Foxy Knoxy Guilty

[DJ Kris]

Whats thought provoking about the idea she should be let go because shes pretty? That seems to be the thing people are getting irritated at.

Well if you move past that and actually pay attention you'll notice the point is this:

 

If someone is unlikely/will not re offend and they are able to contribute to society is it counter productive to send them to prison at the tax payers expense?

 

He did in later posts clarify that but people were more interested in mocking him and fixating on the pretty girl aspect than they were discussion an interesting angle.

[Chris B]

There's an interesting angle there, IF he acknowledges the bollocks bit about 'prettiness' being a way they contribute to society. He hasn't clarified that - he's just restated it.

[DJ Kris]

There's an interesting angle there, IF he acknowledges the bollocks bit about 'prettiness' being a way they contribute to society. He hasn't clarified that - he's just restated it.

Don't be a tit! He doesn't need to do anything, the point is there, it's clear to anyone that wishes to see it. You can either discuss it if you wish, move on or continue to flame the guy. But he certainly doesn't need to repeat or rephrase himself anymore than he already has.

[Chris B]

Exactly. Because he's said that one of the factors that should be taken into account is whether or not the person is beautiful. It's a pretty major part of what he's said. You don't think that he meant it? Or do you think that it doesn't matter if he meant it?

 

Now, with regards to 'whether or not someone is likely to reoffend' and whether that should be part of the sentencing, I think it often IS part of the sentencing.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Given he restated that her physical apperance is a factor in his opinions (though he also states its a small part of it) then I think peole have every right to bring him up on that bit of outright idiocy. Though I agree that he has made more points actually worth discussing, and indeed some people have mentioned them.

[DJ Kris]

Exactly. Because he's said that one of the factors that should be taken into account is whether or not the person is beautiful. It's a pretty major part of what he's said. You don't think that he meant it? Or do you think that it doesn't matter if he meant it?

 

Now, with regards to 'whether or not someone is likely to reoffend' and whether that should be part of the sentencing, I think it often IS part of the sentencing.

He actually said in direct reply to you that the looks was a minor part of what he meant, not the major part you are still harping on about. He also made clear as day in that same post what his main point was. Your just trying to continue to point and laugh and the village fool long after it had a point.

 

 

 

Any how, I think he raised an interesting point. We don't have that many serial killers in this country, as such is it fair to say your average murder does not reoffend? Why is this? I don't know the stats, are the majority crimes of passion? Accidental? On this basis it does cost us money to lock up someone that is no longer a threat to society.

 

However, I can't agree that we shouldn't send them to prison. How can you sensibly say who will and will not reoffend? Also you can't ignore the need to the family to see justice served. Punishment is a valid reason to send someone to prison, while I agree protection and rehabilitation are maybe priority, punishment can not be sidelined.

 

In the case of this poor girls family I feel bad for them, but it's better that an innocent party goes free. It's a shame the investigators didn't do a better job in the first place. It does seem as though they decided who they thought had done it and allowed that to influence the investigation, rather than the investigation influencing who they believed was guilty.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

However, I can't agree that we shouldn't send them to prison. How can you sensibly say who will and will not reoffend? Also you can't ignore the need to the family to see justice served. Punishment is a valid reason to send someone to prison, while I agree protection and rehabilitation are maybe priority, punishment can not be sidelined.

 

 

100% agree.

[Chris B]

Exactly. Because he's said that one of the factors that should be taken into account is whether or not the person is beautiful. It's a pretty major part of what he's said. You don't think that he meant it? Or do you think that it doesn't matter if he meant it?

 

Now, with regards to 'whether or not someone is likely to reoffend' and whether that should be part of the sentencing, I think it often IS part of the sentencing.

He actually said in direct reply to you that the looks was a minor part of what he meant, not the major part you are still harping on about. He also made clear as day in that same post what his main point was. Your just trying to continue to point and laugh and the village fool long after it had a point.

 

And I've made the point that it doesn't matter whether it's a minor or a major part. It was an astonishing thing to say, and I honestly want him to justify it more. How about you stop playing the white night and let him speak for himself?

 

 

Any how, I think he raised an interesting point. We don't have that many serial killers in this country, as such is it fair to say your average murder does not reoffend? Why is this? I don't know the stats, are the majority crimes of passion? Accidental? On this basis it does cost us money to lock up someone that is no longer a threat to society.

