Saintandy666 Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 This is accurate. Thankfully I havent served time, but I have done some work in prisons in the midlands and I wouldnt want to be stuck in one. The usual daily mail b*llocks about it being a cushy number is utter sh*te, it irritates me whenever I read/hear that spouted. Here here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' - no pun intended, ghandi i think Indeed, and I also like: "Before you embark on revenge, you should dig two graves" Confucius (I think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Can I just ask please, what is it again that separates us from animals? I thought it was our ability to have ideas, like let's study 'evil' and try to eradicate the source, which is simply impossible as evil is an actual real energy, just like 'good' really exists. They are energies which we will never fully understand IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Can I just ask please, what is it again that separates us from animals? I thought it was our ability to have ideas, like let's study 'evil' and try to eradicate the source, which is simply impossible as evil is an actual real energy, just like 'good' really exists. They are energies which we will never fully understand IMO. Point is Hammy your opening statement whilst IMHO true is politically incorrect it ISN'T evil if it is in the name of someone's God - it is only your (and my) interpretation of it, where evil exists and is ingrained in quite a few societies, modern Anglo-American culture gets itself tied up in Political Correctness. IMHO rightly, what goes on in the name of Religion IS evil and especially in our next door neighbours. The Nutters want this sort of rule throughout the world and don't want us living a life of choices and freedoms, but you try and say that when you try to point out that some people's interpretation of their "Holy Books" is evil, wow. A close friend once said 18 years ago - World War 3 has been going on for centuries, we just hadn't noticed until recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Point is Hammy your opening statement whilst IMHO true is politically incorrect it ISN'T evil if it is in the name of someone's God - it is only your (and my) interpretation of it, where evil exists and is ingrained in quite a few societies, modern Anglo-American culture gets itself tied up in Political Correctness. IMHO rightly, what goes on in the name of Religion IS evil and especially in our next door neighbours. The Nutters want this sort of rule throughout the world and don't want us living a life of choices and freedoms, but you try and say that when you try to point out that some people's interpretation of their "Holy Books" is evil, wow. A close friend once said 18 years ago - World War 3 has been going on for centuries, we just hadn't noticed until recently Do you believe in absolute morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Some of us I believe are possessed by a 'good' soul for want ofa betterword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Do you believe in absolute morality? Seriously, what does that mean. I like this subject and am finding out lots about myself recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 (edited) Do you believe in absolute morality? Wiki Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated. Hell yes on the basis of what it says in Wiki. (BUT in a Secular way not the way Wiki goes on to describe other forms) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism link edited for Hammy (I had to look it up too) Hammy is totally right, but it isn't a view favoured by many "leftward leaners" and that is people are different. Some simply do not have a good/evil switch in their heads - that nutter in Teneriffe for example. There are others that try and do the right thing all the time and mostly get it right. I think what goes on "over the water from here" is wrong and is evil. Unfortunately having spent so long down here I understand that they THINK they are doing the right thing. Edited 18 May, 2011 by dubai_phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Seriously, what does that mean. I like this subject and am finding out lots about myself recently. Was that from when you were plssing blood mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Oh! I guess that it boils down to, we all think that we are right. As do the perceived enemy. We are all right....morally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Seriously, what does that mean. I like this subject and am finding out lots about myself recently. Just means that there are things that are right and things that are wrong. For example, child rape is always wrong. A bit like religion saying this is wrong and this is right. The liberal democratic framework we live in is set up within the idea of an absolute morality, but others have disagreed. Thinkers like Isaiah Berlin said we can't judge stuff like that discussed in this thread because we look at it through the biased prism of liberal democracy. Therefore, we can't be objective and view things in a fair way and so therefore we can't actually say what is right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Just means that there are things that are right and things that are wrong. For example, child rape is always wrong. A bit like religion saying this is wrong and this is right. The liberal democratic framework we live in is set up within the idea of an absolute morality, but others have disagreed. Thinkers like Isaiah Berlin said we can't judge stuff like that discussed in this thread because we look at it through the biased prism of liberal democracy. Therefore, we can't be objective and view things in a fair way and so therefore we can't actually say what is right or wrong. Thats an excellent point right there. When Russia was under the communists and the cold war was going on, I bet the average russian thought they were morally superior to the west in exactly the same way the western public thought we were. Simply because of our political system and what our glorious leaders told us.