dibbleyuk Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 This makes me sick!!! 2yrs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I see what you're saying but bear in mind Mr Kerr is a frail pensioner; any scum low enough to attack such a person deserves little more than death by lethal injection, via a rusty needle in the japs-eye. Regardless of whether he intended to kill him or not. Actually - that was precisely the point I was leading up to! I agree with you entirely. Anyone who attacks someone like this deserves the same harsh penalty regardless of the outcome (although it would ideally be great to be able to differentiate based on intent, it's so speculative that it's impossible, and leaves too many loopholes for evil, overpayed lawyers to manipulate). To go one step further, I also don't believe it should be limited by the fact that the victim was a "frail pensioner". Anybody who attacks anyone like this, regardless of their target's age, vulnerability or ability to defend themself should suffer the same fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 You're really going for this 'change the law' thing aren't you? I'm all for it!! We need some justice, people should earn their human rights by what they do from age 5 (for example), do bad and have some points taken away, punishment then depends on how many human rights points you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Ooo - HR points! I like it. Although isn't it suggesting that we're allowed to do a certain number of "bad things" before we're punished? That's virtually encouraging people to do bad stuff, isn't it? I have a similar opinion with "totting up" speeding points: either speeding is okay or not, yes? Why are you allowed to get away with it 3 (or so) times before you're punished? Also ASBOs. Isn't an ASBO basically a way of saying "you've done something bad and that's okay, just don't do it again". Errrr - either it was wrong first time or not (people who really don't know right from wrong, like your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 That's why you need to start it from a young (ish) age, so say someone who's 38 with a clean record goes and mugs someone (for reasons unknown), the punishment would be a telling off, fine maybe and take some of his/her points away (half?). A 20 year old with very few points (due to drug crime and bullying at school) mugs someone, gets 4 years in prison and all remaining points removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheefa Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I'd love to of met this 22 year old. I believe in serious payback and that fuk wouldn't last 2 minutes when I pick him up and put him through a Chipper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 But that then implies that it's okay for me to go and mug someone as long as I wait until I'm 38 to do so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 But that then implies that it's okay for me to go and mug someone as long as I wait until I'm 38 to do so! Not really, just says you've done nothing wrong your whole life so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this case, if you carry on doing wrong from now on you'll have less points and so will face increasingly heftier punishments! Those who don't intend to do wrong will have an easy life, occasionally doing small things won't really matter as the punishment will be small. Those who are gits and get pleasure from doing wrong will be continually punished even for minor infractions, until they can prove they have changed (or get the death sentence (0 points!!)). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I like the idea, and it sounds slightly more tolerant than mine, allowing people to make a few minor "mistakes" in their lives. I guess I just prefer zero tolerance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Well that's the other option, an eye for an eye (do unto others as you would have them do unto you etc.), in which case this guy would've been beaten to death!! The problem then though, is that if he hadn't killed the old man, his punishment would've been to be pissed on! Whereas in my system if he'd been a git all his life, pissing on a wall could've resulted in him being beaten to death!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 No - my theory is not revenge-based at all. It really is zero tolerance. If it is deemed to be a crime, ANYONE who pisses on a wall gets punished. ANYONE who assaults another person gets punished. Everybody gets the same punishment for the same crime, regardless of their previous behaviour in life. The only problem is how do you punish people. At the moment, people get ASBOs, get fines, driving bans etc. all of which are meaningless punishments as they get ignored in the majority of cases. You can't put them in our prisons, because it costs the tax payers too much. You can't make the prisons cheaper because of human rights. You can't even ship all the crims off to Oz any more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 So someone caught shop lifting for the first time should get a prison sentence the same way as someone with a history of shop lifting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Yep. Shoplifting is a crime, isn't it? Why is it any different getting caught stealing once or caught stealing 10 times? It's still a crime, and everybody (regardless of whether they've done it 10 times, a thousand times or never) knows it's a crime! Of course, the person caught doing it 10 times will have been punished 10 times, but the tenth time they do it is no different to the first time someone else does it. IMO, part of the problem we have at the moment is that lots of teenagers "try" crimes, like shoplifting, mugging, assault, etc. to see what it's like. When they get caught and punished with a "telling off and slap on the wrist", they figure that doing the crime is worth taking the punishment and go on to commit the crime again. We need more serious penalties for first-time offenders in order to act as a real deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Yep. Shoplifting is a crime, isn't it? Why is it any different getting caught stealing once or caught stealing 10 times? It's still a crime, and everybody (regardless of whether they've done it 10 times, a thousand times or never) knows it's a crime! Of course, the person caught doing it 10 times will have been punished 10 times, but the tenth time they do it is no different to the first time someone else does it. IMO, part of the problem we have at the moment is that lots of teenagers "try" crimes, like shoplifting, mugging, assault, etc. to see what it's like. When they get caught and punished with a "telling off and slap on the wrist", they figure that doing the crime is worth taking the punishment and go on to commit the crime again. We need more serious penalties for first-time offenders in order to act as a real deterrent. That's fine, I was just double checking what you meant. So you're for not revealing previous history when it comes to a court case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Never understood that really, surely previous history is one of the most relevant things when deciding whether someone's guilty or not - it's a psych profile right there in your criminal record!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Never understood that really, surely previous history is one of the most relevant things when deciding whether someone's guilty or not - it's a psych profile right there in your criminal record!!!! But snooze's punishment only for the crime discounts that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 But snooze's punishment only for the crime discounts that. Eh? I'm confused. Are we talking punishment for a crime being adjusted because of previous crimes, or the current rule of using (or not) previous crimes as evidence towards a conviction? You can't punish someone only for this crime if you can't prove they did it or not - for which I personally think we should be able to bring in criminal history as proof of mental state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I don't see why they couldn't just look at the facts - little shite pissing in the street, pensioner does the right thing and tells him to stop etc, shit attacks pensioner, pensioner killed as a result. Surely that screams out for more than 2 years!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Eh? I'm confused. Are we talking punishment for a crime being adjusted because of previous crimes, or the current rule of using (or not) previous crimes as evidence towards a conviction? You can't punish someone only for this crime if you can't prove they did it or not - for which I personally think we should be able to bring in criminal history as proof of mental state. Snooze said (correct me if i'm wrong) if doesn't matter if you have shoplifted once or 10 times the punishment should still be the same. Therefore any evidence of previous convictions shouldn't matter. This is how the judice system works anyway, I just don't think it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 If you've done it 10 times then the punishment should be a lot harsher as it's clear that you're not learning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 If you've done it 10 times then the punishment should be a lot harsher as it's clear that you're not learning But Snooze was saying that the punishments should be harsher anyway - effectively stopping people reoffending - EVER!!! Snooze said (correct me if i'm wrong) if doesn't matter if you have shoplifted once or 10 times the punishment should still be the same. Therefore any evidence of previous convictions shouldn't matter. This is how the judice system works anyway, I just don't think it works. Yeah, and I agree with him in that case, but I was talking about the actual proof of commiting the crime in the first place - someone could go into court and be found innocent and therefore have no punishment - but if they've commited the same crime they're occused of 52 times before; then why don't we take that into account when deciding whether they're guilty or innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Yep - in line with tbourner here. Whilst a suspects previous history should be considered to assess their guilt (from mental predisposition or whatever), it shouldn't mean that their punishment is any worse than anyone elses. If you suggest that someone who has shoplifted 10 times should be locked away for say, 5 years, you may well be correct. What I propose is that the first time someone shoplifts they should get the same punishment (5 years). By waiting until their 10th offence to punish it properly, you're basically condoning people shoplifting 9 times! Kopite suggests that re-offenders should be punished more heavily because "they are not learning". This is, indeed, how things work in current society. What I am suggesting is that the law, and corresponding punishments are NOT a good mechanism of learning - at the moment, we teach people if they break the law that they'll get a slap on the wrist. And then we wonder why they are not learning! If people were taught to respect the law in the first place, they wouldn't even offend once! Unfortunately, this is all a bit utopian, because I'm not sure there's any way of teaching people to respect the law in this way any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 But Snooze was saying that the punishments should be harsher anyway - effectively stopping people reoffending - EVER!!! I know he was saying that, what I'm saying is that even if the person STILL reoffends then the punishment a 2nd time should be exponentionally stronger as if they still reoffended, it's clear that for that particular crim, the first punishment didn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 True. So, shall we set up a vigilante group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schtuv Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I guess I just prefer zero tolerance! That works very well indeed in Singapore. Lovely place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now