On 25/01/2012 11:36, dennis@home wrote:
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.

Well, perhaps the speeder who didn't have a child run out picked a road
like the one near me. That still has a speed limit for the school that
closed last September.

Not all speed limits are correct.

Andy

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:30:35 -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.

But your treatment would make it *more* likely that they would
re-offend - and in fact commit worse offences than their original
crime. And having been forced to associate with other criminals, they
would be far more adept at avoiding being caught.

So whilst it might serve to gratify your lust for vengeance to treat
prisoners badly, and will no doubt improve your self-image by
reinforcing the notion that you are "good" and they are "bad", it will
end up increasing crime and making society as a whole all the worse
off.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:31:03 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

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.

Your strong feeling is wrong.

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

Yes.

Have you 'actually been inside' a prison?

Yes

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:26:26 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

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

And when that fails?

Let's try it first, and then cross that bridge. Because it's clear
that our present system doesn't work too well, and nor did the far
harsher system that we used to have.

--
Cynic

"®i©ardo" wrote in message
...
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


We found Labradors the hardest to train. Much preferred Alsatians. The
trouble with those though is that they are a 'one person' dog. Don't like
small yappy dogs.

We would have another Alsatian tomorrow, the trouble is we are away too
often, and, we have a Saloon car. An Estate is a must with big dogs

Mike



--

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

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

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

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:19:11 -0800 (PST), 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.

I'd like to see how you would manage to achieve all those things.
There are not sufficient jobs to go around for people leading a normal
life, so how you would create sufficient jobs to put everyone inside a
prison into paid work is difficult to see. If the work you forced
them to do was purely notional work - such as rock-breaking or
similar, it would not make a profit and so it would actually cost you
*more* to provide those make-work jobs than to lock the prisoners in a
cell where they watch TV all day.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:15:31 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. =A0They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid =A0(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?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.

I see. How much would it cost to provide the facilities? How much to
transport the waste to and from those facillities? How much in
additional security to prevent hardened criminals from using access to
such waste to make weapons etc? And just how accurately do you think
the waste will be sorted when it is done by people who cannot be fired
and are being forced to do the work?

There are a few jobs that you *could* undercut normal businesses by
having a literally captive supply of free labour (the one you suggest
is not one of them) - but then you would put an equal number of
non-criminals out of work.

--
cynic

"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.

Just to point out that you have removed the author of what you quoted and
left me in.
Please try harder.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:17:56 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

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?

Depends on the type of offending. For some offences, my solution
would be to remove the unnecessary laws so that what they are doing is
no longer an offence at all. For most other offences my preference
would be to remove the cause of the offending behaviour in the
long-term and attempt to rehabilitate the person so that they become a
productive member of society rather than a drain.

Only after those things fail should lengthy imprisonment be considered
as a final solution.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:23 -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?


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.

And there is a magic transformation that takes place on a person's
18th birthday?

--
Cynic

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:48:38 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

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?

Could be all sorts of reasons. It is quite common for children who
were raised by very responsible parents to do silly things, or be
pressured by peers into acting against their better judgement.

We can only reduce risks as far as is practical, we cannot eliminate
risks. Sometime bad things happen despite the fact that everyone has
done everything reasonable to attempt to prevent it, and there simply
*isn't* anyone who deserves the blame.

--
Cynic

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f206867.975016218@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:26:26 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

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

And when that fails?

Let's try it first, and then cross that bridge. Because it's clear
that our present system doesn't work too well, and nor did the far
harsher system that we used to have.

--
Cynic


It was tried in the 1970's and it failed. I know because I was involved. I
was on the Training Scheme. I wrote a course for them which gave them a City
and Guilds Certificate. "I" was the writer of the course and "I" was the
City and Guilds Assessor and it was rolled out over the whole Prison System.

I left the Prison Service and went into Industry. I employed an ex prisoner.
He lasted less than six months before he was back inside again. Even before
I came out, a prisoner who had completed a course, was back inside again
within a few months. I saw him in the nick on his return. "What the hell are
you doing here?" I asked him 'Two and a half years', "Why?", 'I went back
home and doffed the bloke who put me inside last time'

One of the prisoners was in for taking cars. "It would be cheaper for the
Government to buy me a car" he said one day. I politely told him that he
should get a job and pay for his car as I had done. I then put a deterrent
scheme to him. "If you were sentenced to 14 days with the proviso that next
time it would be 28 days and when you got to prison all you were doing was
shifting a pile of sand from one end of a corridor, and when that was done
you would shift it all back again, would you think twice before putting your
hand on a car door handle with the view to pinching it, knowing you will be
shifting sand for 28 days and the next term 56 days etc?" He agreed it would
be a deterrent.

Now watch the do gooders jump on me. 'Civil Liberties' etc etc etc. NO,
repeat NO civil liberties when inside.

Mike

--

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

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

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

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 11:36, dennis@home wrote:
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.

Well, perhaps the speeder who didn't have a child run out picked a road
like the one near me. That still has a speed limit for the school that
closed last September.

Not all speed limits are correct.

All speed limits are correct.
They are defined as correct.
They are set for many reasons, safety is just one reason.
If you exceed one then you are breaking the law (unless you are an emergency
vehicle which can exceed some speed limits where they are set for reasons
other than safety).

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f206c2f.975984000@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:17:56 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

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?

Depends on the type of offending. For some offences, my solution
would be to remove the unnecessary laws so that what they are doing is
no longer an offence at all. For most other offences my preference
would be to remove the cause of the offending behaviour in the
long-term and attempt to rehabilitate the person so that they become a
productive member of society rather than a drain.



Only after those things fail should lengthy imprisonment be considered
as a final solution.

So basically you agree with me.

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f206d77.976312093@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:23 -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?


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.

And there is a magic transformation that takes place on a person's
18th birthday?

I think its about 10/12 actually.