NationStates Jolt Archive

I find this more than a little disturbing. Rape in my opinion should be worse crime than possesion of drugs but not in some cases. Admittedly its not a gret number but its more than it should be.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article356933.ece

The Home Office published a consultation paper on Saturday aimed at addressing the much-criticised low conviction rate.

Currently fewer than 6% of rape cases reported to the police result in a conviction.

Home Office figures show that although the number of rape convictions has remained stable, the number of rapes reported to the police is increasing year on year.

As a result the proportion resulting in a conviction has steadily declined from about one in three in 1977, to one in 20 cases in 2004.


any opinion?

My opinion?

We should give all rapists the death penalty.

Then your opinion is that a Daily Mail reading, reactionary scumbag.

If you're American, the Daily Mail is our newspaper equivalent of Fox news.

I brought this up about a week ago. Most of the replies crapped on it as not being reliable.

Guess they can all go stuff themselves now.

WOnder what it's going to do to the actual amount of crimes in comparison to how many they've "solved" by giving "cautions"?

My guess. The criminals are celebrating as we speak.

Then your opinion is that a Daily Mail reading, reactionary scumbag.

And in my opinion that post was incredibly N00bish.

At any rate, that is probably innacurate, but still, rape is a horrid crime.

EDIT: And I'm from Canada.

Anyone seen how the figures for this were compiled? I'm curious whether they've only used cases of reported rape or whether they've used sexual assault as well.

A rape is hard to prove is all I get out of it.

My opinion?

We should give all rapists the death penalty.

The death penalty means the state has given uptrying to rehabilitate its citizens and thats why I'm happy that the UK doesn't have the death penalty (except for high treason which lets face it isn't a big issue)

If you're American, the Daily Mail is our newspaper equivalent of Fox news.

It might even be... *curls up in typing agony* worse... than Fox News, to be honest. It's pure right-wing bullshit, straight from the gates of closed-minded hell.

A reaction to someone being killed, and the victim (NOT THE KILLER!) playing Manhunt a bit was "BAN THESE EVIL GAMES". And that's not even a overstated response, that's the truth, as it was printed.

*edits*

The death penalty for High Treason has actually been removed, it's now life in jail instead. Although the queen could order her guards to kill you. If you were actually near her and her guards at the time.

P.S.

I agree, rape is a terrible crime, but the death penalty is taking it much too far. 15+ years in jail is what it should be. Apart from statutory rape (e.g. when a fifteen year old girl has sex with her sixteen year old boyfriend), but the police take very little interest in that anyway.

The death penalty means the state has given uptrying to rehabilitate its citizens and thats why I'm happy that the UK doesn't have the death penalty (except for high treason which lets face it isn't a big issue)

Let's say you're a rape victim. Would you feel better if someone who raped you was still walking around and had a job, or would you feel better if he was dead?

And in my opinion that post was incredibly N00bish.

At any rate, that is probably innacurate, but still, rape is a horrid crime.

EDIT: And I'm from Canada.

If you're from Canada, then you will be quite aware of Fox News' less than brilliant reputation. In my opinion, the death penalty is the most barbaric and uncivilised thing which remains in the world. I cannot imagine anything more horrific than the government murdering people.

I find this more than a little disturbing. Rape in my opinion should be worse crime than possesion of drugs but not in some cases. Admittedly its not a gret number but its more than it should be.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article356933.ecs

any opinion?
I think the reason for the low conviction rate is because many women refuse to relive their experiences in court, and without their evidence there is very little chance of a conviction. It's easier said than done persuading those women to give evidence, as they'll look at the conviction rate and think that there's little chance their attacker will be convicted.

Something needs to be done to make it easier for women to give evidence (anonymity in court, for example), and those who are convicted of rape should be given at least 15 years in jail with no chance of parole. Only then will women feel it worthwhile reliving their experience.

If you're from Canada, then you will be quite aware of Fox News' less than brilliant reputation. In my opinion, the death penalty is the most barbaric and uncivilised thing which remains in the world. I cannot imagine anything more horrific than the government murdering people.

Actually, I haven't really heard that much of Fox. But why is the death penalty barbaric? As long as it is civil and painless, and only administered to murderers, rapists, etc., I see no problem.

I find this more than a little disturbing. Rape in my opinion should be worse crime than possesion of drugs but not in some cases. Admittedly its not a gret number but its more than it should be.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article356933.ecs



any opinion?
You want to know my opinion? Here it is: Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers should all be given the death penalty, no exceptions. These "people" are lower than the lowest scum at the bottom of the pond, and they don't deserve society's tolerance. And no ridiculous 20 year waiting periods before their executions. Fry those fuckers within 6 months of their convinctions. Fry em.

Let's say you're a rape victim. Would you feel better if someone who raped you was still walking around and had a job, or would you feel better if he was dead?
I wouldn't give a fuck. My life would be ruined either way.

Actually, I haven't really heard that much of Fox. But why is the death penalty barbaric? As long as it is civil and painless, and only administered to murderers, rapists, etc., I see no problem.

All that means, is that you are ignorant. How can murder ever be civil and painless?

The death penalty means the state has given uptrying to rehabilitate its citizens and thats why I'm happy that the UK doesn't have the death penalty (except for high treason which lets face it isn't a big issue)
Nope, we got rid of it for that (and arson in the royal dockyards) in 2000. Britain hasn't got the death penalty as a punishment for any crime now.

I think castration (which I think has been tried in America?) should be an option of the courts when it comes to sentencing, in extreme cases (serial rapists).

You want to know my opinion? Here it is: Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers should all be given the death penalty, no exceptions. These "people" are lower than the lowest scum at the bottom of the pond, and they don't deserve society's tolerance. And no ridiculous 20 year waiting periods before their executions. Fry those fuckers within 6 months of their convinctions. Fry em.

I repeat everything I said to Pytho-scumbag

Nope, we got rid of it for that (and arson in the royal dockyards) in 2000. Britain hasn't got the death penalty as a punishment for any crime now.

I think castration (which I think has been tried in America?) should be an option of the courts when it comes to sentencing, in extreme cases (serial rapists).

Whilst preferable to capital punishment, I still struggle to imagine much more barbaric than castration.

I repeat everything I said to Pytho-scumbag
You think that anyone who advocates the death penalty for horrific crimes that have ruined at least one person's life is a scumbag? If they're not going to respect the rights of other people, why should the state respect theirs?

All that means, is that you are ignorant. How can murder ever be civil and painless?

(I suggest you be more mature. I will overlook it this time, but calling someone ignorant is not exactly a good way to post.)

How can murder be civil and painless? Well, murder can't be civil, but it can be painless. I've heard of poisons and all that which do it.

But the death penalty can be civil. Private, no torture, a quick and painless death to avoid taxpayers actually PAYING for him in prison.

You want to know my opinion? Here it is: Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers should all be given the death penalty, no exceptions. These "people" are lower than the lowest scum at the bottom of the pond, and they don't deserve society's tolerance. And no ridiculous 20 year waiting periods before their executions. Fry those fuckers within 6 months of their convinctions. Fry em.

Paedophiles and rapists need jail sentences and rehabilitation, not coffins. Murderers need the same, but more so.

Nobody should be killed as a sentence by a court of law. Nobody.

*edits*

Pythagoria - they are rare, but what do you think of female rapists? The same, or different?

