his caravan and the extent of his faith was shown. His family came from New Zealand and had been very rich land-owners and something to do with owning the railways; they had discommunicated him at his own request as he wanted to "take up the cross". It also turned out that before WWII he had been engaged, he had called off the engagement as he felt it wasn't fair to expect his fiancee to renounce wealth and live a simpler life! Now he died in the 1980s and I must admit I have never since met someone like him; and when I remember him the first thing I remember is how bad he smelt! So, Nutter has a point when he asks where Christianity went wrong!

[Trouble43]

So, Nutter has a point when he asks where Christianity went wrong!

I think the man in your story is what we should aspire to, but few achieve. Certainly the recent 'credit crunch' is making a lot of people review their previous materialistic lifestyles as they are forced to live more frugally. But of course for most its being done through necessity rather than choice.

I think where Christianity went wrong is when the church leaders became rich. Look at the Cistercian movement in the UK in the 12th Century - they were originally a very austere order; given to wearing rough wool habits, no warming underclothes to guard against the Yorkshire winters which, I can assure you (as can Paulie I bet), are bitterly cold. They ate plain and simple food and worked for themselves.

However as it became vogue for wealthy landowners to tithe money and land to the monks for them to pray for their souls (to 'forgive' earthly sins and therefore 'guarantee' their entry into heaven) the monks went from being voluntarily poverty stricken to some of the richest landowers in the country.

Did they give this money away? No. Did they give land to the poor, so that they could raise crops to feed themselves? Nope. Indeed they employed 'lay brothers' to work the land for them.

These brothers were not considered 'good enough' to become full monks (of peasant origin, illiterate, etc) but they were still asked to sign their lives over to become these so-called 'lay brothers'; sort of 'semi monks'. They then took over all the manual labour that the Cistercian monks had previously done themselves - they only received food and lodging as payment, so really were little more than slave labour.

If the men taken on as lay brothers had families (wives and children mostly) prior to their signing themselves over to the monastery, you would think - given that the monks have all this cash - that they would pay the dependents of these men a small sum to enable them to survive without their husbands/fathers.

Nope, didn't happen. The men were expected to merely abandon their wives and children to their fates - usually starvation and death.

The Cistercians weren't alone either - this went on everywhere in the Christian world. The so-called holy men, who still took 'vows of poverty' when joining an order, were actually rolling in money. Why do you think the Vikings robbed the monasteries first?

So frankly? THIS is where I think christianity went wrong. The people that ran the church started putting money before people. Once that happen, there was no hope really. We went from being God led to man led - and that is never going to end well. Just MO though. :)

[Citizen Smith]

I live a life without loads of cash, high-end electronics, flashy cars, and expensive jewelry, so why can't they? Eventually, a man has to take responsibility for his own actions. I was raised with Christian values, so, even during the times that I was poor, I worked more, worked harder, or went without certain things. This whole "society made me do it" is a pretty cowardly excuse for criminal behavior, and I refuse to accept it.
So....... your not at all interesting at trying to prevent crime.....only to punish it?

[Tantal]

So....... your not at all interesting at trying to prevent crime.....only to punish it?I prevent crime daily. I put criminals in the Gray-Bar Motel where they belong. That means that whilst they're incarcerated, they're not out victimizing decent, civilized, law-abiding citizens. It's excellent crime prevention.

[cajunsnake]

So....... your not at all interesting at trying to prevent crime.....only to punish it?

I think another way of looking at it...is that the criminal has no interest in changing.

I don't know about the laws in the UK, but here the system has evolved to comfort the criminal, not the victim. The laws on home invasion are a joke and the criminal knows it, pretty much you take your life in your hands trying to protect your family.

But I'm curious about you views on how to prevent crime. IMO, there is no way, because if a criminal wants something, wants to inflict pain or take your life, there isn't a lot that can done to stop them. But I respectfully disagree with TANTAL, I believe putting a criminal down like I would a mad dog. Prison isn't the answer, but putting the fear of God in them usually works.


SNAKE

[Tantal]

But I respectfully disagree with TANTAL, I believe putting a criminal down like I would a mad dog.


SNAKE
Easy, Snake. I never said I had a problem with this tactic either. It's actually my favorite; unfortunately, the courts tend to frown upon such shenanigans.:D

[cajunsnake]

Easy, Snake. I never said I had a problem with this tactic either. It's actually my favorite; unfortunately, the courts tend to frown upon such shenanigans.:D

And I think that's the problem...the courts. I have family(cousins) that are in Law Enforment and we always have this discussion. One asked me one time if there was anything in my home worth killing somebody over. I told him...my wife and my kids...the same as him. But the way the laws and the courts are set up, you're right, I'd go to jail trying to defend my family.

There was a good example of this about 20-25 years ago, in New York. Old man about 75, in a wheel chair, living alone...guy busted into his home, the old man shot him about 5 times and one hit the dude's spine. Joker turned around sued the old man and the old man is doing(or was) hard time. Now where's the justice?

