skinnydipper Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 As Lisa said, juries are predictably unpredictable. But this means that you can't rationalise that a jury got it right because they heard all the evidence and took time to come to their decision. An outcome will often depend on the component members of a jury and their leanings, experiences and prejudices. For example, if Harwood's jury consisted of 12 Daggers there can be little doubt that not only would he have been convicted but that the jury would have recommended a sentence of castration with a bollock being sewn into each cheek. And that would be just for starters ...
purpleronnie Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Not when it is releasing criminals with a high reoffending rate. So people who reoffend should be kept in prison forever?
ADK Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 So people who reoffend should be kept in prison forever? If they have to be. How is it fair for people to have to suffer crime at the hands of the same criminals over and over?
acooling08 Posted 21 July 2012 Author Posted 21 July 2012 So people who reoffend should be kept in prison forever? How many lives of the public do you risk, just to give some scumbag chance after chance?
Rincewind Posted 22 July 2012 Posted 22 July 2012 Bring back the stocks and cat of nine tails for re-offenders. I do agree with the Mail readers sometimes. http://quill2ink2paper.tumblr.com/
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 22 July 2012 Posted 22 July 2012 Quick question; How do you punish a person who isn't bothered about their loss of liberty, or lack of social interaction, for however many years? Nice to see Moosebreath has a full grasp of the situation. Find out what annoys them the most, lock them down and continuously play it on a loop to them night and day till it breaks them. Then when they are truly beaten can you start to rehabiliatate..,
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.