Paid Members Chris B Posted October 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 4, 2011 "will save money and have a better rate of rehabilitation"? Â It's not been tested. I agree that it may have, but I don't agree that it will have a better rate of rehabilitation. You can't just state something will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted October 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 4, 2011 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. I certainly wouldn't say your view is wrong, but I don't agree with it. If one of my friends or family members was murdered I would want to see the culprit punished for that and the idea of them being able to walk the streets and continue with their life would drive me nuts. Â 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. Well not according to yesterday's appeal anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted October 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 4, 2011 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.  You seem to think I'm advocating a lack of consequences. I'm not. For starters, a forced rehabilitation course is rarely a pleasant thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurs 4 life Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 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.  You seem to think I'm advocating a lack of consequences. I'm not. For starters, a forced rehabilitation course is rarely a pleasant thing.  I think that your saying being punished is wrong which i don't agree with.  I agree with the premise of rehabilitation but i want that alongside punishment. Certainly if someone is found guilty of murder for reasons other than self defence or in reaction to their child being murdered or something equally extreme i see no reason why they have any right to be reintroduced to society.  Different crimes call for different reactions but things like robbery, burglary, murder, rape etc should be met with harsh punishments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted October 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 4, 2011 As someone who has legal problems right now i very much think the legal system should set out to punish. Â 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. Â 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. Â You seem to think I'm advocating a lack of consequences. I'm not. For starters, a forced rehabilitation course is rarely a pleasant thing. Â I think that your saying being punished is wrong which i don't agree with. Â I agree with the premise of rehabilitation but i want that alongside punishment. Certainly if someone is found guilty of murder for reasons other than self defence or in reaction to their child being murdered or something equally extreme i see no reason why they have any right to be reintroduced to society. Â Different crimes call for different reactions but things like robbery, burglary, murder, rape etc should be met with harsh punishments. Â And the likelihood of, say, a child murderer being successfully rehabilitated is currently very low. Â We're talking about two points of getting to similar places. The more extreme the crime, the more rehabilitation is needed, and the longer they will need to be incarcerated, if they can ever be rehabilitated. However, I believe it should always be aimed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spurs 4 life Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 As someone who has legal problems right now i very much think the legal system should set out to punish. Â 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. Â 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. Â You seem to think I'm advocating a lack of consequences. I'm not. For starters, a forced rehabilitation course is rarely a pleasant thing. Â I think that your saying being punished is wrong which i don't agree with. Â I agree with the premise of rehabilitation but i want that alongside punishment. Certainly if someone is found guilty of murder for reasons other than self defence or in reaction to their child being murdered or something equally extreme i see no reason why they have any right to be reintroduced to society. Â Different crimes call for different reactions but things like robbery, burglary, murder, rape etc should be met with harsh punishments. Â And the likelihood of, say, a child murderer being successfully rehabilitated is currently very low. Â We're talking about two points of getting to similar places. The more extreme the crime, the more rehabilitation is needed, and the longer they will need to be incarcerated, if they can ever be rehabilitated. However, I believe it should always be aimed for. Â The question always gets asked in this sort of debate but i feel it's valid. Â If your relative had been murdered or your child molested would you want them rehabilitated? The victims of crimes like the ones i listed deserve justice. A committee judging that a criminal won't do it again isn't justice. Â If you murder someone in cold blood you have no right to be part of society in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WU LYF 4 LYF Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's not been tested. I agree that it may have, but I don't agree that it will have a better rate of rehabilitation. You can't just state something will work. Â Sorry, I should have added 'in my opinion'. You're right in that it may not work, but I think it's worth a try. Â If your relative had been murdered or your child molested would you want them rehabilitated? Â It's a very tough question. On the one hand I want rehabilitation so nobody else goes through what I've gone through. One the other hand I want punishment in recompense for the punishment that has been put upon me by their crimes. Yet I'll also be paying for their punishment. When you look at these conflicting arguments, is there a right answer? Â If you murder someone in cold blood you have no right to be part of society in my opinion. Â I did qualify my earlier arguments by saying that if the criminal has committed premeditated crimes with maliciously violent intent, than harsher punishments were important. It was only in cases of manslaughter, crimes of passion, evidence that was not wholly certain and with a genuine appetite to pay for their crimes that the criminal should be punished with other methods than imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's actually an interesting point. I'd say the problem would come with implemtation. Your example's of crimes of passion, for example. Quick google http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-viole...amp;itemid=1280 shows that two women a week are killed by their partners. Under your system, as long as they did it on the spur of the moment, and had a reasonably useful job at the time, they'd all get off with community service as long as their lawyer could coach them and argue in court effectively enough to show they'd not do it again. And there's a whole in your logic, the fact that these things happened despite clear knowledge they'd probably do (alot) of time for it does not mean that there aren't those out there who have been stopped by the knowledge of what would happen to them. I think it'd be somewhat naive to expect so called crimes of passion not to raise as society finds out you can off your wife for a bit of community service and an increase in tax's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Well not according to yesterday's appeal anyway. Yes she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman89762000 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Well not according to yesterday's appeal anyway. Yes she did. Â Yeah she got a 3 year sentence for falsely accusing a bar owner of the murder and has to pay him 22.000 euros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted October 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 4, 2011 Â And the likelihood of, say, a child murderer being successfully rehabilitated is currently very low. Â We're talking about two points of getting to similar places. The more extreme the crime, the more rehabilitation is needed, and the longer they will need to be incarcerated, if they can ever be rehabilitated. However, I believe it should always be aimed for. Â The question always gets asked in this sort of debate but i feel it's valid. Â If your relative had been murdered or your child molested would you want them rehabilitated? The victims of crimes like the ones i listed deserve justice. A committee judging that a criminal won't do it again isn't justice. Â If you murder someone in cold blood you have no right to be part of society in my opinion. Â Whereas I would say that if you murder someone in cold blood, you have no ability to be part of society (at least for the forseeable future). Â It may sound like semantics, but for me, it's about ideology, and I'm quite idealistic when it comes to the role of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted October 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 4, 2011 Well not according to yesterday's appeal anyway. Yes she did. My mistake, I thought yesterdays appeal decided she hadn't committed the crime and didn't need to do the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 26, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted March 26, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21936308 Â Poor Flaming June Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted March 27, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted March 27, 2013 I doubt they'll extradite her even if she is found guilty at a re-trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 27, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted March 27, 2013 Pretty sure they will. America's not going to create an international incident over one woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.55e5547a252a5ad1a05f197973025167.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.