Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by luxor:
I

Human rights became properly codified immediately after the second world war and directly because of the systematic atrocities committed by some humans on others. The regime advocating those atrocities also favoured eugenics so that the 'undesirables' didn't "father anymore dregs of society" too. I won't banish people holding those or similar views but I'll argue against them at every opportunity. Their views will become policy in this country only over my dead body.


That isn't half putting a spin on things.
Punishment to fit the crime = Genocide.
The majority of people in this country believe that there is no justice in this country and it does not afford any form of detterent.
The Human rights act has been hijacked by get rich quick solicitors so now everybody has rights but only some have responsibilities.
If you intentionally injure another human being why then should your rights be paramount in every equation.
Luxor
quote:
Originally posted by luxor:
That isn't half putting a spin on things.
Punishment to fit the crime = Genocide.
The majority of people in this country believe that there is no justice in this country and it does not afford any form of detterent.
The Human rights act has been hijacked by get rich quick solicitors so now everybody has rights but only some have responsibilities.
If you intentionally injure another human being why then should your rights be paramount in every equation.

What punishment fits the crime? You were musing on cutting off body parts and stopping reproduction for this 16 year old. You seem to be advocating removal of basic human rights for convicted criminals. There's not much spin required there to show it for what it is.

Where's the source of your claim? In particular that our punishments are no deterrent? Would you consider hanging a deterrent for murder? It's interesting that when the UK hanged people for murder, the murder rate was not zero or anything close to it. Killing someone with a gun carries a minimum sentence of 30 years. Why doesn't that deter some people?

As for rights and responsibilities, who are you claiming has rights but no (concomitant) responsibilities? And which rights? If some has a punchup in a pub, is it okay for the state to torture them? Or perhaps they lose the right not to be attacked and there's a free for all in the community to kick the crap out of them? Is that the state you want?
FM
quote:
Originally posted by luxor:
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by luxor:
I

Human rights became properly codified immediately after the second world war and directly because of the systematic atrocities committed by some humans on others. The regime advocating those atrocities also favoured eugenics so that the 'undesirables' didn't "father anymore dregs of society" too. I won't banish people holding those or similar views but I'll argue against them at every opportunity. Their views will become policy in this country only over my dead body.


That isn't half putting a spin on things.
Punishment to fit the crime = Genocide.
The majority of people in this country believe that there is no justice in this country and it does not afford any form of detterent.
The Human rights act has been hijacked by get rich quick solicitors so now everybody has rights but only some have responsibilities.
If you intentionally injure another human being why then should your rights be paramount in every equation.


Clapping Clapping Clapping
P
quote:
Originally posted by luxor:
The majority of people in this country believe that there is no justice in this country and it does not afford any form of detterent.

From the British Crime Survey 2008/9

"The proportion of people who think that the CJS as a whole is fair increased from 56 per cent in the six months to March 2008 to 59 per cent in 2008/09. The proportion of people who think that the CJS as a whole is effective remained stable at 38 per cent (the apparent one per cent increase is not statistically significant)."

and:

"The BCS continues to measure perceptions of local police both in general terms and in specific aspects of their work. The 2008/09 BCS shows that 53 per cent of people thought the police in their local area were doing a good or excellent job, the same figure as in the 2007/08 survey."

Oh look:

"Readers of national ‘broadsheets’ were more likely to rate the police as doing a good or excellent job (for example, The Times, 60% compared with The Sun, 50%) and to have more confidence in the local police overall than readers of more ‘popular’ press (for example, The Times, 73% compared with The Daily Star, 59%)."

and:

"Readers of ‘broadsheets’ were more likely to agree that the CJS is both fair and effective. For example, 70 per cent of people who read The Times agreed that the CJS is fair compared with 54 per cent of readers of The Daily Express. Similarly, 49 per cent of Guardian readers agreed that the CJS is effective compared with 32 per cent of Daily Mail readers."
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by luxor:
The majority of people in this country believe that there is no justice in this country and it does not afford any form of detterent.

