Shootings in US schools (1 Viewer)

[scott-atkinson]

Damn, this is something we can't blame the Yanks for

Here's what happens when the bingo brigade are whipped into mass hysteria by a Sunday rag clutching at fear to increase it's circulation

Rich,

Read the articles with much interest, although I noted that they were over 4 years old, but you emphasised a valid point that mass hysteria driven by a national news, (the word news used in the loosest sense of the word) paper causes people to react in erratic ways.

I am not sure however if the same effect would be experienced if there was a public national register, as people would only use it if they were concerned.

I do however feel that these people should have their human rights revoked.

Interesting to see what our anglo cousins have to say across the pond.

 

[Rich]

Women can be castrated as well, but I am not going to go into that. I am just of the opinion that something more needs to be done. especially when a person gets 14 years for 26 counts of ra**. that in my opinion is rediculous and the judge in question should be ashamed of himself.

again all my own opinion

I think that judges have to work within the framework of the law, there was a case here recently were one of these scumbags was given three life sentences

 

[scott-atkinson]

I think that judges have to work within the framework of the law, there was a case here recently were one of these scumbags was given three life sentences

Rich,

I feel it is time that our justice system was re-evaluated, too many of our judges are not in touch with reality.

Some of the recent press I have seen on killing people by drunk drivers and they only getting minimal sentances, or even let off, and then we send a pensioner to jail for not paying council tax.

It is all wrong.

There should be mandatory sentences for mandatory crimes.

With murder and sex offence againt children top of the pile. With life imprisonment, and life should mean life, you should die in jail.

Oh, dear I am getting angry.

Although I do have personal experience of these sorts of crimes, so my anger I feel is valid.

 

[Rich]

I can't argue with your sentiment except to say that our system of justice is based on the premise of rehabilitation, except in rare circumstances and not the American system of revenge

 

[jsanders]

I can't argue with your sentiment except to say that our system of justice is based on the premise of rehabilitation, except in rare circumstances and not the American system of revenge

That's not entirely true for either country is it?

 

[Rich]

That's not entirely true for either country is it?

Ye s

 

[Matt Greatorex]

With life imprisonment, and life should mean life, you should die in jail.

The only problem I could see with this is that once someone is in prison, they hardly suffer as we might like them to. They lose their freedom, true, but they're cared for, fed, clothed, educated (if they so wish), etc. all at the taxpayers' expense (to use a cliche). I agree that once someone is sentenced to life they should get life, but I don't know how happy I'd be knowing that they still reasonably healthy. Look at Brady and Hindley, for example. They should have been left in a room to rot, but prison reformers are never going to allow people like that to suffer as they should.

The obvious alternative - as already discussed - is the death penalty, but that brings it's own set of problems.

One tempting option is to release them back into the community and remove
their legal right to protection from the police. Unrealistic, I know, given the mistakes that would inevitably occur and the innocent people who'd suffer, but still tempting.

 

[KenHigg]

I can't argue with your sentiment except to say that our system of justice is based on the premise of rehabilitation, except in rare circumstances and not the American system of revenge

That's an interesting way to put it - I would have said ours was based on penalty. Thus 'penal' system. Though I agree it appears as though it's 'revenge' when you kill some one that kills

 

[Matt Greatorex]

I can't argue with your sentiment except to say that our system of justice is based on the premise of rehabilitation, except in rare circumstances and not the American system of revenge

Doesn't the US system vary from state to state? I know there are many consistencies and that many laws are the same from one place to another, but the punishment meted out definitely suggests a different attitude toward criminals in different parts of the country.

How many states still have the death penalty? Of those, how many still use it? How many states consider rehabilitation the key aim, as opposed to punishment?

I'm not saying either is right, just that there doesn't see to be any one 'American system'. The UK is able to maintain a more consistent approach to enforcing the laws and assigning penalties due in no small part to our smaller size.

 

[scott-atkinson]

I can't argue with your sentiment except to say that our system of justice is based on the premise of rehabilitation, except in rare circumstances and not the American system of revenge

Rich,

Do you agree that our justice system needs to be over hauled, as it is not effective and sends the wrong message out to would be criminals?

 

[Rich]

Rich,

Do you agree that our justice system needs to be over hauled, as it is not effective and sends the wrong message out to would be criminals?

As our great and glorious leader said only the other day, we need a public debate over whether criminals human rights supersede those of the victim.
No Bliar, whay we need is for you and your missus to pi** off and the country to return to common sense.

