In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It costs more than simply giving them a reasonable amount of money to
live on outside. Which makes it poor value for those paying the bills
- ie the taxpayer.

well if they are going to reoffend what else do you suggest?

Far more resources put into rehabilitation. Which would include support
after release.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
®i©ardo wrote:
It costs more than simply giving them a reasonable amount of money to
live on outside. Which makes it poor value for those paying the bills
- ie the taxpayer.


OK, so you're in favour of allowing free-range crime because you don't
like the thought of punishment for criminals.

Try stating your own views rather than trying to put ridiculous views into
my mouth.

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/01/2012 14:04, Mike Barnes wrote:
:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:43:51 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

Not at all. But, if that "simple theft" does result in the death of an
innocent party, are you suggesting that we just accept it because that
wasn't the original intention? I would rather see you suggest that
criminals, major or minor, accept the consequences of their own actions,
especially if they impinge upon the lives of innocent people.

If, however, they manage to kill themselves in the course of their
illegal act it may serve as a warning to others.

Please remember that they have total freedom of choice in these matters
- their victims do not.

Do you feel the same way about a criminal who drives his car at 45 MPH
in a 40 MPH limit? It could result in death.

If 45 mph is too fast for the conditions, death could result. But the 40
mph speed limit is not relevant.


It is TOTALLY relevant for the Straw Man. It helps him to feel included
when matters are being discussed which are beyond his comprehension. Red
herrings for tea.

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 25/01/2012 15:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article18WdnQqOe9bXgL3SnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
It costs more than simply giving them a reasonable amount of money to
live on outside. Which makes it poor value for those paying the bills
- ie the taxpayer.


OK, so you're in favour of allowing free-range crime because you don't
like the thought of punishment for criminals.

Try stating your own views rather than trying to put ridiculous views into
my mouth.


I wasn't the one that put ridiculous views into your mouth, you seem
perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

--
Moving things in still pictures

In article ,
®i©ardo wrote:
On 25/01/2012 15:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article18WdnQqOe9bXgL3SnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
It costs more than simply giving them a reasonable amount of money to
live on outside. Which makes it poor value for those paying the bills
- ie the taxpayer.


OK, so you're in favour of allowing free-range crime because you don't
like the thought of punishment for criminals.

Try stating your own views rather than trying to put ridiculous views
into my mouth.


I wasn't the one that put ridiculous views into your mouth, you seem
perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

As a matter of interest, which group are you posting from?

Probably gardening. Do your plants talk to you?

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/01/2012 16:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In articlefMWdnedNHamyv73SnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
On 25/01/2012 15:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article18WdnQqOe9bXgL3SnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews. com,
wrote:
It costs more than simply giving them a reasonable amount of money to
live on outside. Which makes it poor value for those paying the bills
- ie the taxpayer.


OK, so you're in favour of allowing free-range crime because you don't
like the thought of punishment for criminals.

Try stating your own views rather than trying to put ridiculous views
into my mouth.


I wasn't the one that put ridiculous views into your mouth, you seem
perfectly capable of doing that yourself.

As a matter of interest, which group are you posting from?

Probably gardening. Do your plants talk to you?


If they did they'd probably make a lot more sense than you do? You must
be a d-i-y man: Mr Bodge-It.

--
Moving things in still pictures

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:01:45 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

Such imaginary scenarios are as easy to dream up as the imaginary
scenarios in this thread of a cable thief causing deaths.

Did you miss the pictures at the start of this thread?

No - the scenarios I refer to are those involving the thieves causing
deaths other than their own.

A children's home is on fire. 136 children are trapped on the top
floor. The fire engine is delayed by 4.27 minutes due to a car being
double-parked on the access road. The delay results in 22 children
dying who would otherwise have been rescued.

You really want me to invent another few imaginary scenarios?

It's seems to be all you're good for, so go ahead if that's what turns
you on.

It was yourself who asked me to do so.

Heck, I could come up with a situation in which opening a window
caused the death of 100 people.

I'm sure you could, but the fact remains that being an apologist for
criminals in action by claiming that "worse things happen at sea"

I don't see anyone acting as apologists, simply people who see no
reason to gloat over their deaths or believe that it is *good* that
they were killed.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:04:28 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Do you feel the same way about a criminal who drives his car at 45 MPH
in a 40 MPH limit? It could result in death.

If 45 mph is too fast for the conditions, death could result. But the 40
mph speed limit is not relevant.

This thread is about whether it is a "good thing" if criminals are
killed as a result of their criminal action, therefore whether or not
the driver's act was or was not criminal is indeed relevant to this
thread - and that in turn depends on the speed limit in force.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:03:29 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

I could make prison work.