A more recent example, remember the L.A. riots? The truck driver that got smacked by the kid? The kid gets off, "because he was caught up with all the emotion of the time", a year later he's in court for kidnapping, rape, torture and the murder of a seven month pregnant woman.

I think that was about the time I decided, no more I've had enough. I try to live by the law when I can, but my family will always come first. And maybe it's time that socity all over the world, realize these jokers are only going to be dealt with in one way...fight fear with fear. It ain't right, but it works for me.:cool:


SNAKE

[Citizen Smith]

Yeah, some people seem to have a problem with killing a criminal, agaisnt human rights, as the US knows, (They don't have to care though, do they, human rights don't matter to them. They can invade any oil country they want, hold whoever they want in Guantanamo bay, no need for a trial) and then later, finding out that they were actually innocent. Whoops. Its not worth it.
What I mean by preventing crime, is stuff like supporting families where poor conditions/poverty might produce crime, and spending more money on improving these areas.

[cajunsnake]

Yeah, some people seem to have a problem with killing a criminal, agaisnt human rights, as the US knows, (They don't have to care though, do they, human rights don't matter to them. They can invade any oil country they want, hold whoever they want in Guantanamo bay, no need for a trial) and then later, finding out that they were actually innocent. Whoops. Its not worth it.
What I mean by preventing crime, is stuff like supporting families where poor conditions/poverty might produce crime, and spending more money on improving these areas.

Though I do agree that the U.S. is bad about that, I would respectfully suggest that you check your country's history in the same matter. From slavery, to the raping of natural resources of Africa (diamonds in perticular). But using your own reasoning...what has the UK done in regards in these same area's? Supporting families, poor conditions/poverty?

But then what do you do when you find out that all criminals don't come from impoverished situations? When they come from middle to upper class? When they use a pen, instead of a gun? When they wear a three-piece suit, instead of sweats?

Keep in mind though, we were fighting for these same things 40 years ago, and 40 years from now they will still be fighting for them. Even if you put everyone on the same level, IMO, you are still going to have those who want to take what you have.



SNAKE

[Tantal]

Yeah, some people seem to have a problem with killing a criminal, agaisnt human rights, as the US knows, (They don't have to care though, do they, human rights don't matter to them. They can invade any oil country they want, hold whoever they want in Guantanamo bay, no need for a trial) and then later, finding out that they were actually innocent. Whoops. Its not worth it.
What I mean by preventing crime, is stuff like supporting families where poor conditions/poverty might produce crime, and spending more money on improving these areas.There was a time when you would have been beaten by the nearest centurion, then sold as a slave for being a pussy. Ah, the good old days.

[angelcountry]

Crimes need to be tackled head on because how would people not safe to walk free at anytime rather than subjected ot been afraid of been mugged or stab to death it's fundamental that a redifined approach is urgently required to rid that sort of gangland society and O tolerance must be adopted in eradicating such a threat in the our crime preventions aswell.

Another fundamental things to note is that, without crime nobody is in control of my life or any other persons life whether they satisfy with us or not they should bear it in mind and read my signature anyway to open your brain to our 21st century world.

[Citizen Smith]

There was a time when you would have been beaten by the nearest centurion, then sold as a slave for being a pussy. Ah, the good old days.
?????????????Would you like to explain what you mean by that?

[Trouble43]

Though I do agree that the U.S. is bad about that, I would respectfully suggest that you check your country's history in the same matter. From slavery, to the raping of natural resources of Africa (diamonds in perticular). But using your own reasoning...what has the UK done in regards in these same area's? Supporting families, poor conditions/poverty?

I can tell you what our government has done for its own people - absolutely nothing; indeed Blair and Brown have just made things unbearably worse for the poor over here.

Even if you put everyone on the same level, IMO, you are still going to have those who want to take what you have.

And THAT is the intrinsic problem we will always face; there will always be a battlefield and always those who fight up on it. There will always be those who feel they have a right to take what they want and bugger the consequences. How we deal with that is the burning question. I think prison that is not a holiday camp, a prison that teaches those that break the law that there are consequences for their actions is the only real way to go.

If we didn't teach our children that there were consequences to their actions; like if they disobey us, they get punished, we would be called bad parents. So why can we not take the same attitude with adults who break the law?

Like children, they have to learn that there are consequential ramifications to what they do. Ramifications they are not going to like - a ten year sentence would mean ten years, not two, etc. Life would mean just that.....life. The prisons would be just that...prisons.

A place to either be kept away from a public you might harm if you were free, or a place to be rehabilitated if that was possible. Its the only way to respond I think. We've tried the 'softly, softly' approach and all its achieved is that criminals laugh at the judicial system now; so we need to get tough.

[cajunsnake]

[/b][/i]I can tell you what our government has done for its own people - absolutely nothing; indeed Blair and Brown have just made things unbearably worse for the poor over here.

[I][B]Here we have the ACLU. We have other special interest groups, that care more about how a prisoner is treated...as to oppose to his/her actions that landed them there.