I repeat everything I said to Pytho-scumbag

OK, I'm no longer overlooking it. I've not insulted you in any way, and I've only stated my opinion. You began insulting me from the start. Now, can you justify that?

Whilst preferable to capital punishment, I still struggle to imagine much more barbaric than castration.
Fucking them in the arse with a 6 inch wide dildo, then getting mice to chew off their balls?

(I suggest you be more mature. I will overlook it this time, but calling someone ignorant is not exactly a good way to post.)

How can murder be civil and painless? Well, murder can't be civil, but it can be painless. I've heard of poisons and all that which do it.

But the death penalty can be civil. Private, no torture, a quick and painless death to avoid taxpayers actually PAYING for him in prison.

I don't care if you overlook it or not, by bringing money into the equation of capital punishment you really have shown how sick and callous a person you are.

Let's say you're a rape victim. Would you feel better if someone who raped you was still walking around and had a job, or would you feel better if he was dead?

Thas an unfair question, because I haven't been a rape victim and I can't imagine myself in that situation. When you bring emotion into this it clouds the situation. Justice isn't based on emotion and to bring thoughts of revenge into the justice system is ludicrous.
In any case I'm arguing for some punishment for rapists instead of a caution which is ineffective, just not the death penalty

Pythagoria - they are rare, but what do you think of female rapists? The same, or different?

Exactly the same. Slightly different crime, but still incredibly serious.

OK, I'm no longer overlooking it. I've not insulted you in any way, and I've only stated my opinion. You began insulting me from the start. Now, can you justify that?

You have pissed in the face of moral standards.

I don't care if you overlook it or not, by bringing money into the equation of capital punishment you really have shown how sick and callous a person you are.

Well, I can't exactly change your opinion, can I? Though I can say it's uninformed.

You think that anyone who advocates the death penalty for horrific crimes that have ruined at least one person's life is a scumbag? If they're not going to respect the rights of other people, why should the state respect theirs?

Because an educated government should be above pathetic revenge and murder.

You have pissed in the face of moral standards.

How so?

Well, I can't exactly change your opinion, can I? Though I can say it's uninformed.

If you had a reasoned argument which didn't involve murdering people for crimes...

[QUOTE=Yootopia]It might even be... *curls up in typing agony* worse... than Fox News, to be honest. It's pure right-wing bullshit, straight from the gates of closed-minded hell.

So youre saying that its basically UK's version of the 700 club without the prayer session, right?

How so?

By saying the rapists should have their lives stolen so that the taxpayer can buy a bit more food.

I repeat everything I said to Pytho-scumbag
ok, how about letting the victims choose whether their perpetrators get the death penalty? Or their families, if the victims are dead.

I don't care if you overlook it or not, by bringing money into the equation of capital punishment you really have shown how sick and callous a person you are.
Really? You'd rather live happy in the knowledge that some of your tax money is funding the life of a sick criminal, than let them die a quick, painless death?

It's not callous. There is an overcrowding problem in prisons in this country. We have the highest ratio of imprisoned:free people in Europe. We spend more money per day per prisoner than we do per primary school child. I don't believe we should bring in the death penalty, but there are certainly arguments for it, and money is as good an argument as any.

If you had a reasoned argument which didn't involve murdering people for crimes...

My argument is reasoned. Why is it a good idea to pay for criminal's food, beds, water, plumbing, and al lthat? Now, I only adocate the death penalty for SERIOUS stuff-- A vandal shouldn't be killed-- but why pay for a murderer?

Really? You'd rather live happy in the knowledge that some of your tax money is funding the life of a sick criminal, than let them die a quick, painless death?

I am absolutely overjoyed by this fact.

By saying the rapists should have their lives stolen so that the taxpayer can buy a bit more food.

And how is that wrong? A rapist has used a person as a mere tool. Perhaps forced them to have a child against their will. Their lives...
Well, to say the least, I do not have a high opinion oif them.

My argument is reasoned. Why is it a good idea to pay for criminal's food, beds, water, plumbing, and al lthat? Now, I only adocate the death penalty for SERIOUS stuff-- A vandal shouldn't be killed-- but why pay for a murderer?

Because a murderer is still a human being and nothing is more sacred than the life of a human being.

[QUOTE=Yootopia]It might even be... *curls up in typing agony* worse... than Fox News, to be honest. It's pure right-wing bullshit, straight from the gates of closed-minded hell.

So youre saying that its basically UK's version of the 700 club without the prayer session, right?

Urmm I have no idea what the 700 club is, but I imagine so, yes.

I am absolutely overjoyed by this fact.

Why so?

Because an educated government should be above pathetic revenge and murder.
How about in the case of a murderer who has been released and gone out to kill again? Do we then lock him up again at the taxpayer's expense, only for the possibility of him killing again when re-released, or do we remove the problem?

Because a murderer is still a human being and nothing is more sacred than the life of a human being.

A human being, yes, but a murderer is not deserving of being called human.

Why so?
Because it means that reactionary scumbags are not having people murdered purely so that the taxpayers can eat a bit more food or drive a few more miles in their cars.

Because a murderer is still a human being and nothing is more sacred than the life of a human being.
Bollocks. There are plenty more things sacred than the life of one human being. The safety of a population for one thing.

Because a murderer is still a human being and nothing is more sacred than the life of a human being.

Let's play Devil's Advocate:

Would you use lethal force to protect your or your families (sacred by your definition) from a murderer?

How about in the case of a murderer who has been released and gone out to kill again? Do we then lock him up again at the taxpayer's expense, only for the possibility of him killing again when re-released, or do we remove the problem?

We remove the problem, by not releasing them.

[QUOTE=Hoffness]

Urmm I have no idea what the 700 club is, but I imagine so, yes.

Its basically right wing propaganda with religion as an excuse (but thats just my opinion)

Let's play Devil's Advocate:

Would you use lethal force to protect your or your families (sacred by your definition) from a murderer?

Absolutely, if there is an immediate threat to my life or my family's. I think that there is a basic defence mechanism built into the brain.

Because it means that reactionary scumbags are not having people murdered purely so that the taxpayers can eat a bit more food or drive a few more miles in their cars.

(I actually think cars are inefficient and should be replaced.)

But is keeping the man/woman alive for a life in prison not merely a waste of money that could be put elsewhere? Police, education, healthcare...)

Why so?

Because the preservation of any human life is important. People can be rehabilitated, people can change. Killing people who've done wrong is a poor way to look at things, in my humble opinion.

If these people can be changed then you can have one more member of society paying taxes and being polite and employed. Wouldn't you rather have that than a gravestone saying "some rapist bastard or another"?

Absolutely, if there is an immediate threat to my life or my family's. I think that there is a basic defence mechanism built into the brain.

Well, we agree somewhere.

[QUOTE=Yootopia]

Its basically right wing propaganda with religion as an excuse (but thats just my opinion)
And an accurate opinon it is. :fluffle:

Bollocks. There are plenty more things sacred than the life of one human being. The safety of a population for one thing.

A population of human beings... of course the safety of the many outweighs the safety of individual. But we are discussing murdering people, not to protect society, but to save money ?? when there is no immediate danger to anyone else.

Because the preservation of any human life is important. People can be rehabilitated, people can change. Killing people who've done wrong is a poor way to look at things, in my humble opinion.

If these people can be changed then you can have one more member of society paying taxes and being polite and employed. Wouldn't you rather have that than a gravestone saying "some rapist bastard or another"?

