QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

JonnyBravo

Really2 wrote: »

Not that I want one but if the legal system went down that route could they not do a death row type incarceration (say 10-15 years in jail) and retrials allowed on new data that could prove innocence .

Most probably not fool prof and completely impractical but the only real way to avoid wrong conviction would be open up the time to prove innocence/ appeal.

As you say not fool proof. No length of time is enough to ensure completely failsafe convictions. A quick google shows this.

Really2 wrote: »

Incarceration is the way forward IMHO but I presume the right wing side of thing is how do you get people who recommit serious crime down to 0.00%.

Not really possible is it?

Really2 wrote: »

I presume for every wrong murder conviction there would be not far off as many murderers who go on to commit serious crimes after release.

This is the interesting question. One I have toyed with before.
Indeed there must be a system where the benefit to society is greater with a death penalty. One where a very good justice system makes very few mistakes and the lives saved outweigh this. Is this good enough though?
Again, IMO, only if you are prepared for the one mistake to be your daughter/son/mother etc.

Really2 wrote: »

This thread I a tin of worms, I wish I never posted in.
I think from my point of view both stand points of right wing and left wing have faults but both are so far apart a happy medium is impossible.

Can of worms indeed but interesting on many levels...... once we get past people who throw around silly rhetoric without thinking of the consequences that is.

Really2 wrote: »

Unless life term meant life Incarceration perhaps. (that would be my preferred punishment TBH)

Harsher prison sentences and conditions? I echo most comments on here. Absolutely agree.

JonnyBravo

StevieJ wrote: »

Have we all seen the Green Mile

Fraid not. The documentary "14 days in May" changed the way I felt about the death sentence back in the '87.

Really2

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Harsher prison sentences and conditions? I echo most comments on here. Absolutely agree.

Life of moderating this forum.
Yes working for free and selling the goods to fund the prison system seems a no brainer to me and perhaps a few less "mod Cons".

JonnyBravo

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the death sentence could be reserved for cases where there is zero chance of an incorrect decision. all convictions must be "beyond reasonable doubt"

So you're sticking to your point, no matter that you can't answer my question with a "yes"

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but granted, that does not mean 100%. However, there are cases where we are 100% sure. Why not use it then?

There are no truly 100% cases. Granted plenty of them, most even, appear it and turn out to be so - but a few, and it only needs to be a few, appear to be 100% and actually aren't. It is impossible to devise a rule which identifies the 100% with 100% certainty.

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

explain where my views have been the same as hitler's. I think you will find they are not.

as i have said many times this is the last resort of a lefty. you have to shout homophobe, racist etc. you just can't accept that your ideas are flawed and wrong.

I couldn't be any further from hitler and find the comparison offensive. I believe in freedom for all, except the criminals. I have no problem with any religions, sexuality or anything similar. I have no problem with drink or drugs - in fact I would legalise all drugs. addicts are not criminals. I merely have a problem with the disrespectful and benefit scrounging elements of society plus the non-jobs in the public sector who are constantly indulged by lefty idiots.

You see Horsey, when you post like that you come across as a relatively intelligent person...........and then you go and spoil it all:D

Most of that makes a lot of sense, and is completely in line with my own thinking (:eek::eek::eek::eek:). I personally have a large problem with benefit frauds but I balance that by being equally condemnatory of all fraud. I have a problem with "non-jobs" in the public sector, but not one with paying for many things that you possibly do not feel necessary or worthwhile and I do.

But you had to do the intellectually challenged "lefty idiots" bit (need rollyeyes):D

StevieJ

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Fraid not. The documentary "14 days in May" changed the way I felt about the death sentence back in the '87.

Looks similar to the Green Mile, here is a summary of that doc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqhdYMnB6gA

lemonjelly

lemonjelly wrote: »

Now who is a fool?

From the Income Support regulations reg 21(3), JSA regulations (reg 85(4)), ESA regulations (reg 69(2)). housing benefit regulations (reg7(14)), & council tax benefit regulations (reg 8(5))


you count as a prisoner if you are

• detained in custody awaiting trial or sentence or following imprisonment
• on temporary release under specific provisions

In addition you do not satisfy the labour market conditions.

If you are classed as a prisoner you cannot claim attendance allowance, bereavement benefits, disability living allowance, carers allowance, employment support allowance, incapacity benefit, maternity allowance, reduced earnings allowance, retirement allowance, retirement pension or severe disablement allowance, or maternity/paternity pay (section 113(1)(b) social security contributory benefits act 1992, & regulation 2 Social Security (great britain) regulations.


There you are. The legislation applicable to the UK, with sources. Go & reference it.

Who really is a fool? The one who believes a tabloid paper stating prisoners get £2.50 a week & this is the welfare benefits system? Or the person quoting relevant legislation expressly prohibiting what you say?

I will await your apology, as clearly I have proved you wrong...

Hey, stop arguing no-one answers your questions.

You asserted that prisoners get benefits.

Here (above) is the DIRECT legislation which says they don't.

So, on my side of the arguement, I am giving you evidence on a number of pieces of legislation.

You have quoted 1 piece of bad journalism - & that was from the daily express at that.

So, do you still really believe prisoners get welfare benefits?

You gat any response to my knocking your arguement down? Or is it just insults from now on...

moggylover

tomterm8 wrote: »

to be fair, it doesn't stop the first crime, but criminals exposed to it certainly have a low recidivism rate.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Unless they hang the wrong man:eek::eek:

never-in-doubt

moggylover wrote: »

and another for getting into a fight and causing more damage than intended:D.

Frank. by any chance? Or coincidence :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

moggylover

ninky wrote: »

white_horse why don't you move to somewhere with sharia law? it sounds like you would quite like their sense of justice.

Ninky, there is much of sharia law that makes perfect common sense, and some which is far better based in ethics and morals than our own system. I believe that the problem here is more that for Horsey only extreme "revenge" type punishments are acceptable and yet in the past (and under sharia law) they did not produce the required results and reduce criminal activity.

Furthermore, cases like Venables and Thompson are very rare and I look back to my own "gut reaction" when Mary Bell killed. I was almost exactly the same age as her, and I was frightened that someone my own age could do that, but felt so very, very sorry for her because I saw a child, just like myself and understood instinctively that something had gone badly wrong for her.

In truth, I know for certain that were someone to attack my own kids, and I had ABSOLUTE proof of who that person was then the Police had better be pdq at getting him put away safely:o. I would consider my actions wrong: but am not convinced that I could restrain myself.:o Under Sharia Law that revenge killing would be more acceptable than it is under our own laws and there is a part of me that says that the victim or their family is entitled to this retribution, but my head tells me that would be open to far too much abuse and is not a workable system. Often in "murders" there is another side to the story (although NOT suggesting there is in the case of Venables and Thompson) and the family may well not be in a position to look at that rationally.

I admit to a further degree of hypocrisy in my beliefs as well because there is a part of me that ALWAYS wants to go off on one regarding kiddy fiddlers and rapists, but I do try very hard not to because I don't see it as productive:o (or intelligent:o) as it is just a gut reaction.