And THAT is the intrinsic problem we will always face; there will always be a battlefield and always those who fight up on it. There will always be those who feel they have a right to take what they want and bugger the consequences. How we deal with that is the burning question. I think prison that is not a holiday camp, a prison that teaches those that break the law that there are consequences for their actions is the only real way to go.

TANTAL and I have the same idea, though as he has stated, courts frown on it. Protect yourself. These people have little, or no, regard for life...especially your's or mine, and care even less for the outcome. Why? In our court system, 9 times out of 10, they'll walk...or draw a light sentance, or are able to plea bargain their way out. There are two prisons, where I grew up, PARCHMEN STATE (Mississippi) and ANGOLA STATE(Louisiana). Growing up I remember the "chain gangs"and how my aunt used them from Parchmen to harvest her crops. But the most memorible was a man on our block who had done 10 years there, and had scares across his back from the lashes he took for breaking the rules. But this has long since been done away with...though the post is still there (I believe). Angola State, is close to 150 years old...and a history of not playing games. Until recently, what ever time you got going there, is the time you did. 3 years or triple life terms, you did it. Executions...the youngest I've been able to research was a 16 year old. But the prison is self-suffricent and to this day, is still some place you don't want to go to.


I trully believe we need to take the prisons, of say Turkey, or failing that, realize that for the carrer criminial there is nothing we can do to change him...so why bother. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind how easy the prisons are in the U.S., all people have to do is ask themselves the question...why would criminals rather do their time in U.S. prisons as oppose to those in other countries?

If we didn't teach our children that there were consequences to their actions; like if they disobey us, they get punished, we would be called bad parents. So why can we not take the same attitude with adults who break the law?

I believe the key word here is "children". And I'll give you answer in two parts:

a. I can't speak for your country, so I'll use mine. Our government and special interest groups, have for years had a program that is slowly taking the disipline of children away from the parents...but want to hold the parents respondsible for the actions of their children. And the kids know this...and use it. We have kids here doing adult crimes and getting away with it. If a kid commits murder at 15, tried as a child, will be out at 21. And that's the rub. His/her defense is the music...video...or t.v. is what caused them to do it. They say that a 16 isn't "smart enough to tell the difference between a game and reality"? So why are they allowed to get a dirver's licence, why are they allowed to start planning their future(college and so on)?

b. Now, we are talking adults, not kids. I don't see how, or why, we as a lawbiding socity, should have to teach adults...right from wrong. But their defense is, daddy wasn't there, mama was a drug addicit, sister was a hooker, and my brother was gay and everyone hated me...which is why 30 years later I slaughtered a family of six in their sleep. Then throw in their race. And the real kicker is, you hurt them and they want to sue you...and they can.

Like children, they have to learn that there are consequential ramifications to what they do. Ramifications they are not going to like - a ten year sentence would mean ten years, not two, etc. Life would mean just that.....life. The prisons would be just that...prisons.

My kids, especially my sons, learned at a young and tender age...you play, you pay. They were not angels, got into their share of scrapes with they law...but learned they had less to fear from the cops than me. I never bailed them out, whatever they got they did. And after they were done there, they had to deal with me. Child abuse? No. I wanted to make sure the court system would never have to deal with them again. It worked. My point is, if criminals know that if they attack people, that there is a very real chance they themselves, are going to get hurt or killed, by their victim, it will make them think twice. Of course you also have those who just really don't care whether they live or die.

As for the prisons, we have SUPERMAX's in this country, and these guys are locked down 23 out of 24 hrs. You have some that, because of their actions, are put into solitary confinment. ACLU has deemed this cruel and unusual punishment, because it messes with the prisoner's head. And the problem is what? But the last I heard, this can no longer be done.

A place to either be kept away from a public you might harm if you were free, or a place to be rehabilitated if that was possible. Its the only way to respond I think. We've tried the 'softly, softly' approach and all its achieved is that criminals laugh at the judicial system now; so we need to get tough.


I saw a movie years ago, NO ESCAPE, that is pretty much what you are thinking about. I, myself, would have no problem with that. Child molesters, murders, anyone who has committed a violant crime. I don't believe in rehab, because for the most part, these people don't want to be rehab'd, so why bother. But for the most part, I feel the end result is this. I will do whatever I have to, to protect my family, and one of two things will happen, as far as the courts...they'll get over it or they won't.


SNAKE

[Tantal]

?????????????Would you like to explain what you mean by that?
Sure. I get a little peeved when people who coddle criminals, thugs, and tyrants want to look down their noses in a condescending manner at the U.S. for the way we handle these people. I find it odd that the British, who voluntarily made themselves weak, like to mock our strength. When dealing with violent psychopaths, the best thing you can do for society is to put them down like rabid dogs. Their lives have no meaning except for tormenting and victimizing innocent people, so why keep them around? As for Gitmo, I have no problem with it. Waterboard the shiite out of these assmonkeys for all I care.