Still, I'd rather have him dead. We have to pay for that rehabilitation, and most of the time it doesn't work.

We remove the problem, by not releasing them.
By wasting money on them so they can die in comfort in a cell in 30 years time.

While their victim(s) is/are mentally scarred for life, and may wake up screaming from their nightmares for years.

That's civilised?

At the moment the death penalty costs more to the taxpayers than life inprisonment

Because the preservation of any human life is important. People can be rehabilitated, people can change. Killing people who've done wrong is a poor way to look at things, in my humble opinion.

If these people can be changed then you can have one more member of society paying taxes and being polite and employed. Wouldn't you rather have that than a gravestone saying "some rapist bastard or another"?
some people can be changed. But I'm not so sure about violent criminals. Punishment is the best form of rehabilitation.

A population of human beings... of course the safety of the many outweighs the safety of individual. But we are discussing murdering people, not to protect society, but to save money ?? when there is no immediate danger to anyone else.

Let's say we have a rapist. He goes to jail, and gets out.

Then he rapes someone again.

Wasn't that just a waste of time?

(I actually think cars are inefficient and should be replaced.)

But is keeping the man/woman alive for a life in prison not merely a waste of money that could be put elsewhere? Police, education, healthcare...)

So you raise taxes, or lessen sentences for lesser crimes.

At the moment the death penalty costs more to the taxpayers than life inprisonment
source?

At the moment the death penalty costs more to the taxpayers than life inprisonment

No, bullets do not cost more than prisons.

Well, we agree somewhere.

That's different to killing people in prison. If you're killing someone who's attacking you personally then it's defence, if you kill someone defenceless in jail then it's just spiteful.

Absolutely, if there is an immediate threat to my life or my family's. I think that there is a basic defence mechanism built into the brain.

Ok. Now since you have stated that the life of yourself or your family is MORE sacred than the life of a murderer, why shouldn't that state take that into account when sentencing to death someone who has less value (by your definition) than the average member of society of which that person is a threat to?

Let's say we have a rapist. He goes to jail, and gets out.

Then he rapes someone again.

Wasn't that just a waste of time?

Well, during the time he was in prison, ideally, he wasn't a danger to anyone but himself. So not a waste of a time.

So you raise taxes, or lessen sentences for lesser crimes.

I actually think some of our sentences aren't long enough. But the taxes are already a little high. Why raise them?

So you raise taxes, or lessen sentences for lesser crimes.
Higher taxes are bad for the economy, and placing a slap on the wrist for petty crimes will not deter those criminals :rolleyes:

A population of human beings... of course the safety of the many outweighs the safety of individual. But we are discussing murdering people, not to protect society, but to save money ?? when there is no immediate danger to anyone else.
No. I said that saving money was one benefit of the death penalty. Another benefit, which in fact should be taken into consideration more, is the safety of the population is improved. The re-offending rate is surprisingly high, especially so for crimes such as rape and sexual assault. So, yes, there is an immediate danger to other people.

Ok. Now since you have stated that the life of yourself or your family is MORE sacred than the life of a murderer, why shouldn't that state take that into account when sentencing to death someone who has less value (by your definition) than the average member of society of which that person is a threat to?

You're ignoring the word immediate; if the threat were not immediate, I would not kill the murderer.

No, bullets do not cost more than prisons.

It's all the legal issues involved. Not the actual method of execution.

source?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

A New Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded.

Higher taxes are bad for the economy, and placing a slap on the wrist for petty crimes will not deter those criminals :rolleyes:

Human life has a greater value than the economy..

That's different to killing people in prison. If you're killing someone who's attacking you personally then it's defence, if you kill someone defenceless in jail then it's just spiteful.

Well, I was saying we do agree on one issue.

But I'm not talking, "silent, bloody murders in prison" here. I'm talking immediate action.

No. I said that saving money was one benefit of the death penalty. Another benefit, which in fact should be taken into consideration more, is the safety of the population is improved. The re-offending rate is surprisingly high, especially so for crimes such as rape and sexual assault. So, yes, there is an immediate danger to other people.

Then you don't release the murderers and you increase taxes.

It's all the legal issues involved. Not the actual method of execution.

Well, if you just killed the person you ABSOLUTELY are 100% POSITIVELY sure is a murderer (I mean NO DOUBT. AT ALL.) then wouldn't you save tons?

You're ignoring the word immediate; if the threat were not immediate, I would not kill the murderer.

Even so, you have decided that the life of the murderer is LESS sacred than yours, a non-murderer. This person has proven themselves to be a threat to those that are MORE sacred than he/she.

Human life has a greater value than the economy..

To an extent, yes, but these people took a life in the first place. Or at least, almost (sometimes DID) ruin one.

Then you don't release the murderers and you increase taxes.
Of course. Because the public pocket is bottomless, isn't it?

It wouldn't just be the Daily Mail getting up in arms about a tax rise to fund the comfortable lives of rapists and murderers.

Then you don't release the murderers and you increase taxes.

So punish the innocent for the actions of criminals?

Well, I was saying we do agree on one issue.

But I'm not talking, "silent, bloody murders in prison" here. I'm talking immediate action.

And we've already agreed that immediate action, whereby someone at risk kills or debilitates the danger, is acceptable.

So punish the innocent for the actions of criminals?

How is letting then sleep safely in their beds comfortable in the knowledge that they are not responsible for killing another human being, a punishment?

A human being, yes, but a murderer is not deserving of being called human.

Same as a rapist. :)

Well, if you just killed the person you ABSOLUTELY are 100% POSITIVELY sure is a murderer (I mean NO DOUBT. AT ALL.) then wouldn't you save tons?

In some cases yes, but in most, there's still the whole legal process (prosecution, incarceration, all the different levels of appeals, etc)

Of course. Because the public pocket is bottomless, isn't it?

It wouldn't just be the Daily Mail getting up in arms about a tax rise to fund the comfortable lives of rapists and murderers.

The public pocket is perfectly deep enough to imprison murderers without murdering them.

The public pocket is perfectly deep enough to imprison murderers without murdering them.

considering its cheaper

How is letting then sleep safely in their beds comfortable in the knowledge that they are not responsible for killing another human being, a punishment?

Many would sleep more comfortably knowing that there is one less threat to them in the world.

Increasing taxes punishes the innocent by forcing them to pay for the incarceration of one who has proven that they are a threat to society and the MORE sacred lives of others.

Even so, you have decided that the life of the murderer is LESS sacred than yours, a non-murderer. This person has proven themselves to be a threat to those that are MORE sacred than he/she.
In Holland you'd both be murderers. Because you have no right to use lethal force.

And we've already agreed that immediate action, whereby someone at risk kills or debilitates the danger, is acceptable.

Which still sets differing levels of "sacredness".

In Holland you'd both be murderers. Because you have no right to use lethal force.

I'm sure the criminals love that.

Which still sets differing levels of "sacredness".

Yes.

ConscribedComradeship, that's a bit hypocritical.

Many would sleep more comfortably knowing that there is one less threat to them in the world.

Increasing taxes punishes the innocent by forcing them to pay for the incarceration of one who has proven that they are a threat to society and the MORE sacred lives of others.

One less threat to them, meaning in prison, incapable of harming anybody other than themselves.

One less threat to them, meaning in prison, incapable of harming anybody other than themselves.

Or cellmates.

One less threat to them, meaning in prison, incapable of harming anybody other than themselves.

