NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a suggestion of laws (and changes to laws) that I think should be introduced into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom - also known as U.K.):

http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/AIMS.doc

EDIT: Here's a webpage version: http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/aims2

It's just a suggestion so don't be having a go at me if you don't agree with any of it :)

Any comments?

Any comments?
Yeah, why it is a .doc file and not a webpage?

Because I wrote it in Word then couldn't be arsed signing into geocities to cut and paste it :)

Well, put it as a webpage and somebody might actually look at it :p

Introduce legislation to overrule stupid court decisions, without scrapping the Human Rights Act. The legislation will be titled “Rights of Victims Act” and will enshrine in law that the rights of victims of crime are more important than the rights of criminals.

You sign away the separation of powers too easily my friend.

Change law so that those on trial, or about to be on trial, for rape are detained until their trial date, to prevent further attacks.

Considering the waiting periods there can be for Crown Courts I think this is unfair on the alleged rapist. Leave it to the discretion of the judge/psychiatrist.

Introduce a minimum 5-year sentence (with rehabilitation) for so-called “consensual” sexual contact with children (non-consensual sexual contact will be covered by the above laws). Any conviction after the second would result in a minimum 15-year sentence, which can be increased to life imprisonment (by increments of 3 years) at the discretion of the judge. Only to be changed if the convicted person is a child or it can be sufficiently evidenced that they suffer from mental health difficulties.

How would this affect the offence currently known as statutory rape when both participents are under the age of consent?

Change law so that people who defend themselves against attack, even if the defence results in the death of the attacker or attackers, are protected by law.

We already have a 'reasonable force' clause. The reason why we limit the right to self defence is so we can prosecute gross over-reactions such as shooting a five year old who threw a tomato.

1. In any case where the Human Rights of a criminal are in conflict with the Human Rights of any victim of that criminal, the Human Rights of the victim(s) shall overrule the Human Rights of the criminal, to whatever extent is necessary to ensure the Human Rights of the victim are protected (but no further than to this extent).

Explain.

1. Any person who:

(a) is on trial as a result of an accusation against them, or

(b) is about to be on trial as a result of an accusation against them,

(c) and the accusation against that person is an accusation of rape

shall remain in custody until their trial ends.


Do you have any idea how long some cases take to resolve? I don't think you've thought this through very clearly to be honest.

Introduce legislation to overrule stupid court decisions, without scrapping the Human Rights Act. The legislation will be titled “Rights of Victims Act” and will enshrine in law that the rights of victims of crime are more important than the rights of criminals.

You sign away the separation of powers too easily my friend.

Well, let's face it, separation of powers isn't something the British constitution is known for. Exectutive drawn from legislature and 'subordinate' to it and all that...High Court of Parliament being highest court of appeal in the land (Queen-in-Parliament exercised through the House of Lords) etc...

Cheers for the feedback. I've quoted you and added answers in bold

QUOTE: Introduce legislation to overrule stupid court decisions, without scrapping the Human Rights Act. The legislation will be titled “Rights of Victims Act” and will enshrine in law that the rights of victims of crime are more important than the rights of criminals.

You sign away the separation of powers too easily my friend.

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? I suggested this because of all the stuff over the Human Rights Act putting criminals before victims. I think it's an important Act, but it's interpreted stupidly sometimes (for example, the recent hijackers case). The "Rights of Victims Act" would ensure that this doesn't happen.

Change law so that those on trial, or about to be on trial, for rape are detained until their trial date, to prevent further attacks.

Considering the waiting periods there can be for Crown Courts I think this is unfair on the alleged rapist. Leave it to the discretion of the judge/psychiatrist.

The last attack I read of, the attacker said something like "I'm going down anyway". So basically, he was not kept in custody, and knew he would be sent to prison, so saw no reason not to attack again - thus potentially destroying someone else's life. Judges are nuts here. They don't know what a harsh sentence is (less than 3 years for paedo-rape and various other tortures is NOT harsh). I've seen again and again and again judges give violent attackers tiny sentences. As for psychiatrists, they can be easily lied to. Besides, for reasons of cheapness, it's usually psychologists, who are extremely easy to trick. Plus I think they were trained with Freudian theories - enough said. The waiting period may be ages, but virtually nobody is even charged with a sexual offence (let alone prosecuted) if there isn't a lot of evidence. Occasionally they are, but it virtually never happens. Except possibly in the case of people getting done for taking naked photos of their kids. Plus, isn't it possible to put serious crimes under a priority waiting period, getting them to trial faster?