Having said that I think you'll find that the figures for re-offending do support the rehabilitation approach.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Rich,

Do you agree that our justice system needs to be over hauled, as it is not effective and sends the wrong message out to would be criminals?

I should have included this on my last post. I don't say that the UK system is ideal - far from it - just fairly consistent in application.

 

[scott-atkinson]

I should have included this on my last post. I don't say that the UK system is ideal - far from it - just fairly consistent in application.

Matt, Rich,

What about the consistency of sentences that are handed out by our judges!

I do not feel that there is any consistency there, as each judge will do what he feels like on the day.

I feel that mandatory sentences for certain crimes is the way forward.

 

[KenHigg]

Matt, Rich,

What about the consistency of sentences that are handed out by our judges!

I do not feel that there is any consistency there, as each judge will do what he feels like on the day.

I feel that mandatory sentences for certain crimes is the way forward.

I have no problem rehabilitating a drug addict. As far as someone who commits a violent crime, I'd say our first responsibility is to prevent it from happening again...

 

[Rich]

Matt, Rich,

What about the consistency of sentences that are handed out by our judges!

I do not feel that there is any consistency there, as each judge will do what he feels like on the day.

I feel that mandatory sentences for certain crimes is the way forward.

Yes except that there are often mitigating circumstances that we the public are not aware of. The most common one is when one pleads guilty to a violent crime, their sentence is actually reduced to spare the victim the ordeal of the witness box. Should we actually remove that lever from our justice system

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Matt, Rich,

What about the consistency of sentences that are handed out by our judges!

I do not feel that there is any consistency there, as each judge will do what he feels like on the day.

I feel that mandatory sentences for certain crimes is the way forward.

I don't know enough about specific cases to comment, so you may have a point. I know there are differences.

The problem with mandatory sentencing is that - if it isn't a spur of the moment crime of passion - the offender will automatically know the risk involved in advance. For example, hypothetically, I know that carrying a gun will get me ten years. I also know that armed robbery with a baseball bat will get me ten years. What's to stop me deciding to carry a gun - and so increasing the risk of killing someone - if I'm threatened while carrying out the crime? It's no more risk to me. If, on the other hand, I know that a bat carries a lighter sentence, I may stick with that.

I appreciate the sentence isn't always a deterrent, but in those cases where it is, it could be used to calculate exactly how much one can get try to get away with, without an increased risk. In those cases where it isn't a consideration, it's irrelevant anyway. It may make the average person feel better to know that a person who does X gets Y years in prison - a fair enough reason in itself, some would argue - but it won't necessarily reduce the number of crimes committed. This is especially true for those crimes considered the worst (sex offences, murder, etc.) as these are very often carried out in the heat of the moment, so the possible punishment isn't even thought about.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Yes except that there are often mitigating circumstances that we the public are not aware of. The most common one is when one pleads guilty to a violent crime, their sentence is actually reduced to spare the victim the ordeal of the witness box. Should we actually remove that lever from our justice system

I agree that the victim should not suffer any more, but at the end of the day the criminal still commited the crime why should there sentence be reduced just because they admitted it.

It is the same with the Manslaughter charge as opposed to murder charge, far too many people are reduced sentences because they please manslaughter.

Now I do believe that sometimes murder is commited in an instance of madness, and this should be reflected in the sentence but that should be for a jury to decide not the criminals lawyer her puts in a plea of manslughter due to dimished responsibility.

 

[Rich]

I agree that the victim should not suffer any more, but at the end of the day the criminal still commited the crime why should there sentence be reduced just because they admitted it.

It is the same with the Manslaughter charge as opposed to murder charge, far too many people are reduced sentences because they please manslaughter.

Now I do believe that sometimes murder is commited in an instance of madness, and this should be reflected in the sentence but that should be for a jury to decide not the criminals lawyer her puts in a plea of manslughter due to dimished responsibility.

Well I hate to tell you this but again our great and glorious leader is toying with the idea of introducing the American system of first degree murder etc. etc.

As for manslaughter vs murder we have to be very careful, one is based on intent the other not, very difficult and I think you'll find that juries here are often given the option of choosing either depending on the evidence

 

[Rich]

Look at Brady and Hindley, for example. They should have been left in a room to rot, but prison reformers are never going to allow people like that to suffer as they should.
.

We have discussed that pair here before, I'm sure that Hindley was only supposed to serve 20yrs, various home secretary’s refused to release her fully aware of public opinion. Brady of course is criminally insane, he's wanted to die for some time now. As far as I know he's still being force fed to deny him his wishes

 

[scott-atkinson]

Guys,

I have enjoyed our little discussion, it is good to be topical every now and then.