Thracian Posted 19 February 2009 Author Posted 19 February 2009 did it? any sentence previous serial killers got didn't seem to deter him from having a pop at the murder game. and his sentence didn't seem to deter fred and rosemary west, harold shipman, colin ireland, beverly allitt, robert black, steven grieveson etc from killing people eitheryou could say his sentence has PREVENTED him doing it again (so far) but it didn't deter the people on the list, and no doubt, others. My point was solely aimed at showing it prevented Sutcliffe continuing his handiwork and that setting him free would be a totally unnecessary risk. There is no way of assessing how many people have been deterred from crime by the potential punishments but I wouldn't dream of suggesting that any form of contemporary punishment within the UK would deter everyone because it is plainly not the case. But offload the burden of EU involvement and Human Rights legislation - things I would never have dreamed of signing up to because of the ridiculous way both prevent you making and administering laws suited to your own circumstances at the time - and give me a spell as Home Secretary and I'm fairly sure we'd have much more of Singapore than sing-a-song where criminals are concerned. For a start, no-one like Sutcliffe would ever be freed. Nor would he serve years in jail at the taxpayers expense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore
Finnegan Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 Do I really have to drag out the extreme-punishments-don't-act-as-a-crime-detterent statistics? I will, you know.
BoneDog Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 L44444RY believes that tough sentencing will prevent future transgressions and I wait with baited breath for him or anyone else to explain how. Tough sentences do prevent future transgressions. In Saudi Arabia they kill murderers. And a few years ago I remember a report in a British newspaper saying that there were only five murders there that year. This is not because they have less nutters than us cos everywhere is the same. Rapists, murderers, paedos etc in every country. The reason for the extremely low murder rate is because the people who want to do it know that if they are caught they will be killed immediately. I know America has the death sentence but when people receive that they first serve about 10-20 years in prison and alot of the time get pardoned. That's why they still have the highest murder rate in the world. (or is it just because they have more mentally challenged people?) I think not. If the death penalty for murder is properly used it would drastically reduce the number of murders. People can kill and be out of prison in 3 years. Less in a personal case I know of when someone I knew was killed. The man who committed the crime was out in 2 years (about 12 years ago) and hasn't changed a bit. Still hurts other human beings for fun. That's the problem with our law system. We allow horrible people back onto the streets to go on and wreck other innocent families lives. Over and over again. That's why we read of murders every day in this country.
Daggers Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 stuff Saudi - no reliable figure exist...and I'm not going to treat suggestions we cut bits off people as a serious argument. America - death penalty and the most populous prison system in the world has done nothing to control crime. ...and remember, we are discussing accidents not bum rape.
Finnegan Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 What Daggers said. I really can't be arsed with ranting about this, I've done it so much before. Here's a page of statistic. Go sit on it. General Stats and things. Actual murder rates per year.
Daggers Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 I too can add compelling statistics. Here's my graph... I don't think there's anything left to be said on the matter.
Thracian Posted 19 February 2009 Author Posted 19 February 2009 I personally don't think he should be legally allowed to drive a truck again but besides that I don't disagree with the sentence. Valerenga raises the point of guilt and I think that's about right, really.There are some fooking idiots in this country. One minute we're moaning about prisons being too full and murderers being allowed out early and the next you want to fill up the prison system with people like this? Stupid, stupid, stupid. What haulage company's really going to employ him again now anyway? Punishing him further for an accident - spawned from neglect or not - won't bring people back. I'd like to see how you'd feel if an honest bit of carelessness on your part caused deaths. Fucking destroyed, I imagine. Accident? If that was an accident - as in straightforward unintentional mistake or human error - I don't know what the hell he was charged in court for other than a civil court to argue about compensation. But there seems to be strong circumstantial evidence that the driver had been using a lap-top to seek out an alternative route. And if that was the case then that wouldn't make the collision an accident but an event that was caused by wilful negligence. And were that indeed the way it happened that wilful negligence caused six people to lose their lives and everything they could ever be or enjoy over all the potential they had left. If I got pissed out of my head and drove like a nutter with the result that people died that would be irresponsible and no-one on here - not the human rights lobby nor anyone else - would have one word of symnpathy. But stay sober and have a glance at the lap-top, use a mobile phone, talk to one of your passengers and it's all hard-luck, a terrible accident. What crap. Any driver using a laptop or a mobile phone knows they are being distracted from their driving. Especially a professional like a full-time truck driver. To do so in a 40-ton artic is fecking irresponsible and about as likely to cause a fatal crash as anything that is not pre-conceived. Concurrent sentences are a cop out. The sentences for each life should run on based on the anount of harm to others caused by the negligence. And if that bloke had gone down for the sort of time I think would have been just then I am quite sure that a whole lot of truckies wouldn't go near a laptop when they were driving. Not ever.