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 18 May, 2011 Share Posted 18 May, 2011 Just means that there are things that are right and things that are wrong. For example, child rape is always wrong. A bit like religion saying this is wrong and this is right. The liberal democratic framework we live in is set up within the idea of an absolute morality, but others have disagreed. Thinkers like Isaiah Berlin said we can't judge stuff like that discussed in this thread because we look at it through the biased prism of liberal democracy. Therefore, we can't be objective and view things in a fair way and so therefore we can't actually say what is right or wrong. Managed to word it far more eloquently than I could. Good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Just means that there are things that are right and things that are wrong. For example, child rape is always wrong. A bit like religion saying this is wrong and this is right. The liberal democratic framework we live in is set up within the idea of an absolute morality, but others have disagreed. Thinkers like Isaiah Berlin said we can't judge stuff like that discussed in this thread because we look at it through the biased prism of liberal democracy. Therefore, we can't be objective and view things in a fair way and so therefore we can't actually say what is right or wrong. Nonsense, some things are clearly right and clearly wrong. By your rationale anyone could do anything and it couldn't be deemed wrong because if their own continent/country/town/village/house/head they believe it is right. It's noting to do with being a "liberal democracy", there are plenty of non-liberal, undemocratic places that would consider burning eyes out to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 What experience of prison do you have? What experience have I had of drug taking, of burglary, rape, murder, extortion, blackmail, or any number of other things? None, I'm afraid. And neither I presume, have you. But that ought not to prevent either of us expressing an opinion on any of those things, should it? And even if one had experience of prisons, then I'm pretty confident that there is plenty of variety between the spectrum of regimes that cover everything from maximum security prisons for serious offenders, right the way through to open prisons. How does one gain knowledge of anything to be able to express an opinion on it, without having to experience it first hand? By watching documentaries, reading about it, listening to those who have experienced it. But unless you or others on here have direct experience either as an inmate or an employee of the prison system, then most of those opinions will have no more validity than mine and will be based on perceptions and hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) Nonsense, some things are clearly right and clearly wrong. By your rationale anyone could do anything and it couldn't be deemed wrong because if their own continent/country/town/village/house/head they believe it is right. It's noting to do with being a "liberal democracy", there are plenty of non-liberal, undemocratic places that would consider burning eyes out to be wrong. Way too sweeping. Eating Pork or consuming Alcohol is considered to be extremely wrong by some societies. It is the simplest example. Burning eyes out with acid or severing a spinal chord are indefensible to us, so are stonings for adultery, but then so for many of us is the Death penalty. Those same extreme examples of Sharia Law are also indefensible to a great many Muslims. However, it is deemed in SOME sects to be correct because it is what (their) God told them to do. The issue raises its head time and again in many areas. In order to make a judgement (as to what is right or wrong) you must have standards or benchmarks or morality. Every person on the planet is exposed to different events and influences while they develop so that everyone has a different Filter (it's why we all can hold different opinions and have debates on here) To the woman who was blinded, and wishes to carry out the sentence herself, her desire for revenge is justified by The extreme Shia interpretation of The Koran. It is nothing to do with a continent or a village it is the LAW. We all know that Law is an ass in every country. This is a Barbaric act, but there IS a victim here. She WAS blinded by this man and she sure as heck does not believe for one moment and has nothing in her background and upbringing to believe that she is anything but RIGHT to demand this punishment. The Perp is not a victim. He is guilty. At the end of the day, Right or Wrong is about Judgement. Who gets to sit in Judgement? God, Jesus, The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) or Satan? None, just some bloke who interprets what They have said. (and he's the one who eventually has to account for his readings, and in most people's minds he ain't gonna be drinking no Milk & Honey & meeting 72 angry Mothers of de-flowered Virgins) Edited 19 May, 2011 by dubai_phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Nonsense, some things are clearly right and clearly wrong. By your rationale anyone could do anything and it couldn't be deemed wrong because if their own continent/country/town/village/house/head they believe it is right. It's noting to do with being a "liberal democracy", there are plenty of non-liberal, undemocratic places that would consider burning eyes out to be wrong. Erm wasn't that his point? Don't think he said liberal democracies are the only systems which foster this attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 So if a prisoner on a 10 year sentence behaves himself inside he could get parole after 5 years. Doesn't seem that complicated to me. I think 10 years should mean 10 years. Agree entirely. If somebody is let out after 5 years of a 10 year sentence, it makes a mockery of it and reduces the deterrent effect of a custodial sentence. It should be the term set by the judge and be extended if the prisoner behaves badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 What experience have I had of drug taking, of burglary, rape, murder, extortion, blackmail, or any number of other things? None, I'm afraid. And neither I presume, have you. But that ought