Prison does work, prisoners don't offend against the public while they are
locked up.
All you need to do is keep the re-offenders in there.

Ah. Someone who believes that every crime should carry a life
sentence.

Who? You?
I didn't say that.

How else am I supposed to interpret your view that re-offenders
"should be kept in there [prison]"?

Try using your brain and try to figure out the consequences
of such a policy.

Try reading what I said.

I did. It is apparently yourself who is unable to see the obvious
consequence of your statement.

1) About 20% of the UK working population has a criminal record.
Having a life sentence for all crimes would therefore result in 1
person in 5 being in prison. That's a heck of a lot of prisons, and a
heck of a lot of non-productive people for everyone else to support.

How many of those are re-offenders?
Shirly not all of them.

Enough to make the result a very high proportion of the population.

2) Most people in prison can be trusted not to try to escape, because
the consequence of escaping is far worse than the consequence of
sitting out their sentence. If everyone was inside for life, there is
essentially nothing to lose, and riots and escape attempts would be
extremely frequent, requiring much higher (= more expensive) security
at all prisons.

Irrelevant.

Of course it is not irrelevant. It is *you* who will have to pay for
it!

3) Most people when caught committing a crime will submit to the
arrest and other processes without much resistance - because again the
likely consequence of resisting arrest is worse than the consequences
of submitting. If mass-murder carries the same sentence as
shoplifting, desperate criminals will put *everyone* at increased
risk.

So we need worse sentences for bad offences.
We could bring back the screw and let them generate power for their food.
The worse the offence the more they have to generate.
That should get the backing of the green party. 8-)

Yes, I'm sure you would be far more comfortable living in the
middle-ages. Or perhaps even less civilised - as a caveman?

--
cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:04:38 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?

That would indicate that vandals had broken the security fences, etc. and
that police action was required to find them.

How do you know it was not the children who did it?

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:22:14 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?


Straw man strikes again. Grow up for heaven's sake.

If you cannot see the connection, it's you who needs to grow up.

--
Cynic

I would be very interested to know if any of you have experience behind bars

--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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





"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f20328b.961227750@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:03:29 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

I could make prison work.

Prison does work, prisoners don't offend against the public while they
are
locked up.
All you need to do is keep the re-offenders in there.

Ah. Someone who believes that every crime should carry a life
sentence.

Who? You?
I didn't say that.

How else am I supposed to interpret your view that re-offenders
"should be kept in there [prison]"?

Try using your brain and try to figure out the consequences
of such a policy.

Try reading what I said.

I did. It is apparently yourself who is unable to see the obvious
consequence of your statement.

1) About 20% of the UK working population has a criminal record.
Having a life sentence for all crimes would therefore result in 1
person in 5 being in prison. That's a heck of a lot of prisons, and a
heck of a lot of non-productive people for everyone else to support.

How many of those are re-offenders?
Shirly not all of them.

Enough to make the result a very high proportion of the population.

2) Most people in prison can be trusted not to try to escape, because
the consequence of escaping is far worse than the consequence of
sitting out their sentence. If everyone was inside for life, there is
essentially nothing to lose, and riots and escape attempts would be
extremely frequent, requiring much higher (= more expensive) security
at all prisons.

Irrelevant.

Of course it is not irrelevant. It is *you* who will have to pay for
it!

3) Most people when caught committing a crime will submit to the
arrest and other processes without much resistance - because again the
likely consequence of resisting arrest is worse than the consequences
of submitting. If mass-murder carries the same sentence as
shoplifting, desperate criminals will put *everyone* at increased
risk.

So we need worse sentences for bad offences.
We could bring back the screw and let them generate power for their food.
The worse the offence the more they have to generate.
That should get the backing of the green party. 8-)

Yes, I'm sure you would be far more comfortable living in the
middle-ages. Or perhaps even less civilised - as a caveman?

--
cynic

Again I ask. Do you have experience of behind bars and the prison regime?

--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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





"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f203545.961925484@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:04:38 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?

That would indicate that vandals had broken the security fences, etc. and
that police action was required to find them.

How do you know it was not the children who did it?

--
Cynic

Again I ask. Do you have experience of behind bars and the prison regime?


--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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





"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f203583.961988000@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:22:14 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?


Straw man strikes again. Grow up for heaven's sake.

If you cannot see the connection, it's you who needs to grow up.

--
Cynic

On Jan 25, 10:04*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

They fequently say that prison doesn't work and doesn't deter
re-offending. I've always wondered that even if prison doesn't work
for many of those incarcerated, do long sentences deter those that
have never been in trouble from getting into a life of crime in the
first place?

I could make prison work.

Quite amazing the confidence some have in their abilities.


No-one would want to go in my prisons.