Thracian Posted 19 February 2009 Author Posted 19 February 2009 What Daggers said. I really can't be arsed with ranting about this, I've done it so much before.Here's a page of statistic. Go sit on it. General Stats and things. Actual murder rates per year. I'll give you a relevent fact. No murderer once hanged ever killed anyone afterwards. I wouldn't actually execute anyone but the likely outcome would be pretty much the same and a lot quicker than ever it happens in America and a lot more cost effective too.
BoneDog Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 Saudi - no reliable figure exist...and I'm not going to treat suggestions we cut bits off people as a serious argument.America - death penalty and the most populous prison system in the world has done nothing to control crime. ...and remember, we are discussing accidents not bum rape. Ok then let's just carry on with our superb system. Who said oat about bum rape? Oh I know what ya sayin, not bothered though. I know all about em cos they're not discreet about it. No fear an all that
BoneDog Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 The reason I agree with killing murderers is simple : They get released back into society and 80% of em are still sick bastards who only go on to ruin other peoples lives. Families lives.
l444ry Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 It is patently obvious that most offenders can be deterred to one degree or another. It would be foolish to claim that any sentencing strategy will have a 100% deterrent effect on 100% of offenders all of the time. But then it would be equally foolish to claim that no offender is ever deterred by any sentence however tough. The truth surely lies somewhere between and will vary from offender to offender. If the only value in tougher sentences was deterrent effect, than it could possibly be argued that the value of the deterrent effect is insufficient to justify the extra cost of prisons etc. However, given that we know that incapacitation, (i.e. locking violent offenders up to prevent reoffending) is more cost effective than releasing them, then the deterrent effect thus also gained is a bonus, and as the evidence shows, not an insignificant one. There are three components of deterrence within a justice system, and sentencing is only one of these. The other two are detection, i.e. the likelihood of being caught, and conviction, i.e. the likelihood the having been caught, that the case will then lead to a successful conviction. This country is not doing all that well on any of these components at present, particularly for violent crimes other than murder, although our rate of detection tends to improve markedly for more serious crimes. The implications of this are that for deterrence to work, all three components must be present, and so saying that tougher sentences do not deter is meaningless if there is a low probability that offenders will even be caught and convicted in the first place, as in many third world and a few Western countries or states. If any three of these components are absent or at low levels, then the levels of either of the other two components will have little deterrent effect.
Thracian Posted 19 February 2009 Author Posted 19 February 2009 What Daggers said. I really can't be arsed with ranting about this, I've done it so much before.Here's a page of statistic. Go sit on it. General Stats and things. Actual murder rates per year. I notice you don't mention Singapore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore http://www.langara.bc.ca/creative-arts/pub.../singapore.html
Finnegan Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 I'll give you a relevent fact. No murderer once hanged ever killed anyone afterwards. I wouldn't actually execute anyone but the likely outcome would be pretty much the same and a lot quicker than ever it happens in America and a lot more cost effective too. So fook off and live in Saudi Arabia if you think it's such a good legal system. If we had a system of capital punishment I imagine it'd work almost identically to (and be just as big a waste of tax payers money as) the "humane" American system. I can't see even Nick Griffin trying to impose flash lynch mobs. Well... maybe, but no 'real' politician! I notice you don't mention Singapore. I didn't, no. For the above reason. If we were to impose a system of capital punishment it would be almost certainly modelled on a developed, Western state - ie the US.
Master Fox Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 ...and remember, we are discussing accidents not bum rape. Gutted... I was looking forward to that..
BoneDog Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 The only crime I am suggesting capital punishment for is cold blooded murder. Majority of crimes are committed due to circumstances that can be sorted with help. Oh, paedos aswell, I would nail them to the cross.