not to prevent either of us expressing an opinion on any of those things, should it? And even if one had experience of prisons, then I'm pretty confident that there is plenty of variety between the spectrum of regimes that cover everything from maximum security prisons for serious offenders, right the way through to open prisons. How does one gain knowledge of anything to be able to express an opinion on it, without having to experience it first hand? By watching documentaries, reading about it, listening to those who have experienced it. But unless you or others on here have direct experience either as an inmate or an employee of the prison system, then most of those opinions will have no more validity than mine and will be based on perceptions and hearsay. So it's safe to say that you have zero first hand experience of prison and buy into the Daily Mail image that all prisoners sit around all day in their cells watching their HD, widescreen TVs playing on X boxes or play stations after popping down to the wing drug dealer to pick up their daily fix of smack or crack with gay abandon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) Agree entirely. If somebody is let out after 5 years of a 10 year sentence, it makes a mockery of it and reduces the deterrent effect of a custodial sentence. It should be the term set by the judge and be extended if the prisoner behaves badly. Read my post up the thread on this as you are clearly not getting it. They are not "let out after 5 years" The judge makes them elidgable for parole after 5 years at the time of sentancing, the JUDGE sets the term and the date they are able to apply for parole, it's then down to the parole board to decide if they grant or deny parole after 5 years or whatever date the judge has set. And sentances are increased for bad behaviour, people get time added on for this. But no doubt you read this in the Mail as well that people just get set off on their merry way half way through their sentance as long as they haven't killed anyone whilst inside and the rest of the 5 years on their sentance is forgotten about, i love this naive view people have on the sentancing and prison system, made whilst sitting in their surburban dream, an opinion on everything but no first hand experience of anything. Edited 19 May, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 What experience have I had of drug taking, of burglary, rape, murder, extortion, blackmail, or any number of other things? None, I'm afraid. And neither I presume, have you. But that ought not to prevent either of us expressing an opinion on any of those things, should it? And even if one had experience of prisons, then I'm pretty confident that there is plenty of variety between the spectrum of regimes that cover everything from maximum security prisons for serious offenders, right the way through to open prisons. How does one gain knowledge of anything to be able to express an opinion on it, without having to experience it first hand? By watching documentaries, reading about it, listening to those who have experienced it. But unless you or others on here have direct experience either as an inmate or an employee of the prison system, then most of those opinions will have no more validity than mine and will be based on perceptions and hearsay. Exactly, and that is the thing. I haven't had any experience of prison but those which I have met that do and those I have seen who have and speak about it tell stories of prison that are very different from the 'holiday camp' tales from the mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Read my post up the thread on this as you are clearly not getting it. They are not "let out after 5 years" The judge makes them elidgable for parole after 5 years at the time of sentancing, the JUDGE sets the term and the date they are able to apply for parole, it's then down to the parole board to decide if they grant or deny parole after 5 years or whatever date the judge has set. And sentances are increased for bad behaviour, people get time added on for this. But no doubt you read this in the Mail as well that people just get set off on their merry way half way through their sentance as long as they haven't killed anyone whilst inside and the rest of the 5 years on their sentance is forgotten about, i love this naive view people have on the sentancing and prison system, made whilst sitting in their surburban dream, an opinion on everything but no first hand experience of anything. Yes, I AM clearly getting it. The end result is that the judge can issue a sentence of 10 years and the criminal can be out on the streets possibly after 5 years if the parole board allows it. The contention I and Wade Garrett have made, is that the sentence meted out should be adhered to and any disincentive for the inmate to behave should be countered by the imposition of a lengthening of the sentence for bad behaviour. What is so difficult to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 So it's safe to say that you have zero first hand experience of prison and buy into the Daily Mail image that all prisoners sit around all day in their cells watching their HD, widescreen TVs playing on X boxes or play stations after popping down to the wing drug dealer to pick up their daily fix of smack or crack with gay abandon? And your expreience is......? You're perfectly happy to jump to conclusions about which newspaper I read and to fabricate in your imagination what I perceive to be the daily routine of a prisoner. Saintandy666: Exactly, and that is the thing. I haven't had any experience of prison but those which I have met that do and those I have seen who have and speak about it tell stories of prison that are very different from the 'holiday camp' tales from the mail. What a pity it is that those that you have spoken to with experience of prison are not capable of speaking generally about the entire system, only about their own experiences in a small part of the system. The experiences of say a Warder, are very different to those of an inmate. An inmate in a maximum security prison, very different to those at an open prison or one for psychiatric offenders. But don't let that prevent