MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Politics, The Final Frontier (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 82, 83, 84 ... 104, 105, 106  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What would happen if the jury, when delivering their verdict in a capital case, had to mow the man down with submachine guns provided by the court? After all that's what they voted for.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think the question is wrong, ie should we have capital punishment, or life imprisonment, when both are equally functionable in that they serve to help eliminate the murderous terrorist, rapist bully, etc from the gene pool.

The real problem with the modern justice sysyem is surely a mistaken belief that we can rehabilitate or cure, and release those who are worse afflicted with the murderer, terrorist, rapist bully gene. I assure you this is nonsense. No! We have to give up on those worst afflicted. I know this will go against the grain of many professionals who view "the worst as a better challenge," but this idea that "the worse they are the more professionals they need" (they actually feel sorry for 'em) is really stupid. They are incurable. It's a total waste of resources. Sorry but for the worst it really needs to be hard labour or death. Or, come to think about it, possibly both, because they really should pay back via hard labour first, rather than easily just disappearing by lethal injection? For lesser offenders, say thieves, vandals, joy riders, I know this will be unpopular with AEists but sharing a cell with a pyschotic murderer for a few months plus rehabilitation is the best path.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think the question is wrong, ie should we have capital punishment, or life imprisonment, when both are equally functionable in that they serve to help eliminate the murderous terrorist, rapist bully, etc from the gene pool.

This is not an AE question. It's up to every country what they want to do. We may (or may not) be able to comment on the methodology.

The real problem with the modern justice sysyem is surely a mistaken belief that we can rehabilitate or cure, and release those who are worse afflicted with the murderer, terrorist, rapist bully gene. I assure you this is nonsense.

I assure you everyone has been saying this is nonsense apart from a brief period in the twentieth century when such modish cant was allowed its head.

No! We have to give up on those worst afflicted.

We have given up on categorising 'affliction' apart from a a brief period in the twentieth century when such modish cant was allowed its head.

I know this will go against the grain of many professionals who view "the worst as a better challenge," but this idea that "the worse they are the more professionals they need" (they actually feel sorry for 'em) is really stupid. They are incurable. It's a total waste of resources.

Honestly, Wiley, this just isn't so anywhere. There are a great many people in prison that don't need 'curing' because their crime was clearly a one-off but everyone else in prison is, to some extent or other, there because they are career criminals who may or may not decide to continue it as a career when they get out. But notions of 'curing' them of criminality have long been abandoned on any serious level. (There are still 'schemes' but these are sops to liberal sentiment.) I exempt from this people that are clinically insane and in prison which is a separate question.

Sorry but for the worst it really needs to be hard labour or death. Or, come to think about it, possibly both, because they really should pay back via hard labour first, rather than easily just disappearing by lethal injection? For lesser offenders, say thieves, vandals, joy riders, I know this will be unpopular with AEists but sharing a cell with a pyschotic murderer for a few months plus rehabilitation is the best path.

It will be neither popular nor unpopular with AE-ists because it simply isn't an AE question. Every society is entitled to punish criminals however they like. We may (or may not) be able to comment on the methodology.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiles wrote:

The real problem with the modern justice sysyem is surely a mistaken belief that we can rehabilitate or cure, and release those who are worse afflicted with the murderer, terrorist, rapist bully gene. I assure you this is nonsense.

Mick wrote:

I assure you everyone has been saying this is nonsense apart from a brief period in the twentieth century when such modish cant was allowed its head.


I agree they are now brazen about releases these days but, if you have a look at what happens in practice, it is still that a decision still gets taken to release serious offenders early (they rarely serve full sentence), then probation or police get told to manage the risk. The premise is that if the offender has the right support (health housing benefits), he (it's mostly he) is less likely, or won't offend. To the extent it is monitored, regression to type, ie reimprisonment, is considered one possible outcome, but the initial safe enough, ie "cured enough", "rehabillitated enough" and the initial determination of a fixed setence with possible early release, still has to be taken. If thery are not cured or rehabillitated, why are we releasing? We previously discussed, I think, the terrorist who killed again on London bridge? Let's take another look.

