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.

To me the relevant criminal action here - what caused the death - is
dangerous driving. That would be the same even if the speed limit was 70
mph. Exceeding a speed limit is not in itself dangerous. Exceeding a
safe speed *is* in itself dangerous.

--
Mike Barnes

AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in
Camp Hill

--

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

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

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





"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
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

AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in
Camp Hill


--

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

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

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





"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
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

AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in
Camp Hill


--

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

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

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





"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
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, 11:36*am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

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. *Even parking in a
no-parking area could result in death. *Do you therefore similarly
wish death on drivers who break the speed limit, and people with
parking infringements?

--
Cynic

If they kill someone then yes.

Why should someone that is speeding and has a child run out and get killed
be treated differently to a speeder who doesn't have a child run out? The
crime is the same only the outcome is different. The difference is not under
the control of the driver and is an easily foreseen circumstance. They are
equally guilty.

Consequences.
You can close your eyes and walk across a highway. Just because you
get away with it the first time doesn't mean you will again.

The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is
going, the better chance of survival.
If the driver were the only one at risk I wouldn't worry.
But you are too selfish to see that he puts everyone at risk.

On Jan 25, 12:55*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article om,
* *dennis@home wrote:

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.

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.


My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:09:53 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I could make prison work.

Quite amazing the confidence some have in their abilities.

No-one would want to go in my prisons.

But would your treatment of them result in them being more inclined or
less inclined to offend after they were released?

Because I have a strong feeling that the sort of treatment you would
mete out to the inmates would result in making them angry, bitter,
resentful and far more anti-social than when they went in.

--
Cynic

On Jan 25, 1:16*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:25:07 +0000, Steve Walker

wrote:
I can give you an actual example of the problems. My parents' next-door
neighbour suffered from emphysema. He spent his final years at home,
hooked up to a machine that fed him oxygen enriched air. If the power
failed, the battery would last only a short time and the back-up was
bottled oxygen, which would also work if the machine failed in any other
way. However, he was physically unable to turn the oxygen bottle on by
himself. His wife very rarely spent more than a very short time out of
the house because of this, but had to take a chance occassionally. At
one stage she dared not leave the house at all for a fortnight, as cable
TV was being put in through the area and they had twice hit power cables
- without her there, this could have killed him.

If his wife particularly *needed* to leave him for longer than the
battery would last, she would undoubtedly arrange for a more robust
backup system. *If such events were rare, that backup could consist of
merely asking a reliable neighbour to check on him every hour or so.
If it was a frequent requirement, then I am sure that a backup system
could have been fitted that would not require manual intervention.

--
Cynic

Once the backup is in operation, there is no backup.

On Jan 25, 2:16*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson

wrote:
En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

Don't talk shite. Nobody is saying that there should be no punishment,
only that the death penalty is inappropriate.

The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. *Quite a different
matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone.

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

--
Cynic

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

On Jan 25, 4:45*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
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

Obviously, you have never been the victim of a crime and lack the
imagination to see how victims feel.

On Jan 25, 5:19*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:09:53 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I could make prison work.
Quite amazing the confidence some have in their abilities.
No-one would want to go in my prisons.

But would your treatment of them result in them being more inclined or
less inclined to offend after they were released?

Because I have a strong feeling that the sort of treatment you would
mete out to the inmates would result in making them angry, bitter,
resentful and far more anti-social than when they went in.

They could be what they liked as long as they didn't re-offend.

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f2038e2.962850734@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:09:53 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I could make prison work.

Quite amazing the confidence some have in their abilities.

No-one would want to go in my prisons.

But would your treatment of them result in them being more inclined or
less inclined to offend after they were released?

Because I have a strong feeling that the sort of treatment you would
mete out to the inmates would result in making them angry, bitter,
resentful and far more anti-social than when they went in.

--
Cynic


Your strong feeling is wrong.

Have you ever 'actually' talked to a prisoner about a 'harder and more
deterrent' sentence?
Have you 'actually been inside' a prison?

Have a nice evening

Mike

--

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

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

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

On 25/01/2012 17:19, harry wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson

wrote:
En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

Don't talk shite. Nobody is saying that there should be no punishment,
only that the death penalty is inappropriate.

The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. Quite a different
matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone.

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

--
Cynic

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Mike


--

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

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

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

On 25/01/2012 17:31, 'Mike' wrote:

Your strong feeling is wrong.

Have you ever 'actually' talked to a prisoner about a 'harder and more
deterrent' sentence?
Have you 'actually been inside' a prison?

Do you think your prison sentences were too easy?

What would you have changed about them to encourage you to not re-offend?