you from making your judgments about the entire system based on your acquaintances' experiences and claiming some superior knowledge to what I have read in articles or books, or seen in documentaries about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) Yes, I AM clearly getting it. The end result is that the judge can issue a sentence of 10 years and the criminal can be out on the streets possibly after 5 years if the parole board allows it. The contention I and Wade Garrett have made, is that the sentence meted out should be adhered to and any disincentive for the inmate to behave should be countered by the imposition of a lengthening of the sentence for bad behaviour. What is so difficult to understand? You might think that is how it should work and maybe you are right. But that is not how it does work. It really is quite simple. Everything in sentancing is decide by the judge and precidents set for sentancing on previous similar trials. If they misbehaved whilst inside they DO get time added onto their sentances. If they behave there is A CHANCE, they may be granted parole, although generally the longer the sentance the less likely it is on first application. The Judge is fully aware at sentancing an offender could be released in 5 years of a 10 year sentance. The judge is also fully aware that even if they dont get parole, they'll be released at the 2/3 point automatically. What these people that say "10 years should mean 10 years" fail to get is that a 10 years sentance is not a 10 year prison sentance. It's a maximum of 6 years and 8 months inside then the rest spent on supervison licences whereby they can be recalled at anytime if they break their conditions or reoffend. As i've already said two or three times is they misbehave they wont get parole and they can also have time added to their orignial sentances, in some cases another prison sentenace can be added onto the time due to serve, but clearly you chose to ignore that. I know of one case at Camp Hill whereby a lad in there serving 3 years ended up serving 8 years due to offences commited whilst inside. (an attack on a prison officer being one of them) Just because you chose to base your opinion on some media story you've read or think something should work a certain way it doesn't mean that is how it does work. What is so difficult to understand? Edited 19 May, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 And your expreience is......? You're perfectly happy to jump to conclusions about which newspaper I read and to fabricate in your imagination what I perceive to be the daily routine of a prisoner. As i've already said it's none of your business, but I can absultely guarentee i have more experience and knowledge of the system than you do. My view is not based on reading stories in newspapers to suit their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 You might think that is how it should work and maybe you are right. But that is not how it does work. Well, that's progress at least. And thanks for patronising me about how the current system works. What these people that say "10 years should mean 10 years" fail to get is that a 10 years sentance is not a 10 year prison sentance. But maybe you think that Wade and I might be right in expressing an opinion that it should be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) Well, that's progress at least. And thanks for patronising me about how the current system works. But maybe you think that Wade and I might be right in expressing an opinion that it should be? No problem, you clearly didn't know, i guess they dont explain that in the papers though do they. My view on this is that the majority of the public dont understand how it works, which is clearly evident by the comments on here. Like yourself, they see say 10 year sentance and think that it 10 years in prison and that people get let out early for being good, when this isn't the case at all. To be honest though, i cant imagine why anyone would want to leave, surely they'd all be deliberately misbehaving to extend their stay, afterall it's just like free a holiday camp isn't it, with TV's, playstations and as much smack as you can inject. Edited 19 May, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 No problem, you clearly didn't know, i guess they dont explain that in the papers though do they. My view on this is that the majority of the public dont understand how it works, which is clearly evident by the comments on here. Like yourself, they see say 10 year sentance and think that it 10 years in prison and that people get let out early for being good, when this isn't the case at all. To be honest though, i cant imagine why anyone would want to leave, surely they'd all be deliberately misbehaving to extend their stay, afterall it's just like free a holiday camp isn't it, with TV's, playstations and as much smack as you can inject. :rolleyes: Well, you may have hit the nail on the head there partly, as there are undoubtedly some habitual criminals of the Norman Stanley Fletcher type who become institutionalised and fear life out in the big bad world. I'm not saying that it is many, but it is definitely some. As for the general publics' perception of prison sentencing, again, it's very patronising to assume that those who hold an counter opinion on the matter don't understand the parole system as a factor in the early release of prisoners. But you carry on believing if you like that anybody who calls for criminals to serve the term handed down by the judge is ignorant of the background to the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Well, you may have hit the nail on the head there partly, as there are undoubtedly some habitual criminals of the Norman Stanley Fletcher type who become institutionalised and fear life out in the big bad world. I'm not saying that it is many, but it is definitely some. As for the general publics' perception of prison sentencing, again, it's very patronising to assume that those who hold an counter opinion on the matter don't understand the parole system as a factor in the early release of prisoners. But you carry on believing if you like that anybody who calls for criminals to serve the term