In article , Baz wrote:

I just wish the magistrates or JP's would toughen up and make the
punishment fit the crime.

Bring back hanging for even minor offences! Since the UK has so
successfully restored the 18th century economic model, it should
restore the 18th century penal one as well.

While revenge-based penalties may make some people feel better,
there is a mass of experience that they don't reduce crime - quite
the converse. God alone knows why we are trying to ape a country
that has much worse crime problems than we do, rather than learn
from ones closer to us and with much less serious problems.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote in :

In article , Baz
wrote:

I just wish the magistrates or JP's would toughen up and make the
punishment fit the crime.

Such as a life sentence for murder, or the deportation of illegal
immigrants.

Bring back hanging for even minor offences! Since the UK has so
successfully restored the 18th century economic model, it should
restore the 18th century penal one as well.

While revenge-based penalties may make some people feel better,
there is a mass of experience that they don't reduce crime - quite
the converse. God alone knows why we are trying to ape a country
that has much worse crime problems than we do, rather than learn
from ones closer to us and with much less serious problems.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.


Ahem,
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Baz

In article , Baz wrote:

I just wish the magistrates or JP's would toughen up and make the
punishment fit the crime.

Such as a life sentence for murder, or the deportation of illegal
immigrants.

In a magistrate's court?

The first is required by law and the second is normal practice.
The (deliberate) inefficiency of the administration has nothing
to do with the courts.

I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

You may not think that you do, but that IS what you are asking for.
The past 60 years of experience is uniformly that treating the
criminals is vastly more effective at reducing crime than punishing
the criminals.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

Generally, they are, but the consequence of doing that too widely
include making crime worse. And mere property damage is not violence,
in the normal (common usage legal) meaning of the word.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Janet wrote in
:


Baz has only just discovered there's a difference between a
magistrate
and a judge.

Janet


Yes that is true, Janet.
Are you being sarky?

I don't have many talents, and might not be too bright, never been at court
before. I have never needed to know the difference, but now I do thanks to
a ******* who has made our life 'more difficult than it was'

Baz

On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 18/08/2011 06:27, wrote:
In ,
Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is no
less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.


--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is no
less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

This is ridiculous. This will be my last posting on this matter.

The problems with excessive incarceration are well-known. Firstly,
it often turns curable criminals (including ones who have been
violent) into habitual criminals. And, secondly, it means that
the innocent and relatively so get corrupted by the hardened
criminals.

If there were a simple classification into habitual violent
criminals and non-violent suspects and criminals who will respond
to other penalties, then your black-and-white ideas would work.
Now, here, in the real world, things are not like that!

I suggest that you read up some serious studies on penology.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote in :

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole
purpose of incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order
to protect the public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is
required for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually
delivers what it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence
that the high level of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually
increases the danger to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were
beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is
no less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

This is ridiculous. This will be my last posting on this matter.

The problems with excessive incarceration are well-known. Firstly,
it often turns curable criminals (including ones who have been
violent) into habitual criminals. And, secondly, it means that
the innocent and relatively so get corrupted by the hardened
criminals.

If there were a simple classification into habitual violent
criminals and non-violent suspects and criminals who will respond
to other penalties, then your black-and-white ideas would work.
Now, here, in the real world, things are not like that!

I suggest that you read up some serious studies on penology.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Can I just say that I can't see a reason why a shoplifter should be
remanded into custody and a violent criminal(not just our cars) with
history should be given bail. In the same court on the same day.
Seems like a lottery for the likes of us who are victims.
Penology????? Sound like a do-goder to me.

When we can't sleep tonight we will think penology.
After the umpteenth time of checking the doors or hearing a mouse fart can
we sleep?

NO

Baz

On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

I would say the people we got varied enormously but there were five main
types - almost all young men and a scary number were illiterate:

Individuals so simple and gullible they should be in sheltered housing.
(typically caught by the police because they didn't try to run away)

Tradesmen caught speeding or drunk driving and sometimes both.

Otherwise reasonable guys drunk and disorderly and/or for assault after
a night on the town who took a swipe at someone. A disturbing subset of
these were recent returnees from Iraq or Afghanistan which suggests to
me the Army was failing in its duty of care to its employees.

Drug addicts caught stealing or in possession.

All of the above were quite reasonable if a bit unruly when sober though
we did have a guy who could see pink elephants one day! Most of the
trademen got stuck in and did what needed doing until their hours were
up. A couple were really good decorators and carpenters too.

There was a tiny hardcore of bone idle absolute wasters for whom the
system simply did not work. They knew their rights and knew detailed
sections of the law. They were not the brainless idiots portrayed in the
media. The really annoying thing for me watching them was that whilst
the front line guys did their best to teach them useful skills (like how
to paint a door or windowframe) the next tier of management up the chain
was to put it in a nutshell absolutely f*cking useless. The guys on the
front line had no effective support from their bosses.

There were no adequate sanctions against the tiny handful of persistent
troublemakers. For my money they should have been chained together and
put on litter picking duty on motorways or dropped in the middle of the
Pennine way with a large supply of rock and told to get on with it. Food
and water only supplied in the unlikely event of good behaviour.

It sounds to me like Baz got landed with a member of this latter group
who know *exactly* how to play the system.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Martin Brown
writes
On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

Despite the way in which this thread started, I can't help feeling that
it has very little to do with gardening.

Roy.
--
Roy Bailey
West Berkshire.

"Roy Bailey" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Brown
writes
On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

Despite the way in which this thread started, I can't help feeling that
it has very little to do with gardening.

Roy.
--
Roy Bailey
West Berkshire.


but Roy, didn't you know, it's a social chat newsgroup/forum by some as
well. ... Just watch.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................