Of which there are no guarantees of no escape and which the victims/innocent are now being forced to provide for.

Yes.

ConscribedComradeship, that's a bit hypocritical.

No, it is not. If someone has the mentality to kill you and your family that is an immediate threat to more than one person, by an individual.

Of which there are no guarantees of no escape and which the victims/innocent are now being forced to provide for.

Then we must strive to make our prisons more secure.

Or cellmates.
Solitary confinement.

No, it is not. If someone has the mentality to kill you and your family that is an immediate threat to more than one person, by an individual.

If they have "the mentality to kill you and your family" they are, not just an immediate threat, but a constant threat to society as a whole which, by your definition, is MORE sacred.

Even if they are in jail, they still are a threat.

Then we must strive to make our prisons more secure.

By raising taxes even more?

Can you build an escape proof prison?

No, it is not. If someone has the mentality to kill you and your family that is an immediate threat to more than one person, by an individual.

The difficulty arises when it is only you. But, I think there is a natural defence mechanism as I have said, to protect the body from harm.

Solitary confinement.

Which has been described as inhumane as well.

The public pocket is perfectly deep enough to imprison murderers without murdering them.
Overall, perhaps, but what about those people living below the poverty line (under £13,500 a year). Which is about 20% of the population. Can they afford to let murderers live?

Or how about they just go into the street and kill someone, then live the life of Riley in a prison for the rest of their lives?

If they have "the mentality to kill you and your family" they are, not just an immediate threat, but a constant threat to society as a whole which, by your definition, is MORE sacred.

Even if they are in jail, they still are a threat.

Then we must make our prisons more secure...

Overall, perhaps, but what about those people living below the poverty line (under £13,500 a year). Which is about 20% of the population. Can they afford to let murderers live?

Or how about they just go into the street and kill someone, then live the life of Riley in a prison for the rest of their lives?

That is why income tax is less severe on the poor; that is why we have benefits.

The difficulty arises when it is only you. But, I think there is a natural defence mechanism as I have said, to protect the body from harm.

So one is unable to override their instincts?

How can you kill something that is considered "sacred" unless you consider yourself MORE "sacred" than others?

Isn't the state there to alledgedly help protect society from harm?

Which has been described as inhumane as well.

More humane than murder. We can have toughened glass windows so they can see the others or only allow them amongst eachother in handcuffs or after a search..

More humane than murder. We can have toughened glass windows so they can see the others or only allow them amongst eachother in handcuffs or after a search..

So you'ld just rather have them go insane? That's the general outcome of a lifetime of solitary confinement.

Then we must make our prisons more secure...

I'll ask again, can an escape proof prison be built?

In the cases of Rapists waiting for victims in the woods, backalleys or parks then threaten there lifes if they scream for help they should be jailed for 50 years but if its a repeat offender then hanging is the best corse of action

They didn't say in solitary confinement, they said that the prisoners could talk to each other and such after a search and/or with handcuffs on.

That is why income tax is less severe on the poor; that is why we have benefits.

But taxes will go up. Are income taxes the only ones?

But taxes will go up. Are income taxes the only ones?
Benefits..

But taxes will go up. Are income taxes the only ones?

Other than National Insurance it's the largest tax that people pay.

So one is unable to override their instincts?

How can you kill something that is considered "sacred" unless you consider yourself MORE "sacred" than others?

Isn't the state there to alledgedly help protect society from harm?
It sure is, but it isn't perfect.

Making prisons secure is hard when they don't even go to prison most of the time. >.> They don't need to be in to get away then.

They didn't say in solitary confinement, they said that the prisoners could talk to each other and such after a search and/or with handcuffs on.

And realistically, how often would that be? An hour a day, two hours? Think handcuffs can't be used as weapons?

Once again, the costs of such a system would be astronomical, hence punishing the victims.

That is why income tax is less severe on the poor; that is why we have benefits.
You don't seriously believe tax is less severe on the poor?

Someone earning £12000 a year will pay around £1750 in income tax. Then there's council tax. If they have a car, road tax. Assuming they use that car, fuel duty. If they buy anything but essentials (food, clothing), they pay VAT. In total, they'll spend somewhere in the region of £3000-£4000 a year on tax.

If you earn £100000 a year, you'll pay about £40000 a year in tax. Ok, they've lost more to the taxman, but they still have £60k a year, compared to £8-9k. I know which I'd rather have.

Tax isn't really less severe on the poor.

And realistically, how often would that be? An hour a day, two hours? Think handcuffs can't be used as weapons?

Once again, the costs of such a system would be astronomical, hence punishing the victims.

That is what psychological assessment is for, to see if they pose a risk.

I'll ask again, can an escape proof prison be built?

Find a small Island 100's of miles from anywhere or maybe an old Oil platform and have Special patrols around the island\Oil platform looking for any swimmers who should be shot on site.

Benefits..

What kind of benefits? Be more specific.

There are taxes on just about everything. Now that incarceration costs have gone up and you're providing tons of benefits, where is this money coming from?

The middle class (who don't recieve benefits), the wealthy exclusively?

Benefits..
Are fine if you're a single mother who has 7 kids and a serious disability. But that doesn't apply to most people.

That is what psychological assessment is for, to see if they pose a risk.

They've already murdered someone, they've proven themselves to be a risk.

Are Psych assessments 100% foolproof?

Spend even more money to make them "better"?

Find a small Island 100's of miles from anywhere or maybe an old Oil platform and have Special patrols around the island\Oil platform looking for any swimmers who should be shot on site.
Sounds so easy, doesn't it.

Imagine the transport costs for prisoners and guards. Imagine how much it would cost to buy the land/oil platform, and setting up a secure facility. Imagine running costs. Why do you think it's not been done?

Find a small Island 100's of miles from anywhere or maybe an old Oil platform and have Special patrols around the island\Oil platform looking for any swimmers who should be shot on site.

I've always thought Madagascar would be good.

Still wouldn't be escape-proof though.

Find a small Island 100's of miles from anywhere or maybe an old Oil platform and have Special patrols around the island\Oil platform looking for any swimmers who should be shot on site.

Nice idea, apart from the shooting on site. That would sort of contradict my argument.

Nice idea, apart from the shooting on site. That would sort of contradict my argument.
I'll refer you to this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10735547&postcount=124)

What kind of benefits? Be more specific.

There are taxes on just about everything. Now that incarceration costs have gone up and you're providing tons of benefits, where is this money coming from?

The middle class (who don't recieve benefits), the wealthy exclusively?

Well, seeing as we manage already...
I'm not talking about some crazy hypothetical situation, this is the general principal of our criminal justice system.

I'll refer you to this.
I was just complementing his effort, it isn't actually viable. The system we currently have is based on morals, the rights of the individual and works perfectly well bar a few (numerous) 'mistakes'.

I think that the risk of people reoffending is preferable to the certainty of state-imposed murder.

They've already murdered someone, they've proven themselves to be a risk.

Are Psych assessments 100% foolproof?

Spend even more money to make them "better"?

Spend as much money as is practical to minimise the risk. You could even get other prisoners to sign consent forms, agreeing to come into contact with other prisoners.

Well, seeing as we manage already...
I'm not talking about some crazy hypothetical situation, this is the general principal of our criminal justice system.

Exactly. If we put petty criminals in for less time then we could afford special rehabiliation and facilities for murderers and racists. Thieves don't realistically need years in prison, they need a year of rehabilitation so that they won't re-offend and then they can leave.