handed down by the judge is ignorant of the background to the current system. And there in i rest my case you honour. For about the 5th time the time handed down by the Judge is for example a 10 years sentance, to be elidgable to apply for parole in 5 years. You dont naively believe that when a Judge jails someone for 10 years they really think or intend that the'll serve every day of that sentance in custody do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 And there in i rest my case you honour. For about the 5th time the time handed down by the Judge is for example a 10 years sentance, to be elidgable to apply for parole in 5 years. You dont naively believe that when a Judge jails someone for 10 years they really think or intend that the'll serve every day of that sentance in custody do you? You can rest your case all you want and continue to ignore the opinion that Wade and I made, that if the judge hands out a sentence of 10 years, that the criminal should serve 10 years. I think you are confusing what I acknowledge to be the current system, with what IMO should be the future system, which you seemed to agree I might be right in wanting. You might think that is how it should work and maybe you are right. I really can't make it any simpler than that, so if you can't understand it, I'd better give up trying to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) You can rest your case all you want and continue to ignore the opinion that Wade and I made, that if the judge hands out a sentence of 10 years, that the criminal should serve 10 years. I think you are confusing what I acknowledge to be the current system, with what IMO should be the future system, which you seemed to agree I might be right in wanting. I really can't make it any simpler than that, so if you can't understand it, I'd better give up trying to explain it. You've spent the first part of this discussion telling us how easy prison is and how everyone gets let out early for being good boys. Now you've been shown that is not the case by someone who knows how it does work you've resorted to patronising comments, sums you up really. It's easy to judge and tell the world how it should be from behind your PC isn't it. Maybe that is what the system should be but it isn't. Under the current system the Judge might well hand down a 10 year sentance, but they know full well in doing so that there is a chance the fella could be out after 5. Just because that is what you and Wade want, it doesn't mean it'll happen or is right. Edited 19 May, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 OK... so now back to the original subject of this thread.... People have to bear in mind that people in the middle east are a different breed to us westerners. Arabs have to generally have a pretty short leash, and be punished hard when they get it wrong. Look at what happened to Iraq after Saddam was toppled. As naughty as Saddam was, he could keep order in his country. The same will happen when Gaddaffi goes - the country will become a cesspit of terrorists one body of water from the west. As soon as the western world invaded it all fell apart - generally speaking democracy doesn't work well with arabs - they need a dictator (preferably not too evil to stop the USA bombing you.) There are a lot of very reasonable people in the middle east, who are quite sensible. And then there are idiots as well - every country has got them, including us. However, the laws of the land say 'an eye for an eye' or words to that effect, and that is that. If most people in that country thought it was wrong, it wouldn't happen. The recent execution of that woman in Iran was changed from stoning to hanging. If nobody in the country saw anything wrong, it wouldn't have changed. We shouldn't be interfering with a country's own laws - if the people don't like them they should change them themselves. It's a big problem that we all think the west's way is the right way. There are some aspects of sharia law that could actually be a good idea. Would we have had the banking crisis if all of our banking system was 'sharia friendly'? The financial greed that has ruined this country wouldn't have been allowed to happen. Eye for an eye is certainly a concept that I struggle to disagree with. I think the problem comes when the punishment is disproportionate to the original offence (stoning for adultery springs to mind). However, a rape victim's family being allowed to be the firing squad for a death sentence, whilst extreme to us would seem reasonable over there. Would I like to smack a burglars hand with a hammer as punishment? Seems reasonable. Cut his hands off - excessive. I think that the public in this country want to see justice done. The prison system generally is good at what it does, however where it falls down is in the sentencing by judges and magistrates. 'Community service' and 'Community supervision orders' are regular punishments dished out, but to the general public they don't know what they mean. Community service = let off. And to be honest, when was the last time you saw anyone doing community service? They tried to make people wear bibs to show the public that sentences were being carried out, but the practice had to stop because it infringed their 'human rights'. Burglar that are regularly in front of the judge, but never get sentenced to prison - sometimes we have to accept that these people don't need rehabilitating, they need punishing. But judges/magistrates don't do what the public think is reasonable- they only do what the law tells them to - the same as the Iranians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Prison shouldn't all be about nasty stuff and punishment. Obviously, it has to be to a degree unpleasant so people don't wish to return there, but there also needs to be way more rehabilitation than present so people don't end up slipping into the same routine they did before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Prison shouldn't all be about nasty stuff and punishment. Obviously, it has to be to a degree unpleasant so people don't wish to return there, but there also needs to be way more rehabilitation than present so people don't end up slipping