Usman Khan was originally given an "indeterminate sentence", ie he was considered always to be a risk in 2012. However, by 2013 this was appealed and replaced by a fixed determinate sentence of 16 years but with an additional 5 years to be served on licence. By 2018 Khan is now released but on licence, ie to be risk managed (so notice he has served less than half sentence, even less than the norm). Clearly the risk managemnt failed as he killed again . BTW his fellow Stoke Jihadist, Mohibur Rahmanalso, who was jailed alongside him in 2012, was also released and then convicted of plotting a new terror attack. Khan's solicitor, who had fought for his early release, said he, Mr Sharif, had wanted a very specific jihadist ideology expert to work with his client, because he feared Khan's hate was so deeply-rooted.

What's happening is we have just reached the stage where we are wise enough to risk manage our decisions, but notice this has just resulted in a culture for solicitors and professionals to argue for earlier releases as convicted offenders will be anyway fully risk managed. It's then the "alleged" fault of the support package and the offender managers. "The offender just needs very specific specialist help", as Mr Sharif so helpfully points out. The nonsense is still the same as before, it is just different language and labels. The cant is the same.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I agree they are now brazen about releases these days but, if you have a look at what happens in practice, it is still that a decision still gets taken to release serious offenders early (they rarely serve full sentence) then probation or police get told to manage the risk.

This is neither ad hoc nor 'liberal'. No prison could be operated unless there was a substantial reward for good behaviour.

The premise is that if the offender has the right support (health housing benefits), he (it's mostly he) is less likely, or won't, offend.

This is not the premise. The above is the premise. However, it is demonstrably true that such interventions lower re-offending rates marginally and hence are definitely worth the trivial investment given the cost of re-offending to future victims and the cost of more prison time for the rest of us. There should be more of it, not less.

To the extent it is monitored, regression to type, ie reimprisonment is considered one possible outcome, but the initial safe enough, ie "cured enough", "rehabillitated enough" and the initial determination of a fixed sentence with possible early release, still has to be taken. If thery are not cured or rehabillitated, why are we releasing? We previously discussed, I think, the terrorist who killed again on London bridge? Let's take another look.

When we looked before it was pointed out that none of this was either true or seriously suggested. We happen to live in a society where somebody who commits relatively minor terrorist offences simply cannot be banged up for life. Never mind liberal outrage (never mind my outrage) just consider what effect such a policy would have on terrorist-recruitment.

Usman Khan was originally given an "indeterminate sentence", ie he was considered always to be a risk in 2012. However by 2013 this was appealed and replaced by a fixed determinate sentence of 16 years but with an additional 5 years to be served on licence. By 2018 Khan is now released but on licence, ie to be risk managed (so notice he has served less than half sentence, even less than the norm). Clearly the risk managemnt failed as he killed again. [etc etc]

This is what happens when you live in a decent, humane society. Your policy would have prisons turned into Long Kesh-style training and recruitment camps, and outraged (now mostly Muslim) youth on the outside turning to terrorism. It's completely idiotic to create such a world just because a relatively minor terrorist offender became a major terrorist offender on his release. Times a few others, I've no doubt.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
When we looked before it was pointed out that none of this was either true or seriously suggested. We happen to live in a society where somebody who commits relatively minor terrorist offences simply cannot be banged up for life. Never mind liberal outrage (never mind my outrage) just consider what effect such a policy would have on terrorist-recruitment.


Wiki wrote:

Aside from bombing the London Stock Exchange,[2] the plotters planned the establishment of a jihadist training camp in Azad Kashmir on land owned by one of the suspects, Usman Khan.[6][9] The plotters were monitored by covert listening device and found to be engaged in Holocaust denial by claiming that fewer than 100,000 Jews died in the Holocaust.[10] Other targets included: the US Embassy in London, two rabbis each from a separate synagogue, the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, and Boris Johnson; the plotters had procured their addresses.[11][12] All the conspirators envisioned returning experienced, together with future recruits, from their Kashmiri training camp to execute terror attacks in the UK[13]

The conspirators further reconnoitred several additional targets, including Big Ben, the London Eye, and Westminster Abbey.[14]