That and social reforms so that people don't get so poor that they actually need to steal to stay alive.

Much cheaper and also more effective.

Well, seeing as we manage already...
I'm not talking about some crazy hypothetical situation, this is the general principal of our criminal justice system.


Of which there are those who disagree w/ it. You consider them to be "scumbags" and "immoral" to support the execution of those who pose a threat to society.

Yet, at the same time, you state you would defend yourself using lethal force against a murderer due to "natural reactions". What about your friends/family? Your "natural reactions" wouldn't necessarily come into play. What about being a bystander? Would you let someone be murdered if it wasn't an immediate threat to yourself?

I was just complementing his effort, it isn't actually viable. The system we currently have is based on morals, the rights of the individual and works perfectly well bar a few (numerous) 'mistakes'.

I think that the risk of people reoffending is preferable to the certainty of state-imposed murder.
I believe that once a person has seriously violated the rights of another individual, they do not deserve to expect the same rights for themselves. It is only through magnanimity that we choose to allow them to keep their rights. Therefore, I would find it morally justifiable to allow the death penalty in extreme cases of serious crimes.

I was just complementing his effort, it isn't actually viable. The system we currently have is based on morals, the rights of the individual and works perfectly well bar a few (numerous) 'mistakes'.

I think that the risk of people reoffending is preferable to the certainty of state-imposed murder.

You might feel that way. Others don't. By your definition, you would be increasing the chances of having more "sacred" lives removed.

Exactly. If we put petty criminals in for less time then we could afford special rehabiliation and facilities for murderers and racists. Thieves don't realistically need years in prison, they need a year of rehabilitation so that they won't re-offend and then they can leave.

That and social reforms so that people don't get so poor that they actually need to steal to stay alive.

Much cheaper and also more effective.
Now that's idealism. Re-offending rates are highest among petty criminals. By reducing the length of time they spend in jail, that will only continue. What they need is a short, sharp, shock. Perhaps a spell in the army would be a good idea?

Spend as much money as is practical to minimise the risk. You could even get other prisoners to sign consent forms, agreeing to come into contact with other prisoners.

And yet murders occur in prison as well.

I'm sure those "consent forms" would hold up in civil court.:rolleyes:

And yet murders occur in prison as well.

I'm sure those "consent forms" would hold up in civil court.:rolleyes:

You fool. If you made them a special law then of course they would.

Now that's idealism. Re-offending rates are highest among petty criminals. By reducing the length of time they spend in jail, that will only continue. What they need is a short, sharp, shock. Perhaps a spell in the army would be a good idea?

Idealism is always cute.

BTW. What makes you think the Army wants them? I like the idea of bringing back chain gangs.

I say again, the risk of people reoffending is preferable to the certainty of state-imposed murder.

I have a question for the people involved in this argument, especially those condoning the death penalty for rapists:
How many of you have been raped?

You cretin. If you made them a special law then of course they would.

Watch the insults.

So you support laws limiting civil litigation against convicted criminals?

You cretin. If you made them a special law then of course they would.

Now now, cretinism is an actual medical condition.

Now that's idealism. Re-offending rates are highest among petty criminals. By reducing the length of time they spend in jail, that will only continue. What they need is a short, sharp, shock. Perhaps a spell in the army would be a good idea?

That's why they need rehabilitation instead of jail and the country needs social reforms to tackle poverty!

And are you sure that putting petty thieves in the army, where they could steal live ammunition and possibly weapons is a particularly good idea?

Idealism is always cute.

BTW. What makes you think the Army wants them? I like the idea of bringing back chain gangs.
Ok, maybe the army wouldn't want them. Put them in the Navy. Send them off in a submarine somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. Then they wouldn't be a threat to society.

I have a question for the people involved in this argument, especially those condoning the death penalty for rapists:
How many of you have been raped?

Are we going to make having been a killed a condition for discussing murder?

I say again, the risk of people reoffending is preferable to the certainty of state-imposed murder.

In your personal belief that is not shared by everyone.

I say again, you believe that the risk of removing more "sacred" lives is better than removing one less "sacred" life.

That's why they need rehabilitation instead of jail and the country needs social reforms to tackle poverty!

And are you sure that putting petty thieves in the army, where they could steal live ammunition and possibly weapons is a particularly good idea?
But what other form of rehabilitation is there? That's what jail is supposedly for.

And do you know how long you have to be in the army for, with all the training regimes and discipline, before they let you anywhere near any weapons or ammunition?

Watch the insults.

So you support laws limiting civil litigation against convicted criminals?

No, I suggest them being allowed close contact with each other if they know the risks and are willing to accept them.

And sorry about the insults, I'm a bit wound up.

*edits*

I V Stalin - counselling and therapy. Prison is hardly rehabilitation, it's more damage control.

In your personal belief that is not shared by everyone.

I say again, you believe that the risk of removing more "sacred" lives is better than removing one less "sacred" life.

This is the opinion of the government as well.

This is the opinion of the government as well.
I mean of course the UK government, not to mention civilised governments across the world.

But what other form of rehabilitation is there? That's what jail is supposedly for.

And do you know how long you have to be in the army for, with all the training regimes and discipline, before they let you anywhere near any weapons or ammunition?
A week? :p

Are we going to make having been a killed a condition for discussing murder?

I think perhaps that would be a little difficult, but there are people who go to jail for attempted murder. Personally, if you've had someone attempt to murder you and fail, then you get a say in wether there should be a death penalty for murder. If you've had a family member murdered, then you should get a say in it.

I was drugged and raped at 15 by a friend of mine. I don't want him dead. My friends do, but I don't. It messed me up, but I can change that, because I am stronger than that.
I'd quite like to see him behind bars, just so that he couldn't inflict that on someone else, at least for a time.

This is the opinion of the government as well.

Of the UK Gov't. Which also opposes your belief of defending oneself, has instructed it's police to effectively not bother w/ criminals, and is instituting methods of monitoring the traveling habits of the public.

Is the opinion of the Gov't infallible?

I mean of course the UK government, not to mention civilised governments across the world.
Every first world country except America.

A week? :p
Ah, facetiousness. Where would we be without it?
Closer to six months, in fact.

No, I suggest them being allowed close contact with each other if they know the risks and are willing to accept them.

And sorry about the insults, I'm a bit wound up.

*edits*

I V Stalin - counselling and therapy. Prison is hardly rehabilitation, it's more damage control.

They effectively accept the risks when they choose a life of crime. I agree w/ counseling/therapy, while they're in prison doing hard labor for minor crimes.

However, more violent crimes are effectively irredeemable.

Of the UK Gov't. Which also opposes your belief of defending oneself, has instructed it's police to effectively not bother w/ criminals, and is instituting methods of monitoring the traveling habits of the public.

Is the opinion of the Gov't infallible?
Why does every western country except the US agree with this? and the UN for that matter.

I think perhaps that would be a little difficult, but there are people who go to jail for attempted murder. Personally, if you've had someone attempt to murder you and fail, then you get a say in wether there should be a death penalty for murder. If you've had a family member murdered, then you should get a say in it.

I was drugged and raped at 15 by a friend of mine. I don't want him dead. My friends do, but I don't. It messed me up, but I can change that, because I am stronger than that.
I'd quite like to see him behind bars, just so that he couldn't inflict that on someone else, at least for a time.