into the same routine they did before. There is a lot more in the way of rehabilitation now than there ever was in the past. Some people just don't want to be rehabilitated (career criminals) then they should be punished. The Secret Millionaire the other week went into a prison to do some 'voluntary' stuff, and there he met some characters who if given a genuine chance could be rehabilitated and become a positive contributor to society. These tend to be generally good people who have made bad choices. Then there are the rotten to the core types that no rehabilitation will work on - lock them up in the worst hole there is, and they may not want to go back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 There is a lot more in the way of rehabilitation now than there ever was in the past. Some people just don't want to be rehabilitated (career criminals) then they should be punished. The Secret Millionaire the other week went into a prison to do some 'voluntary' stuff, and there he met some characters who if given a genuine chance could be rehabilitated and become a positive contributor to society. These tend to be generally good people who have made bad choices. Then there are the rotten to the core types that no rehabilitation will work on - lock them up in the worst hole there is, and they may not want to go back. How do you tell the difference though in your criteria? I think everyone should be given the chance. Punishment shouldn't continue beyond their prison sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 How do you tell the difference though in your criteria? I think everyone should be given the chance. Punishment shouldn't continue beyond their prison sentence. Everyone SHOULD be given a chance. But if you keep getting locked up after being let out, then I would suggest that rehabilitation and second/third chances hasn't worked for you, so its probably not worth persisting with. Then make it so unpleasant you wouldn't want to go back - find out what it would take to motivate them to stop breaking the law. Start nice, finish nasty. Bring back electric shock therapy I say..... (Joking!.... maybe) As for punishment not continuing beyond their prison sentence, surely that is parole? I'm not suggesting that disfiguring someone for life is the way ahead here - as I said above the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime - but in some countries it is the way it has to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) Prison shouldn't all be about nasty stuff and punishment. Obviously, it has to be to a degree unpleasant so people don't wish to return there, but there also needs to be way more rehabilitation than present so people don't end up slipping into the same routine they did before. Exactly Andy, the punishment is losing you liberty and being sent down. Once your there is as much about rehabilition as punishment. It's very easy for people like Westender and his like to sit behind their PC in their little surburban paradise and critise all prisoners and tell the world how the system should be. A very good friend of mine was born and raised in Wallworth, SE London, he is one of the funniest, most intellegent and decent people i have ever met, yet despite this left school with no qualifications and his greatest ambition was to work in a trainer shop in Covent Garden. This is because he felt this was the best he could do because of where he was from and the fact he had no qualifications at all. He ended up inside and when we discussed his sentance he said it was no big deal because in Wallworth it's more of a shock if you dont get sent down! In no way was he trying to justify what he did, but just telling me how it was. When he was released on licence he spent a good part of it with the support of his probabtion officer, training to be a Youth worker and now works with Young Offenders in SE London. The training for this was done whilst he was realease at the point the judge allowed him to be released at during his sentance, time in Westenders world he should still have been inside, playing on his playstation, waiting to be thrown back onto the streets with nothing. This is a fine example of how the system does work, but Westenders papers wont report things like that. They'll just print stories of inmates sitting back injecting Heroin whilst playing on their laptops moaning about not being allowed to vote and that people are all being released half way through their sentances for not killing anyone. Edited 19 May, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Everyone SHOULD be given a chance. But if you keep getting locked up after being let out, then I would suggest that rehabilitation and second/third chances hasn't worked for you, so its probably not worth persisting with. Then make it so unpleasant you wouldn't want to go back - find out what it would take to motivate them to stop breaking the law. Start nice, finish nasty. Bring back electric shock therapy I say..... (Joking!.... maybe) As for punishment not continuing beyond their prison sentence, surely that is parole? I'm not suggesting that disfiguring someone for life is the way ahead here - as I said above the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime - but in some countries it is the way it has to be. Isn't parole normally when you are released early??? Correct me if I am wrong. What I mean is once you have served your full time and done the parole time, you must be then an equal in society with everyone else and must be able to have an equal chance to rise and fall again. I believe at the moment in many cases our criminal justice system doesn't offer this equal chance to rise and fall and instead just dumps our ex-inmates back on the streets to fall back into the same habits. Criminal justice should be about actually stopping people committing crimes as free people, not just giving up on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Isn't parole normally when you are released early??? Correct me if I am wrong. What I mean is once you have served your full time and done the parole time, you must be then an equal in society with everyone else and must be able to have an equal chance to rise and fall again. I