On 25/01/2012 18:20, 'Mike' wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
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?

Yes

Make them a deterrent

Did the thought of going to prison not act as a deterrent to you when
you did your crimes? Would you have acted differently if say the typical
sentence had been hard labour?

Please post where I said "I" was a prisoner

Kind regards.


--

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

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

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





"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/01/2012 18:20, 'Mike' wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
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?

Yes

Make them a deterrent

Did the thought of going to prison not act as a deterrent to you when you
did your crimes? Would you have acted differently if say the typical
sentence had been hard labour?

On 25/01/2012 18:32, 'Mike' wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/01/2012 18:20, 'Mike' wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
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?

Yes

Make them a deterrent

Did the thought of going to prison not act as a deterrent to you when
you did your crimes? Would you have acted differently if say the
typical sentence had been hard labour?

Please post where I said "I" was a prisoner

Well, I did ask you if your prison sentences were too easy, and you did
say yes. If you could learn to quote properly such confusions might not
arise.

I'd hoped you might be able to offer some useful insight into why people
offend and what's necessary to deter them, but it seems you can't.

Remember the tales of people pickpocketing in the crowds for the
gallows? The death penalty wasn't a sufficient deterrent, why do you
think other things will be?

Come back when you know what you are talking about.

--

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

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

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





"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/01/2012 18:32, 'Mike' wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/01/2012 18:20, 'Mike' wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
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?

Yes

Make them a deterrent

Did the thought of going to prison not act as a deterrent to you when
you did your crimes? Would you have acted differently if say the
typical sentence had been hard labour?

Please post where I said "I" was a prisoner

Well, I did ask you if your prison sentences were too easy, and you did
say yes. If you could learn to quote properly such confusions might not
arise.

I'd hoped you might be able to offer some useful insight into why people
offend and what's necessary to deter them, but it seems you can't.

Remember the tales of people pickpocketing in the crowds for the gallows?
The death penalty wasn't a sufficient deterrent, why do you think other
things will be?

On 25/01/2012 19:05, 'Mike' wrote:
Come back when you know what you are talking about.

You claim to know what you're talking about : Why not share? Or is your
knowledge limited to "harder sentences will deter them, common sense innit"?

In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been?

Have you seen the inside of a prison? Not what they show on TV and what the
'tree huggers' and the 'do gooders' choose to show, but life inside?

Come back when you know what you are talking about. I get quite used to
being attacked on urg. They have all cleared off in shame with their tails
between their legs.

Kindest regards

Mike

--

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

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

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





"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/01/2012 19:05, 'Mike' wrote:
Come back when you know what you are talking about.

You claim to know what you're talking about : Why not share? Or is your
knowledge limited to "harder sentences will deter them, common sense
innit"?

"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]"?

Well it doesn't include first offences does it.


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.

The only obvious thing is that multiple offenders should end up in prison
where they can't reoffend against the public.


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?

Then what would we do with the offenders, kill them?

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in
Camp Hill

Was that for one sentence or multiple?

"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.

The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to
protect the public from danger.
If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault.
If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then get
hurt its their own fault.

Don't give up the day job to become a comedian. You will never make it

--

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

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

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





"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in
Camp Hill

Was that for one sentence or multiple?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

And when that fails?

"harry" wrote in message
...
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.

The circumstances are exactly the same, its only by chance that the one
driver kills someone.
Now why should the two be treated differently?

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.

Its you who is assuming I think the one that kills should be treated less
harshly.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:31 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Don't give up the day job to become a comedian. You will never make it

Mike - please don't top post. When you do, all semblance of sequence
is totally lost.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank which newsgroup are you the netnanny?

--

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

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

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





"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:31 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Don't give up the day job to become a comedian. You will never make it

Mike - please don't top post. When you do, all semblance of sequence
is totally lost.

--
Frank Erskine

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:


"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.

The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to
protect the public from danger.
If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault.

If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then
get hurt its their own fault.

some 'children' are quite capable of breaking and entering. Their parents
fault?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16