Introduce a minimum 5-year sentence (with rehabilitation) for so-called “consensual” sexual contact with children (non-consensual sexual contact will be covered by the above laws). Any conviction after the second would result in a minimum 15-year sentence, which can be increased to life imprisonment (by increments of 3 years) at the discretion of the judge. Only to be changed if the convicted person is a child or it can be sufficiently evidenced that they suffer from mental health difficulties.

How would this affect the offence currently known as statutory rape when both participents are under the age of consent?

It wouldn't. It would only be for adults. I think it's dam stupid to lock up kids who can't consent because they apparently aren't aware of the impact of what they are doing (hence the reason they can't legally have sex with adults). I would stop the locking up of kids for doing consensual things with OTHER KIDS.

Change law so that people who defend themselves against attack, even if the defence results in the death of the attacker or attackers, are protected by law.

We already have a 'reasonable force' clause. The reason why we limit the right to self defence is so we can prosecute gross over-reactions such as shooting a five year old who threw a tomato.

True we have a reasonable defence clause. But also true that, even in cases where it's obvious to the police that what someone did was purely in self-defence, they have to arrest them and often let the court decide - which means a horrible trial for a victm, being treated as though they did something wrong. The Self-defence Act would clarify things.

1. In any case where the Human Rights of a criminal are in conflict with the Human Rights of any victim of that criminal, the Human Rights of the victim(s) shall overrule the Human Rights of the criminal, to whatever extent is necessary to ensure the Human Rights of the victim are protected (but no further than to this extent).

Explain.

Basically, if someone has murdered someone to steal their boat to gain access to this country, then they claim that they are fleeing persecution and it would be "against their Human Rights" to deport them or allow them to live freely in Britain, the rights of the public (the right not to be in fear of being shot) would be put before the rights of the criminal and the criminal would either be deported, or locked up for murder.

1. Any person who:

(a) is on trial as a result of an accusation against them, or

(b) is about to be on trial as a result of an accusation against them,

(c) and the accusation against that person is an accusation of rape

shall remain in custody until their trial ends.


Do you have any idea how long some cases take to resolve? I don't think you've thought this through very clearly to be honest.

Yep, I do, but here I just repeat the above:
The last attack I read of, the attacker said something like "I'm going down anyway". So basically, he was not kept in custody, and knew he would be sent to prison, so saw no reason not to attack again - thus potentially destroying someone else's life. Judges are nuts here. They don't know what a harsh sentence is (less than 3 years for paedo-rape and various other tortures is NOT harsh). I've seen again and again and again judges give violent attackers tiny sentences. As for psychiatrists, they can be easily lied to. Besides, for reasons of cheapness, it's usually psychologists, who are extremely easy to trick. Plus I think they were trained with Freudian theories - enough said. The waiting period may be ages, but virtually nobody is even charged with a sexual offence (let alone prosecuted) if there isn't a lot of evidence. Occasionally they are, but it virtually never happens. Except possibly in the case of people getting done for taking naked photos of their kids. Plus, isn't it possible to put serious crimes under a priority waiting period, getting them to trial faster?

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? I suggested this because of all the stuff over the Human Rights Act putting criminals before victims. I think it's an important Act, but it's interpreted stupidly sometimes (for example, the recent hijackers case). The "Rights of Victims Act" would ensure that this doesn't happen.

Tell me, how would your "Rights of Victims Act" have changed the outcome of the hijackers case? The only way you could do that would be to change the situation in Afghanistan so it was no longer too dangerous for them to return.

Change law so that those on trial, or about to be on trial, for rape are detained until their trial date, to prevent further attacks.
So all a woman has to do is accuse a man of rape, and he's sent to custody, has his reputation destroyed, he might lose his family, might lose his job or business, and it would have a huge affect on anybody dependent on him or attached to him....until the clogged court system gets round to dealing with him?