believe at the moment in many cases our criminal justice system doesn't offer this equal chance to rise and fall and instead just dumps our ex-inmates back on the streets to fall back into the same habits. Criminal justice should be about actually stopping people committing crimes as free people, not just giving up on people. A Judge will set a sentance length, say 10 years, then a date when the prisoner can apply for parole, this is a minimum of half of the sentance so in this case 5 years. If parole is granted they'll be released on licence at this point with strict conditions that if they break they can be recalled to prison at any time if there is even a suspicion that the prisoner has reoffended or broken conditions. If parole is not granted they can reapply on the anniversary of their conviction the following year and every year up until their release date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Exactly Andy, the punishment is losing you liberty and being sent down. Once your there is as much about rehabilition as punishment. It's very easy for people like Westender and his like to sit behind their PC in their little surburban paradise and critise all prisoners and tell the world how the system should be. A very good friend of mine was born and raised in Wallworth, SE London, he is one of the funniest, most intellegent and decent people i have ever met, yet despite this left school with no qualifications and his greatest ambition was to work in a trainer shop in Covent Garden. This is because he felt this was the best he could do, because of where he was from and the fact he had no qualifications at all. He ended up inside and when we discussed his sentance he said it was no big deal because in Wallworth it's more of a shock if you dont go down for anytime. In no way trying to justify what he did, but just telling me how it was. When he was released on licence he spent a good part of it with the support of his probabtion officer, training to be a Youth worker and now works with Young Offfender in SE London. The training for this was done whilst he was realease at the point the judge allowed him to be released at during his sentance, time in Westenders world he should still have been inside, playing on his playstation, waiting to be thrown back onto the streets with nothing. This is a fine example of how the system does work, he served his time handed down and used the rest of his sentance on licence to retrain for something worthwhile, but Westenders papers wont report things like that. They'll just print stories of inmates sitting back injecting Heroin whilst playing on their laptops moaning about not being allowed to vote and that people are all being released half way through their sentances for not killing anyone. There you go again, making up stuff that you imagine I would think in a vain attempt to justify your position. You know nothing about me or my background, my education, what I do etc, so how can you possibly know what opinion I will formulate on any particular subject? You arrogantly generalise as to what you think my environment is, what newspapers I might read and therefore what my position will be. When it comes to me asking you what qualifies you to comment on these matters, you say it is none of my business and yet knowing nothing about me, you presume to guarantee that you know more about things than I do. Just to surprise and confound you, I am in complete agreement with this:- Prison shouldn't all be about nasty stuff and punishment. Obviously, it has to be to a degree unpleasant so people don't wish to return there, but there also needs to be way more rehabilitation than present so people don't end up slipping into the same routine they did before. But also much of what lumuah says about it too. Good points raised by both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 (edited) There you go again, making up stuff that you imagine I would think in a vain attempt to justify your position. You know nothing about me or my background, my education, what I do etc, so how can you possibly know what opinion I will formulate on any particular subject? You arrogantly generalise as to what you think my environment is, what newspapers I might read and therefore what my position will be. When it comes to me asking you what qualifies you to comment on these matters, you say it is none of my business and yet knowing nothing about me, you presume to guarantee that you know more about things than I do. Just to surprise and confound you, I am in complete agreement with this:- But also much of what lumuah says about it too. Good points raised by both. The patronising, self righteous and holier than thou manner of your posts lead me to form this opinion, you are not the only one that can base and opinion on what they read you know. I know for a fact that you have no first hand experience of prison, think they are holiday camps and have formed your opinion based on what you have read, you have said this yourself and let me tell you, you are wrong. And partly to appease you and partly because i dont give a f*ck what most people on this forum think and those that i do care about will know my story anyway, i will tell you what my experience is. Some time ago i spent two years in prison, (a sentance way over the top for my offence, which was also my first and only before or since, but thats another story) I spent this sentance at Two "B cat" prisons, Wandsworth & Pentoville, widely regarded as two of the worst and most violent in the country. A "C Cat" Camp Hill Isle of Wight and a "D Cat" Ford. SO it's safe to say i know the regimes at 3 out of the 4 types of prisons there are, the other being an "A Cat" where the likes of Ian Huntley would be. In my times in prison i witnessed, stabbings, sucides, glassings, several times i saw boiling water with sugar in it being thrown at another prisoner so it sticks and scars, i was about 2 foot away on one occasion and this could easily have got me as well, numerous fights, prisoners being beaten shi*less by other inmates or officers, peoples faces being cut with razor blades, numerous incidents of drug taking, hunger strikes, floors being flooded by prisoners