I really do sympathise with you and it is convenient for me in this discussion that you disagree with the death penalty. However, I don't think that only people who have been raped should be allowed to comment on the punishment of it. Often victims' opinions can be more emotional or vengeful which if anything can make them less valid, certainly in the immediate aftermath of the crime. This is why people use arguments such as "imagine it were you" so often.

Why does every western country except the US agree with this? and the UN for that matter.

Different cultures.

As for the UN, they have on the human rights commission some of the worlds biggest offenders. Their opinion isn't exactly non-biased.

Okay, first off: The justice system is not 'Revenge incorporated'.

If you start thinking that punishment should be designed around making the victim 'feel better' you set some really awful, unjust precedents. All it would accomplish to set the death penalty for rape is to encourage rapists to murder their victims.

--

Now, as for this article. 6% seems suspiciously low. I'm wondering what their criteria is for counting something as a 'reported rape' and a 'conviction'. If it's a simple ratio, then that's ridiculous. Rapists are repeat offenders. Not all rape reports are genuine, and the only way to really prove rape is to get a DNA match. Factor out multiple rapes by the same person, factor out false reports, the rate would probably rise to almost as high as the percentage for murders.

And I'm wondering what measures some of you would suggest. Some people gripe and moan about criminals who get off on that annoying technicality known as 'due process'. If you do not enforce stringent requirements for evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, false accusations will start flying.

Ah, facetiousness. Where would we be without it?
Closer to six months, in fact.

Unless they're in the TA, in which case it actually will be about a week.

Of the UK Gov't. Which also opposes your belief of defending oneself, has instructed it's police to effectively not bother w/ criminals, and is instituting methods of monitoring the traveling habits of the public.

Is the opinion of the Gov't infallible?
No, but it is subject to the public. It does not oppose self defence, there is the crime on manslaughter, but I believe it has said that killing an intruder in your home is allowed..(?)

Unless they're in the TA, in which case it actually will be about a week.
I must have missed the part of my post where I said 'put them in the TA'. :rolleyes:

No, but it is subject to the public. It does not oppose self defence, there is the crime on manslaughter, but I believe it has said that killing an intruder in your home is allowed..(?)
Tell that to Tony Martin.

No, but it is subject to the public. It does not oppose self defence, there is the crime on manslaughter, but I believe it has said that killing an intruder in your home is allowed..(?)

Not in the UK it isn't.

There have been multiple prosecutions of people who even threatened to defend themselves.

Not in the UK it isn't.

There have been multiple prosecutions of people who even threatened to defend themselves.
Since which the government has issued guidelines has it not?

I must have missed the part of my post where I said 'put them in the TA'. :rolleyes:

So you'd rather have them in the real army than the weekend warriors?

Not in the UK it isn't.

There have been multiple prosecutions of people who even threatened to defend themselves.
So then your whole 'would you defend yourself?' point was moot as he doesn't have the right anyway.

Since which the government has issued guidelines has it not?


Have they been tested? You have a link?

So then your whole 'would you defend yourself?' point was moot as he doesn't have the right anyway.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself though...

Acceptable force is sadly a bit vague.

So you'd rather have them in the real army than the weekend warriors?
I'd rather have them somewhere where they're learning proper discipline, and are kept away from the public. They don't even have to be put in proximity to weapons or ammunition - there could be an entirely new military facility built for them. Keep them there, discipline them and six months later they can be evaluated and then either released or kept in.

Even better - if following their evaluation they are deemed suitable for release, they can be given the option of joining the army for real - it would provide them with a job, as well as keeping them out of mischief.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself though...
But it does mean life is sacred in the eyes of the government, because they would throw your ass in jail for it.

Ah, facetiousness. Where would we be without it?
Closer to six months, in fact.

bollocks! i was in cadets for only 2 weeks before they gave me a gun and live ammunition.

But it does mean life is sacred in the eyes of the government, because they would throw your ass in jail for it.
No, I would attempt to debilitate the danger and if I were able to prove this, it would follow that I had used reasonable force.

bollocks! i was in cadets for only 2 weeks before they gave me a gun and live ammunition.
Lucky you. I'll judge from the army recruiters who came to my school to try to persuade us to sign away our lives for 5 years. Genius. This was in January 2003.

*copies what he said in another thread* Well, it's a bit late for me. *goes to bed*

I'd rather have them somewhere where they're learning proper discipline, and are kept away from the public. They don't even have to be put in proximity to weapons or ammunition - there could be an entirely new military facility built for them. Keep them there, discipline them and six months later they can be evaluated and then either released or kept in.

Even better - if following their evaluation they are deemed suitable for release, they can be given the option of joining the army for real - it would provide them with a job, as well as keeping them out of mischief.

And what would they do in it? Would you put petty criminals in charge of other peoples' lives?

*copies what he said in another thread* Well, it's a bit late for me. *goes to bed*
Go check what I posted in t'other thread ;)

And what would they do in it? Would you put petty criminals in charge of other peoples' lives?
We've got Blair as our PM. Italy has Berlusconi. Why change what the world does already?

Even better - if following their evaluation they are deemed suitable for release, they can be given the option of joining the army for real - it would provide them with a job, as well as keeping them out of mischief.

how does enlisting them in the army, giving them a gun and sending to a warzone equate to "keeping them out of trouble". have you not seen the news reports coming out of iraq in the past year or so?

Lucky you. I'll judge from the army recruiters who came to my school to try to persuade us to sign away our lives for 5 years. Genius. This was in January 2003.

and i was 14 at the time. if they can give a messed up 14 yr old with surplus hormones coursing through his body a rifle and ammunition i don't see why they're going to delay giving enlisted adult soldier weapons and ammunition.

how does enlisting them in the army, giving them a gun and sending to a warzone equate to "keeping them out of trouble". have you not seen the news reports coming out of iraq in the past year or so?
But then it's the Iraqis' problem. Besides, I never actually said I'd send them to a warzone. What do you think I am, stupid?



and i was 14 at the time. if they can give a messed up 14 yr old with surplus hormones coursing through his body a rifle and ammunition i don't see why they're going to delay giving enlisted adult soldier weapons and ammunition.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again - that is what I was told by an army recruiter.

We've got Blair as our PM. Italy has Berlusconi. Why change what the world does already?

Because people deserve better than what we already have. Crap, corrupt leaders produce countries of the same type.

reading through this thread it seems that there are a few misunderstandings on the part of the pro-death penalty types.

1: prison = rehabillitation - it does not. prison is merely pushing the problem into the future. it has the same effect as telling troublesome teenagers to move from an area they are disturbing people, they just go and disturb people somewhere else. rehabilitation involves psychologists, pschotherapists, support groups, re-education etc. obviously with current techniques some offenders cannot be rehabillitated because of more severe, untreatable mental illness causing their sociopathic behaviour. in those cases incarceration in secure hospitals is the answer not prison, which can only make such illnesses worse.

