On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

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

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.

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?

Me, no, which is why I'm asking you to share that experience -
unfortunately you seem reluctant to do so.

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.

Or got bored with you not reading what is written and just repeating the
same tired points?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:20:34 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

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. =A0If 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.

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

Unless the system has more than one backup (which many life support
systems do have). And the backup only has to last until the patient
is transferred to a different system, or until the proimary power
returns - making the exposure time to a second failure very small.

The presence of a single backup means that the risk of both systems
failing is an order of magnitude less than the risk of failure due to
a fault in a part of the system that does not have a backup. Once the
risk becomes small enough, it is perfectly acceptable to discount it.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:27:38 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

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.

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

You would be wrong on both counts.

Perhaps you have never been falsely accused of a crime and become the
subject of vigilante attacks?

--
Cynic

En el artículo
roups.com, harry escribió:

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.

You are Sheriff Joe Arpaio* and I claim my $5.

* google it.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , Frank
Erskine escribió:

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

I gave up and plonked him.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

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

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.


Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times
bigger than ours.

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?

Me, no, which is why I'm asking you to share that experience -
unfortunately you seem reluctant to do so.

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.

Or got bored with you not reading what is written and just repeating the
same tired points?


--
Moving things in still pictures

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:33:05 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is
going, the better chance of survival.

Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all.

For all sensible people however, it is a question of assessing the
risk/reward ratio and taking the risk if the ratio falls below a
certain threshold. Most things we do contains *some* element of risk.
The question is *not* whether something bad happened as a result of a
person taking a risk, but whether the risk taken was reasonable in the
circumstances or not.

If everyone were to drive in a manner that eliminated *all* risk of
causing death, modern society would not be able to survive.

--
Cynic

En el artículo 4f200e57.951959890@localhost, Cynic
escribió:

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

Oh look, another straw man.

1) lines are fenced off
2) there are warning signs
3) it's up to their parents and teachers to educate them in the dangers

this is local to me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-14013794

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Dale-Fleckner-
16-killed-electrocuted-Merseyside-railway-line-tried-retrieve-ball.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...7/04/teenager-
electrocuted-collecting-football-from-railway-line-115875-23247004/

http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news/local-wirral-
news/tm_headline=wirral-teen-dale-fleckner-electrocuted-trying-to-find-
football-inquest-told%26method=full%26objectid=30139375%26siteid=80 491-n
ame_page.html


--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote:

"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



Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs -
both ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment.

--
Moving things in still pictures

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f20624d.973454250@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:33:05 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is
going, the better chance of survival.

Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all.

For all sensible people however, it is a question of assessing the
risk/reward ratio and taking the risk if the ratio falls below a
certain threshold. Most things we do contains *some* element of risk.
The question is *not* whether something bad happened as a result of a
person taking a risk, but whether the risk taken was reasonable in the
circumstances or not.

If everyone were to drive in a manner that eliminated *all* risk of
causing death, modern society would not be able to survive.

--
Cynic


Always amuses me when the unions say that they 'Will work to rule'. Why
aren't they 'always' working to rule and setting an example? What are
'rules' for? ....... Not that I have much time for unions anyway. They want
to run a business without putting their neck on the block and taking the
risk.

Mike

--

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

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

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

"®i©ardo" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote:

"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



Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs - both
ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment.

--
Moving things in still pictures


Done the Puppy Walking Scheme and had ex Guide Dogs. :-)

Mike


--

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

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

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

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:10:27 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

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.

"Dangerous" is simply a line in the sand separating what is
subjectively considered to be an acceptable risk from what is
subjectively considered to be an unacceptable risk. That line will be
in different places for different people.

One person who is driving at a speed that you consider to be "safe"
might have or cause a fatal accident, whilst another person driving at
a speed that you consider to be "dangerous" may complete every journey
without incident. Perhaps due purely to chance. Perhaps due to the
faster driver having superior driving skills, or having a car with
superior handling characteristics. After all, you can only assess
what speed is "safe" by reference to your *own* driving ability and
experiences, or what you perceive as being an average driving ability.
A person with problems of cognition or concentration, or slow reflexes
might be dangerous when driving far below a speed that you would
consider perfectly safe. And vice-versa.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:19:36 +0000, The Grey Man
wrote:

This thread is about whether it is a "good thing" if criminals are
killed as a result of their criminal action

What is your point?

Are you suggesting that if someone who **chooses** to break the law
(and quite probably inflict serious grief and trauma upon the victim)
should happen to die as a result of their **chosen** action, that
might not necessarily be a bad thing?

No, I am suggesting the complete opposite. Do try to keep up.

Amongst the many thousands of new "you're not allowed to say this,
think that" laws NuLabour introduced (Google Emma West), your views
must contravene at least one of them.

Quite possibly, but I have always been opposed to such laws.

--
Cynic

On 25/01/2012 20:25, 'Mike' wrote:
"®i©ardo" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote:

"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



Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs -
both ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment.

--
Moving things in still pictures


Done the Puppy Walking Scheme and had ex Guide Dogs. :-)

Mike



Well, we started with the puppy walking and did about fifteen, and then
moved on to the retired ones.

What a joy, especially taking on the retired ones and seeing them relax
and then enjoy themselves to the full for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps we've been spoilt on the dog front, given the extensive training
that the youngsters required - it rarely turned out a rogue, if ever.

Regards

Ri©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 25/01/2012 20:17, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

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

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.


Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times
bigger than ours.

And how much bigger is their prison population? Yup, it's 22 times
bigger. UK 140-odd per 100,000 people, US 740-odd per 100,000 people.

That's a huge difference.