The terrorist network was composed of individuals from Birmingham, Cardiff, East London, and Stoke-on-Trent. The main focus of the East London group was to attack targets in the UK. The most active was the Stoke group, which had as primary goal to set up the terrorist camp to be disguised as a madrassa, though bombing pubs in Stoke was also discussed.[4] The Stoke cell was described by the prosecution as having "well developed" field craft, and being concerned about being arrested on account of the other groups' naiveté.[15][16] The Stoke group's sophistication disturbed authorities the most.[e]


These are surely not minor terrorist offences, and Khan was one of the three most dangerous individuals. As someone actively seeking to recruit, train and carry out a series of terrorist acts, to which he actually pleaded guilty, I really can't see what was wrong with the initial indeterminate sentence. Am I missing something? Would we all feel differently if they had successfully carried these attacks out?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You're missing the central point. Sure, the government got it wrong, or the prison staff got it wrong or somebody got it wrong. On this occasion. As it turned out. The system is predicated on nobody being able to get it right every time. It's still miles better than any alternative system.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A stark difference between effective and futile gestures was on show at the England vs Iran match. England, along with six other countries, had agreed that the captain would wear a Rainbow armband. FIFA responded by saying they would be yellow-carded if they did. This is in accordance with FIFA's permanent policy of forbidding the display of political messages by players during any match under their auspices.

Nonetheless, the situation presented an ideal opportunity to show the importance the seven nations attached to the issue. Each captain could have accepted a yellow card, taken off the armband, and each team would have suffered a small, though real, penalty for having taken the action. Sending out a small, though effective, message. Instead they all caved in the most pusillanimous way possible.

The Iranian team, by contrast, stood resolutely mute during the playing of the Iranian national anthem, sending out a message nobody could miss. What penalty they will suffer when they get home remains to be seen.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The latest census figures have just been released showing nearly half the population is 'Christian'. Lumping them in with their co-loonies following different gurus, they may well be in a position to swamp the rest of us. I am not saying that they should all be sent to re-education centres but, honestly, something needs to be done.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
The latest census figures have just been released showing nearly half the population is 'Christian'. Lumping them in with their co-loonies following different gurus, they may well be in a position to swamp the rest of us. I am not saying that they should all be sent to re-education centres but, honestly, something needs to be done.


When you add in those who are woke, which is really updated Christianity, it's about 99.9999% of the country. We are so nice.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In the land of the nice, the nasty are king. Should be kings. We've just got to work harder at it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

...when nurses have to go to foodbanks to feed their families...

This routine statement was not challenged when somebody trotted it out on Newsnight. The dots indicate it was part of a why-o-why litany. Or what in AE we call 'a bogus list'. Let's try some variations

...when parking wardens have to go to foodbanks to feed their families...
...when nurses have to beg for food to feed their families...
...when anyone can stock up on basics from foodbanks if they fancy it...

Turning to the other items on the list...
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
The Iranian team, by contrast, stood resolutely mute during the playing of the Iranian national anthem, sending out a message nobody could miss. What penalty they will suffer when they get home remains to be seen.

The Iranians have just executed (in public) a second protestor. They have executed five hundred and fifty people (for all offences) this year alone and stand second (to China) in the World Execution Table. Although it is a firm AE policy that every country is entitled to follow a law-and-order regime of its own choosing, it is worth reflecting that, historically, there is a close correlation between increasing prosperity for the citizenry and a diminution in the number of state killings of that citizenry found to be necessary to maintain law and order.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
...when nurses have to go to foodbanks to feed their families...

This routine statement was not challenged when somebody trotted it out on Newsnight. The dots indicate it was part of a why-o-why litany. Or what in AE we call 'a bogus list'. Let's try some variations

...when parking wardens have to go to foodbanks to feed their families...
...when nurses have to beg for food to feed their families...
...when anyone can stock up on basics from foodbanks if they fancy it...

Turning to the other items on the list...


Wiley's selection of giving Fray Bentos to the homeless is really taking off. In the food bank donation point at Sainsbury it was full of steak and kidney pies, in fact three quarters of all items were Fray Bentos. The fourth was a tin of baked beans.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can you slip me the address, Wiley?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 82, 83, 84 ... 104, 105, 106  Next

Jump to:  
Page 83 of 106

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group