2: revenge = justice - eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth means you're just as bad as the original offender

3: there are thousands of violent criminals or potential violent criminals roaming our streets and public places just waiting to attack you or to creep into your homes - this is simply the result of a fearmongering media - if you ask the average person on the street where they feel most at risk they will most likely say park land or quiet streets at night. statistically speaking the number of violent crimes occuring in park land is so low it could be mistaken for a statistical error. similarly (but less extreme), you're much more likely to be attacked in daylight on a busy street than at night on a quiet street. by far the most dangerous place in terms of being attacked is the home and the perpetrator is most likely to be a family member.

the fact is, people's fear of crime is significantly higher than the actual incidence of crime. the vast majority of people will go through life without being affected by violent crime in any way. (source: sorry can't find my full notes for this source but the info is from a chapter by Jacqueline Burgess in a book called New Frontiers of Spaces, Bodies and Gender and i think it was published in 1996 or 98)

Something needs to be done to make it easier for women to give evidence (anonymity in court, for example), and those who are convicted of rape should be given at least 15 years in jail with no chance of parole. Only then will women feel it worthwhile reliving their experience.
And by so doing, you eliminate the ability of the accused to confront his accuser, one of the most basic of due process rights.
You want to know my opinion? Here it is: Rapists, pedophiles, and murderers should all be given the death penalty, no exceptions. These "people" are lower than the lowest scum at the bottom of the pond, and they don't deserve society's tolerance. And no ridiculous 20 year waiting periods before their executions. Fry those fuckers within 6 months of their convinctions. Fry em.
Since you listed rapists and pedophiles separately, I'll assume that you support executing people for thought-crime. :rolleyes:
Because the preservation of any human life is important. People can be rehabilitated, people can change. Killing people who've done wrong is a poor way to look at things, in my humble opinion.

If these people can be changed then you can have one more member of society paying taxes and being polite and employed. Wouldn't you rather have that than a gravestone saying "some rapist bastard or another"?
If you really believe in rehabilitation, you'll disagree with people being discriminated against once they've served their time. No sex offender registry, no legal discrimination against convicted murderers, no nothing. Once society sees fit to release a prisoner, they've said that the person is no longer a danger, and they should treat them as such.
I think perhaps that would be a little difficult, but there are people who go to jail for attempted murder. Personally, if you've had someone attempt to murder you and fail, then you get a say in wether there should be a death penalty for murder. If you've had a family member murdered, then you should get a say in it.

I rather agree with the idea that sentencing should be carried out by the ones most directly effected by the crime. This flies in the face of the idea of rehabilitation, and becomes nothing more than retribution, but so what? I've never been a "turn the othe cheek" sort anyway.
reading through this thread it seems that there are a few misunderstandings on the part of the pro-death penalty types.

<snip>

2: revenge = justice - eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth means you're just as bad as the original offender

<snip>

This isn't a misunderstanding. It's a difference of opinion. Throwing it in there like that is just you claiming that your moral standard is the one true moral standard. The other stuff I have no real objection to, but this point is just an example of you trying to force your personal moral code down everyone elses throat.

And by so doing, you eliminate the ability of the accused to confront his accuser, one of the most basic of due process rights.
For a rape case to come to court, there is generally overwhelming evidence on the part of the prosecution as to the guilt of the defendant, simply because people involved in the legal system know the difficulties of getting a conviction in such a case. While it may be judging the defendant before his guilt is proven, it makes sense to remove his right to confront his accuser.

There have been trials of video links, where the defendant will be present in court but his accuser is not. This is the best compromise - a woman should not be forced to face someone who has raped her, whether or not this takes away a basic right of the defendant.

If you really believe in rehabilitation, you'll disagree with people being discriminated against once they've served their time. No sex offender registry, no legal discrimination against convicted murderers, no nothing. Once society sees fit to release a prisoner, they've said that the person is no longer a danger, and they should treat them as such.

If it had been shown by tests (and plenty of them) that they had completely changed, then yes.

the fact is, people's fear of crime is significantly higher than the actual incidence of crime. the vast majority of people will go through life without being affected by violent crime in any way. (source: sorry can't find my full notes for this source but the info is from a chapter by Jacqueline Burgess in a book called New Frontiers of Spaces, Bodies and Gender and i think it was published in 1996 or 98)
This may be true, but the current crime figures show that there are nearly six million reported crimes each year in this country, and estimates are that this represents only 75% of total crime. (Source: Oxford Handbook of Criminology, third edition, 2002).

So 8 million crimes a year - that's one crime for every seven people in the UK. Perhaps the majority of people will live their lives unaffected by violent crime, but you can't claim that it is a 'vast' majority.

This is the best compromise - a woman should not be forced to face someone who has raped her, whether or not this takes away a basic right of the defendant.
She isn't forced, only if she decides she wants justice.

She isn't forced, only if she decides she wants justice.
It's a choice I'd want to make every day! :rolleyes:

It's a choice I'd want to make every day! :rolleyes:
Such is the price of justice.

Such is the price of justice.
The price of justice should not be so high on the innocent.

The price of justice should not be so high on the innocent.
But the price is not high when the reward is justice.

But the price is not high when the reward is justice.
You trying telling that to the victims who go to court and see no conviction coming out of it. Is that justice?

You trying telling that to the victims who go to court and see no conviction coming out of it. Is that justice?

No, that is not justice.

No, that is not justice.
Right. And that happens in 94% of cases that end up in court. So something needs to be done, surely?

I find this more than a little disturbing. Rape in my opinion should be worse crime than possesion of drugs but not in some cases.
"Not in some cases?" Could you please describe for us a case in which a rape would be less vile than possessing drugs? Be specific: what quantity of drugs is worth more than a human being's right to not get raped? How much drugs can a person own before they become "worse" than a rapist?

Right. And that happens in 94% of cases that end up in court. So something needs to be done, surely?

An improvement in evidence gathering and a better programme to encourage victims to come forward sooner.

An improvement in evidence gathering and a better programme to encourage victims to come forward sooner.I would add that there need to be some serious changes in minimum sentencing laws. Rape should carry a minimum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Anything less is an insult to justice.

Of course, I am horrified that first degree murder sometimes will not carry a life sentence, while a third drug conviction will. Seriously fucked up values.

An improvement in evidence gathering and a better programme to encourage victims to come forward sooner.
Frequently the sole evidence in a rape case is the testimony of the victim. If the woman comes forward to report the attack soon enough, then DNA samples can be taken, and eventually a match can be found. This gives about 99.999% certainty of having the right guy, so you'd probably get a conviction. But women often don't want to report being raped, as they feel violated and do not want to share the experience - often they won't even tell their family or friends for months or perhaps years. I'm sure some would never tell anyone.

Add to this the fact that there's only a 1 in 20 chance of their attacker being convicted, and they probably don't have too much faith in the justice system. A better programme to encourage victims to come forward would take years, probably decades, to see a substantial change in the number of victims who come forward, and that's not acceptable.

"Not in some cases?" Could you please describe for us a case in which a rape would be less vile than possessing drugs? Be specific: what quantity of drugs is worth more than a human being's right to not get raped? How much drugs can a person own before they become "worse" than a rapist?

bad wording on my part let me revise it

"I find this more than a little disturbing. Rape in my opinion should be worse crime than possesion of drugs but not in some cases in the eyes of the law due to the fact that you can get higher sentences for drugs offences than rape"

A better programme to encourage victims to come forward would take years, probably decades, to see a substantial change in the number of victims who come forward, and that's not acceptable.

This programme must still be introduced though. It's like planting an oak tree.

This may be true, but the current crime figures show that there are nearly six million reported crimes each year in this country, and estimates are that this represents only 75% of total crime. (Source: Oxford Handbook of Criminology, third edition, 2002).

i can't remember the figures from the source i referred to but i think this would still leave a huge disparity between fear of crime and actual incidence of crime. don't forget also that they will be including a huge number of crimes that people may not even view as crimes like 'breach of the peace' or being 'drunk and disorderly'. i work in a nightclub and practically every non-staffmember in there could be charged with this last 'crime' and yet only a fraction of them get thrown out and even less have the police called on them.