 

One argument (that I don't fully agree with, but this doesn't mean that it has no justification) is that the lack of re-offending shows that parts of the current system work in terms of discouraging re-offending.

 

However, even if it is a one-off, part of determining that someone is not a threat to society involves incarceration while that is determined. Otherwise, we may as well institute a policy that 'everyone gets one'.

 

However, I can't agree that we shouldn't send them to prison. How can you sensibly say who will and will not reoffend? Also you can't ignore the need to the family to see justice served. Punishment is a valid reason to send someone to prison, while I agree protection and rehabilitation are maybe priority, punishment can not be sidelined.

 

In the case of this poor girls family I feel bad for them, but it's better that an innocent party goes free. It's a shame the investigators didn't do a better job in the first place. It does seem as though they decided who they thought had done it and allowed that to influence the investigation, rather than the investigation influencing who they believed was guilty.

 

Punishment shouldn't be part of justice. I honestly believe that. If someone was able to be genuinely rehabilitated within a small amount of time (which is obviously impossible to measure, but bear with the hypothetical), I think they should be released. Justice shouldn't be about making the families of victims feel better. It should be about protection of the public and rehabilitation.

[ozzfan]

Interesting to note that, according to Frontpagestoday.co.uk, the only paper to mention the other, less attractive, young female, person cleared of murder is The Grauniad. Quelle Surprise.

 

Nice to see The Mail get the story right in the print edition. I wonder if they've got any more quotes from the bizarro world jury? Mr. Ian Cognito, maybe. Also, according the the Express, it might get a bit windy at some point in the autumn.

[David]

Why? What purpose does it serve locking this woman up?

If it was a big, strapping lad with a skinhead you'd not be defending him, would you? She committed a crime, and has to do the time.

[spurs 4 life]

Punishment shouldn't be part of justice. I honestly believe that. If someone was able to be genuinely rehabilitated within a small amount of time (which is obviously impossible to measure, but bear with the hypothetical), I think they should be released. Justice shouldn't be about making the families of victims feel better. It should be about protection of the public and rehabilitation.

 

Totally disagree with this.

 

Every action we have in life should have a consequence. If i run up large debts i have to pay them off, if i quit my job i have no money, if i cheat on my partner she will leave me.

 

If you commit a crime you should be punished for it, whether you might do it again or not.

[Chris B]

I think it depends if you believe that fear of punishment is the primary factor in people doing things right or not. Not fear of being caught - fear of punishment.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that having your liberty curtailed is a pretty huge punishment. I'm not saying that punishment aren't incidental to what I'm saying - they'd occur as well. Consequences are often punishing. But I'm saying that the justice system shouldn't set out to punish. It's pretty punishing as is.

[WU LYF 4 LYF]

There are other ways of punishment than prison, though. The criminal could pay a percentage of his/her future earnings to the victim/to a charity. They could do community service/charity work in addition to having a job. They could be subject to curfew that restricts time and range of movement.

 

Enforce this for the length of time they would have served in prison and you will save money and have a better rate of rehabilitation, whilst still ensuring the perpetrator is punished and can't live a completely free and normal life.

 

Tough sentencing doesn't work. People commit crimes on the basis that they will not be caught. I studied Crime in England in the 16th century, and it's astonishing the people who committed minor offences such as larceny even though they knew they could be punished by hanging. And attempts to romanticise this fail, as most evidence shows that the majority did not steal so they could afford to eat, but through simple greed. I think it's clear that we need a real re-think to our current criminal justice system, which is expensive and doesn't even rehabilitate effectively.

[spurs 4 life]

I think it depends if you believe that fear of punishment is the primary factor in people doing things right or not. Not fear of being caught - fear of punishment.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that having your liberty curtailed is a pretty huge punishment. I'm not saying that punishment aren't incidental to what I'm saying - they'd occur as well. Consequences are often punishing. But I'm saying that the justice system shouldn't set out to punish. It's pretty punishing as is.

 

As someone who has legal problems right now i very much think the legal system should set out to punish.

 

I had a car accident and it turned out i wasn't insured. It was a genuine mistake (driving partners car, had fully comp) but i fully expect some sort of punishment for it. I didn't mean it and i certainly won't ever do it again but i should be punished as i was an idiot and lucky that something worse didn't happen.

 

There is nothing wrong with punishment to placate the victims and when i have children i fully intend to teach them that in life every action you make will generate a reaction.

[David]

Hasn't she been released anyway?