smashing up their cells. Being banged up in a cell 23 out 24 hours a day, 2 men to a 8 foot by 3 foot cell, with nothing but a book i had taken in with me for entertainment, i was wondering where my playstation and Widescreen telly was the whole time. I met some of the biggest w*nkers you could only dream of meeting. I also met some of the soundest people you could ever dream of meeting, who were there because they had f*cked up and made a stupid mistake, much like myself. Now what qualifies you to comment on the subject? Or is it's fair to say my qualifcations on this subject outrank yours? But still, what do i know, they are all holiday camps aren't they. Edited 19 May, 2011 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Turkish - thanks for that one of the most interesting posts I've read on here in a long time. IMO anyone who parrots a tabloid soundbite such as "prison is just like a holiday camp" deserves to have their credibility questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 But Wes says they are holiday camps, and Wes knows everything!!!! Oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Point is Hammy your opening statement whilst IMHO true is politically incorrect it ISN'T evil if it is in the name of someone's God - it is only your (and my) interpretation of it, where evil exists and is ingrained in quite a few societies, modern Anglo-American culture gets itself tied up in Political Correctness. IMHO rightly, what goes on in the name of Religion IS evil and especially in our next door neighbours. The Nutters want this sort of rule throughout the world and don't want us living a life of choices and freedoms, but you try and say that when you try to point out that some people's interpretation of their "Holy Books" is evil, wow. A close friend once said 18 years ago - World War 3 has been going on for centuries, we just hadn't noticed until recently without religion good people do good things, bad people do bad things with religion good people do bad things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I see Ken Clarke has dropped a clanger with his stupid comments about women being raped. He should resign for this IMO. That said I do agree with him in that prison doesn't work. Of course in some cases you need to take people out of circulation, but in other cases rehabilitation is what is needed to cut the re-offending rate more than prison for the sake of it. I have one friend in particular that was in and out of prison for thieving when he was a drug addict. Prison didn't work for him, in fact it made him worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 I see Ken Clarke has dropped a clanger with his stupid comments about women being raped. He should resign for this IMO. That said I do agree with him in that prison doesn't work. Of course in some cases you need to take people out of circulation, but in other cases rehabilitation is what is needed to cut the re-offending rate more than prison for the sake of it. I have one friend in particular that was in and out of prison for thieving when he was a drug addict. Prison didn't work for him, in fact it made him worse. Is that really you Dune? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Is that really you Dune? Just because i'm a right wing tory/ukip supporter doesn't mean that I tow the party line in every area. Nor does it mean that i'll support all Tory mp's. I'm not a big fan of Clarke because of his pro EU stance anyway, and can't stand that Warsi woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 without religion good people do good things, bad people do bad things with religion good people do bad things Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Just because i'm a right wing tory/ukip supporter doesn't mean that I tow the party line in every area. Nor does it mean that i'll support all Tory mp's. I'm not a big fan of Clarke because of his pro EU stance anyway, and can't stand that Warsi woman. Nope, definitely not really Dune. Either that or you're trolling, pretending to be reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastian firefly Posted 19 May, 2011 Share Posted 19 May, 2011 Way too sweeping. Eating Pork or consuming Alcohol is considered to be extremely wrong by some societies. It is the simplest example. Burning eyes out with acid or severing a spinal chord are indefensible to us, so are stonings for adultery, but then so for many of us is the Death penalty. Those same extreme examples of Sharia Law are also indefensible to a great many Muslims. However, it is deemed in SOME sects to be correct because it is what (their) God told them to do. The issue raises its head time and again in many areas. In order to make a judgement (as to what is right or wrong) you must have standards or benchmarks or morality. Every person on the planet is exposed to different events and influences while they develop so that everyone has a different Filter (it's why we all can hold different opinions and have debates on here) To the woman who was blinded, and wishes to carry out the sentence herself, her desire for revenge is justified by The extreme Shia interpretation of The Koran. It is nothing to do with a continent or a village it is the LAW. We all know that Law is an ass in every country. This is a Barbaric act, but there IS a victim here. She WAS blinded by this man and she sure as heck does not believe for one moment and has nothing in her background and upbringing to believe that she is anything but RIGHT to demand this punishment. The Perp is not a victim. He is guilty. At the end of the day, Right or Wrong is about Judgement. Who gets to sit in Judgement? God, Jesus, The Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) or Satan? None, just some bloke who interprets what They have said. (and he's the one who eventually has to account for his readings, and in most people's minds he ain't gonna be drinking no Milk & Honey & meeting 72 angry Mothers of de-flowered Virgins) if horses had gods they would be in the form of horses which i think means that as humans with the ability of rational thought we need to think god out of existence to progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now