Why? Why destroy a man (or it could be a woman, of course) by putting him in prison when he could very easily have been accused of a crime he didn't do.

How would you like it if I accused you of rape and you ended up in a cell for 3 months waiting for the PPS to do something about you?

Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

Your idea sucks, dude.



True we have a reasonable defence clause. But also true that, even in cases where it's obvious to the police that what someone did was purely in self-defence, they have to arrest them and often let the court decide - which means a horrible trial for a victm, being treated as though they did something wrong. The Self-defence Act would clarify things.

Surely under this "Self-Defence Act" there would still have to be an investigation to ensure that the victim did, in fact, use reasonable force? How would this change anything?

quoted you with answers in bold:

Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? I suggested this because of all the stuff over the Human Rights Act putting criminals before victims. I think it's an important Act, but it's interpreted stupidly sometimes (for example, the recent hijackers case). The "Rights of Victims Act" would ensure that this doesn't happen.

Tell me, how would your "Rights of Victims Act" have changed the outcome of the hijackers case? The only way you could do that would be to change the situation in Afghanistan so it was no longer too dangerous for them to return.

It would have recognised that the rights of the victims of crime were more important than the rights of criminals. Thus, it would consider the rights of previous victims (such as the airline staff) who would be at risk due to the previous actions (and thus, potentially further actions) of the hijackers. In addition, section 2 would ensure that the "Human Rights" of the hijackers to remain in Britain, living in society, was not put above the right of society to live in safety. Considering the previous actions of the hijackers, section 2 would ignore the Human Rights of the hijackers "only to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the victim(s) of the criminal or the safety of society in general" - in other words, the right to live in British society would be ignored to ensure the safety of society from the hijackers, but the rest of their Human Rights would be left intact.

Change law so that those on trial, or about to be on trial, for rape are detained until their trial date, to prevent further attacks.

So all a woman has to do is accuse a man of rape, and he's sent to custody, has his reputation destroyed, he might lose his family, might lose his job or business, and it would have a huge affect on anybody dependent on him or attached to him....until the clogged court system gets round to dealing with him?

Why? Why destroy a man (or it could be a woman, of course) by putting him in prison when he could very easily have been accused of a crime he didn't do.

How would you like it if I accused you of rape and you ended up in a cell for 3 months waiting for the PPS to do something about you?

Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

Your idea sucks, dude.

I put "on trial". The guy would only be kept in custody if the case went to trial. This happens in murder cases - why not rape cases? As stated, rape cases virtually never get even to charge stage, let alone prosecution stage, unless there's loads of evidence. And is it not possible to change the law so that rape cases are a priority and get into the courtroom quicker?

As for preseumption of innocence, I'm not saying assume they are guilty, even if the evidence points to the fact they are. But as I said above, "The last attack I read of, the attacker said something like "I'm going down anyway". So basically, he was not kept in custody, and knew he would be sent to prison, so saw no reason not to attack again - thus potentially destroying someone else's life. Judges are nuts here. They don't know what a harsh sentence is (less than 3 years for paedo-rape and various other tortures is NOT harsh). I've seen again and again and again judges give violent attackers tiny sentences. As for psychiatrists, they can be easily lied to. Besides, for reasons of cheapness, it's usually psychologists, who are extremely easy to trick. Plus I think they were trained with Freudian theories - enough said. The waiting period may be ages, but virtually nobody is even charged with a sexual offence (let alone prosecuted) if there isn't a lot of evidence. Occasionally they are, but it virtually never happens. Except possibly in the case of people getting done for taking naked photos of their kids.

So it's true it's easy to accuse a man of rape. But not so easy to get him charged, let alone prosecuted, especially if you're lying."

In addition, there's already a law that allows the release of photos of people accused of rape. The intention of this law is to get more victims to come forwards, putting rights of victims above rights of rapists.

True we have a reasonable defence clause. But also true that, even in cases where it's obvious to the police that what someone did was purely in self-defence, they have to arrest them and often let the court decide - which means a horrible trial for a victm, being treated as though they did something wrong. The Self-defence Act would clarify things.