From the British Crime Survey 2008/9

"The proportion of people who think that the CJS as a whole is fair increased from 56 per cent in the six months to March 2008 to 59 per cent in 2008/09. The proportion of people who think that the CJS as a whole is effective remained stable at 38 per cent (the apparent one per cent increase is not statistically significant)."

and:

"The BCS continues to measure perceptions of local police both in general terms and in specific aspects of their work. The 2008/09 BCS shows that 53 per cent of people thought the police in their local area were doing a good or excellent job, the same figure as in the 2007/08 survey."

Oh look:

"Readers of national ‘broadsheets’ were more likely to rate the police as doing a good or excellent job (for example, The Times, 60% compared with The Sun, 50%) and to have more confidence in the local police overall than readers of more ‘popular’ press (for example, The Times, 73% compared with The Daily Star, 59%)."

and:

"Readers of ‘broadsheets’ were more likely to agree that the CJS is both fair and effective. For example, 70 per cent of people who read The Times agreed that the CJS is fair compared with 54 per cent of readers of The Daily Express. Similarly, 49 per cent of Guardian readers agreed that the CJS is effective compared with 32 per cent of Daily Mail readers."

mr dan
if you spent more time in the real world instead of quoting stats from the pc-you might see things different Wink
charmer
Is this a good time to mention that the UK has the highest per capita prison population in Europe - so we are the most criminal people in Europe or we send people to jail more often than other countries or the people spend longer in prison than in other countries.

I say insert a 15lb frozen halibut in each new inmate on day 1 and see how many of them want to come back after that.

SH
quote:
Originally posted by Sir HP:
Is this a good time to mention that the UK has the highest per capita prison population in Europe - so we are the most criminal people in Europe or we send people to jail more often than other countries or the people spend longer in prison than in other countries.

I say insert a 15lb frozen halibut in each new inmate on day 1 and see how many of them want to come back after that.



i think it's cos we have more criminals, come on...never watched an american movie? the criminals are ALWAYS english Nod
Darthhoob
quote:
Originally posted by Darthhoob:
i think it's cos we have more criminals, come on...never watched an american movie? the criminals are ALWAYS english Nod


Ooooo you're right

Even that nice Ian McKellen famous wizard and homosexualist has been at it



Quite frankly I don't know why they don't just lock up all British actors it would probably massively reduce the crime rate worldwide.
SH
quote:
Originally posted by Sir HP:
quote:
Originally posted by Darthhoob:
i think it's cos we have more criminals, come on...never watched an american movie? the criminals are ALWAYS english Nod


Ooooo you're right

Even that nice Ian McKellen famous wizard and homosexualist has been at it



Quite frankly I don't know why they don't just lock up all British actors it would probably massively reduce the crime rate worldwide.


but... but.....alan rickman Frowner
Darthhoob
quote:
Originally posted by Darthhoob:
so basically the daily mail readers like to whinge and moan about the state of crime in this country.

who'd of thunk it Ninja

I think it might be as much the other way too: that Daily Mail readers are fed certain stories, regularly, and in such a way that it changes how some of them view the world.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by charmer:
mr dan
if you spent more time in the real world instead of quoting stats from the pc-you might see things different Wink

I spend plenty of time in the real world, thanks. I work, I'm very well travelled, mostly to places off the beaten track, I've lived in a number of places around the UK, including South London, and I've worked for a charity for the disadvantaged when I was younger. The difference between you and me is that I'm used to trawling data, I know where to look for what I want, and my opinions are usually formed and grounded on facts.
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Darthhoob:
so basically the daily mail readers like to whinge and moan about the state of crime in this country.

who'd of thunk it Ninja


I read the Independent and occasionally the Guardian (for some light relief). I do not think I have ever bought a tabloid. But I still think our justice system is bias and to much emphasis is placed on the perpatrator and not the victim.
Luxor

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×