Thracian Posted 19 February 2009 Author Posted 19 February 2009 So fook off and live in Saudi Arabia if you think it's such a good legal system. If we had a system of capital punishment I imagine it'd work almost identically to (and be just as big a waste of tax payers money as) the "humane" American system. I can't see even Nick Griffin trying to impose flash lynch mobs. Well... maybe, but no 'real' politician! I didn't, no. For the above reason. If we were to impose a system of capital punishment it would be almost certainly modelled on a developed, Western state - ie the US. a) I'll continue living in the country I was born and raised in thanks. b) I really have no idea why anything of ours should be modelled on the US and certainly not the capital punishment system but I'm sure you'll explain.
BoneDog Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 Gutted... I was looking forward to that.. HA. I knew that was going to happen
Daggers Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 It is patently obvious that most offenders can be deterred to one degree or another. It would be foolish to claim that any sentencing strategy will have a 100% deterrent effect on 100% of offenders all of the time. But then it would be equally foolish to claim that no offender is ever deterred by any sentence however tough. The truth surely lies somewhere between and will vary from offender to offender. If the only value in tougher sentences was deterrent effect, than it could possibly be argued that the value of the deterrent effect is insufficient to justify the extra cost of prisons etc. However, given that we know that incapacitation, (i.e. locking violent offenders up to prevent reoffending) is more cost effective than releasing them, then the deterrent effect thus also gained is a bonus, and as the evidence shows, not an insignificant one. There are three components of deterrence within a justice system, and sentencing is only one of these. The other two are detection, i.e. the likelihood of being caught, and conviction, i.e. the likelihood the having been caught, that the case will then lead to a successful conviction. This country is not doing all that well on any of these components at present, particularly for violent crimes other than murder, although our rate of detection tends to improve markedly for more serious crimes. The implications of this are that for deterrence to work, all three components must be present, and so saying that tougher sentences do not deter is meaningless if there is a low probability that offenders will even be caught and convicted in the first place, as in many third world and a few Western countries or states. If any three of these components are absent or at low levels, then the levels of either of the other two components will have little deterrent effect. Fluffy, you could have just said "I see Daggers, yes - I agree with you entirely." and saved yourself all that typing.
l444ry Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 Fluffy, you could have just said "I see Daggers, yes - I agree with you entirely." and saved yourself all that typing. Or you might have digested the context of the post before diving in with your size tens.
Zingari Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 It is patently obvious that most offenders can be deterred to one degree or another. It would be foolish to claim that any sentencing strategy will have a 100% deterrent effect on 100% of offenders all of the time. But then it would be equally foolish to claim that no offender is ever deterred by any sentence however tough. The truth surely lies somewhere between and will vary from offender to offender. If the only value in tougher sentences was deterrent effect, than it could possibly be argued that the value of the deterrent effect is insufficient to justify the extra cost of prisons etc. However, given that we know that incapacitation, (i.e. locking violent offenders up to prevent reoffending) is more cost effective than releasing them, then the deterrent effect thus also gained is a bonus, and as the evidence shows, not an insignificant one. There are three components of deterrence within a justice system, and sentencing is only one of these. The other two are detection, i.e. the likelihood of being caught, and conviction, i.e. the likelihood the having been caught, that the case will then lead to a successful conviction. This country is not doing all that well on any of these components at present, particularly for violent crimes other than murder, although our rate of detection tends to improve markedly for more serious crimes. The implications of this are that for deterrence to work, all three components must be present, and so saying that tougher sentences do not deter is meaningless if there is a low probability that offenders will even be caught and convicted in the first place, as in many third world and a few Western countries or states. If any three of these components are absent or at low levels, then the levels of either of the other two components will have little deterrent effect. we should all be made to read this post over and over again until it sinks in
Daggers Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 Or you might have digested the context of the post before diving in with your size tens. I'd have thought since mine was more concise you'd have got your head around it - oh well, maybe next time, I'll try to dumb it down a bit for you
l444ry Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 I'd have thought since mine was more concise you'd have got your head around it - oh well, maybe next time, I'll try to dumb it down a bit for you I scorn you, scurvy companion. What, you poor, base, rascally, cheating, lack-linen mate! Away, you moldy rogue, away!
Guest Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 The only crime I am suggesting capital punishment for is cold blooded murder. Majority of crimes are committed due to circumstances that can be sorted with help. Oh, paedos aswell, I would nail them to the cross. So what about miscarriages of justice? How do we resolve those when we have reinstated the death penalty?
stez Posted 19 February 2009 Posted 19 February 2009 So what about miscarriages of justice? How do we resolve those when we have reinstated the death penalty? the reason why it should never come back. ever.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.