So 8 million crimes a year - that's one crime for every seven people in the UK. Perhaps the majority of people will live their lives unaffected by violent crime, but you can't claim that it is a 'vast' majority.

this comes down to a question of perspective. i would say that six times more people not experiencing crime than people experiencing crime is the vast majority.

This isn't a misunderstanding. It's a difference of opinion. Throwing it in there like that is just you claiming that your moral standard is the one true moral standard. The other stuff I have no real objection to, but this point is just an example of you trying to force your personal moral code down everyone elses throat.

terribly sorry [/sarcasm], would you feel better if i had started my post with "IMHO". i am fully aware that morals are relative and if anything is based on opinion it is moral standards. i honestly don't think it is possible to force one's opinion down people's throats on an internet forum in a stand alone post. i did not relentlessly try to drive my point home without considering other people's arguments. you just decided to take exception to one aspect of my post, as is your right, but accusing me of trying to force my own moral standards down other people's throats is not on.

As a victim of rape as a child, I know that the man that raped me (a serving member of the Royal Navy) was not prosecuted, and his commanding officer wrote him an excellent character reference, He had no punishment at all.

His mother on the other hand, (a family friend) had a nervous breakdown because of what he had done...

I also know that this person is out there somewhere, he could likely have a wife and children, and they won't know what he is capable of.

Based on his unitilgent hostility tword this thread and anyone who post something about rape needing harsher enforcement of penalties, it seems clear that ConscribedComradeship is either a violent rapist himself or the family member of a rapist, and he thinks it is the victum's fault.

this comes down to a question of perspective. i would say that six times more people not experiencing crime than people experiencing crime is the vast majority.
But the figure is for one crime for every seven people per year. Average life expectancy is around 73, so judging by that, a person can expect to be a victim of crime ten times in their life. At least one of those is likely to be a violent crime in some form.

It's fortunate that all the reactionaries in this thread don't have the intelligence to ever gain a position of power. Keep raging against the machine kids.

My opinion?

We should give all rapists the death penalty.

Whoo!

And dont forget all of the murderers and pedophiles and terrorists and...

Whoo!

And dont forget all of the murderers and pedophiles and terrorists and...
And all the sick fucks who advocate state sanctioned murder.:rolleyes:

It's fortunate that all the reactionaries in this thread don't have the intelligence to ever gain a position of power. Keep raging against the machine kids.

I'm not sure what you mean.
Why don't they have the intelligence to gain power? Intelligence is rarely a major factor in gaining power; just look at Bush, He's the president and he's not too smart. (and he supports the death penalty.)

I can't really understand why you oppose giving the death penalty to rapists. In the cases where they are clearly responsible, they do not deserve to have the state, and all of the people in it, pay for them to scrounge off us in a prison somewhere. It may also help deter other rapists, and will definately stop them from doing it again!

I'm not sure what you mean.
Why don't they have the intelligence to gain power? Intelligence is rarely a major factor in gaining power; just look at Bush, He's the president and he's not too smart. (and he supports the death penalty.)

I can't really understand why you oppose giving the death penalty to rapists. In the cases where they are clearly responsible, they do not deserve to have the state, and all of the people in it, pay for them to scrounge off us in a prison somewhere. It may also help deter other rapists, and will definately stop them from doing it again!

Because people need rehabilitation, not bullets. I've said it before and I'll say it again, put people in rehabilitation for a few years rather than jail, that way people will have changed a bit, and also won't have simply learned how to steal cars from their fellow inmates.

The death penalty is unnacceptable for any crime. It sickens me that there are people in this thread whooing and cheering for murder, because what it is. You think you occupy some moral high ground but the fact is you are acting on the same level as the murderers and rapists you so despise.

Rape is a terrible crime, on par with GBH (grievous bodily harm) but not as severe as murder. Murder is taking someones life forever, rape and GBH is potentially ruining someones life through psychological and/or physical means, but it is not the end. Recovery is very possible. The fact that you condone the more serious crime of murder against those who perpetrate lesser crimes shows that you completely lack any ethics or morals that would stand up to rational scrutiny.

But the figure is for one crime for every seven people per year. Average life expectancy is around 73, so judging by that, a person can expect to be a victim of crime ten times in their life. At least one of those is likely to be a violent crime in some form.

okay, i hadn't noticed that it was per year. but i'm not sure your extrapolation of that is logically sound. i'm no mathematician so i can't really work it out but i think you're making an erroneous assumption to reach your conclusion. it just doesn't sound right. anyway, i will refer you back to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10736090&postcount=184) that sparked this discussion where i mentioned that the fear of violent crime is vastly disproportionate to the actual incidence of violent crime. the point was that it is this unfounded fear that leads people to believe that murderers and rapists are hiding round every corner and in every bush just waiting to get them, which leads people to have the subsequent opinion that the only way to deal with such a threat is to dispose of it permanently.

and as a sidenote i'd like to just mention that my experience of crime has so far been limited to being mugged once (which left me with a broken nose, two black eyes and a twisted arm). now i'm not one to get worried about things but i didn't leave the flat for nearly a week after it happened in case i met my attackers again and i think if i didn't know that incidence of violent crime is much lower than the fear of crime then i would still be locked up in my flat afraid to go out. i think it is helpful for people to realise that their fear is largely unfounded and is bolstered and perpetuated by a sensationalist media which hides the real danger that is present in the home from people you know and love. incidence of violent crime in the home is much, much higher than people realise and fear of crime in the home is almost non-existence. i merely wish to point out this alarming disparity.

okay, i hadn't noticed that it was per year. but i'm not sure your extrapolation of that is logically sound. i'm no mathematician so i can't really work it out but i think you're making an erroneous assumption to reach your conclusion. it just doesn't sound right. anyway, i will refer you back to my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10736090&postcount=184) that sparked this discussion where i mentioned that the fear of violent crime is vastly disproportionate to the actual incidence of violent crime. the point was that it is this unfounded fear that leads people to believe that murderers and rapists are hiding round every corner and in every bush just waiting to get them, which leads people to have the subsequent opinion that the only way to deal with such a threat is to dispose of it permanently.

I know it's probably not logically sound. My real point was that it's likely that each person in this country is likely to be the victim of crime at some point in their lives. Not necessarily violent.
and as a sidenote i'd like to just mention that my experience of crime has so far been limited to being mugged once (which left me with a broken nose, two black eyes and a twisted arm). now i'm not one to get worried about things but i didn't leave the flat for nearly a week after it happened in case i met my attackers again and i think if i didn't know that incidence of violent crime is much lower than the fear of crime then i would still be locked up in my flat afraid to go out. i think it is helpful for people to realise that their fear is largely unfounded and is bolstered and perpetuated by a sensationalist media which hides the real danger that is present in the home from people you know and love. incidence of violent crime in the home is much, much higher than people realise and fear of crime in the home is almost non-existence. i merely wish to point out this alarming disparity.
I've never been the victim of crime, fortunately. A friend of mine was beaten up by a couple of scallies just over a year ago (fucking idiots didn't even rob him...). He barely left his flat for a month and became severely depressed as a result, so I know the effect the fear of crime can have on people.

But yes, the media has a lot to answer for. The Daily fucking Mail especially.