Surely under this "Self-Defence Act" there would still have to be an investigation to ensure that the victim did, in fact, use reasonable force? How would this change anything?

Well there would be an investigation, but there wouldn't be a trial just because a person used a metal pole against a person who had no weapon (but was much weightier than the victim), as the police would be able, using this law, to easily determine it was reasonable force.

To pick just one, that hasn't already been touched.

Build a Young Persons Shelter (up to the age of 16) for every city in the U.K., each with at least ten bedsTen? A shelter per city? "How generous" was my first thought, the sarcasm dripping from it like a honey from a smashed beehive...

But, I then thought, maybe I need to verify my impressions. So I do a quick Google (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1922677.stm) and come up with a figure of 100,000 (at least temporarily/so-called) homeless children (from 78,000 homeless families) and official figures of (presumably just counting 'long term' and truly unaccomodated) 26,000 children.

(Other sources exist with other figures, and this was 4 years ago, but the above figures are typically representative.)


And no, I'm not on a crusade to stop homelessness (I'd like to stop it, but honestly can't single it out as the one cause I'd go on a crusade for), but as others are covering some of the other points I'd make, let me make this point alone.

It would have recognised that the rights of the victims of crime were more important than the rights of criminals. Thus, it would consider the rights of previous victims (such as the airline staff) who would be at risk due to the previous actions (and thus, potentially further actions) of the hijackers. In addition, section 2 would ensure that the "Human Rights" of the hijackers to remain in Britain, living in society, was not put above the right of society to live in safety. Considering the previous actions of the hijackers, section 2 would ignore the Human Rights of the hijackers "only to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the victim(s) of the criminal or the safety of society in general" - in other words, the right to live in British society would be ignored to ensure the safety of society from the hijackers, but the rest of their Human Rights would be left intact.

But hang on. What rights of the victims would you be considering in their asylum application? They're irrelevent. There is no need to consider those caught up in the hijacking in their asylum application. Maybe in a court case brought against the hijackers charged with the crime of hijacking, but not in their asylum case.

Now, you seem to be under the impression that they would be some sort of continued risk to the wider society. I call bullshit on that. They hijacked the plane for one reason and one reason only; to get to the UK and claim asylum. Now that they're here, why would they be hijacking any more planes?

Your idea makes no sense; the hijackers remaining in the UK has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of those who were on the plane, and absolutely everything to do with the right of asylum balanced against the threat they would face if they returned to Afghanistan



I put "on trial". The guy would only be kept in custody if the case went to trial. This happens in murder cases - why not rape cases? As stated, rape cases virtually never get even to charge stage, let alone prosecution stage, unless there's loads of evidence. And is it not possible to change the law so that rape cases are a priority and get into the courtroom quicker?

It doesn't happen in all murder cases; bail is only refused if the presiding judge believes the defendant is still a threat.

As for preseumption of innocence, I'm not saying assume they are guilty, even if the evidence points to the fact they are. But as I said above, "The last attack I read of, the attacker said something like "I'm going down anyway". So basically, he was not kept in custody, and knew he would be sent to prison, so saw no reason not to attack again - thus potentially destroying someone else's life.

That's funny, I never heard that. A link to a reputable source would be nice.

Judges are nuts here. They don't know what a harsh sentence is (less than 3 years for paedo-rape and various other tortures is NOT harsh).

When did this happen? Once again, a reputable source would be nice.

I've seen again and again and again judges give violent attackers tiny sentences. As for psychiatrists, they can be easily lied to.

Not a good expert witness psychiatrist. That's the reason they're experts; they can tell.

Besides, for reasons of cheapness, it's usually psychologists, who are extremely easy to trick. Plus I think they were trained with Freudian theories - enough said.

Sometimes it's a psychiatrist, sometimes it's a psychologist; depends on the nature of the case.

The waiting period may be ages, but virtually nobody is even charged with a sexual offence (let alone prosecuted) if there isn't a lot of evidence. Occasionally they are, but it virtually never happens. Except possibly in the case of people getting done for taking naked photos of their kids.

Often the problem with prosecuting in sexual offence cases is that the victim is unwilling to continue with the prosecution, or is unwilling to give evidence, not that there isn't sufficient evidence that could be made available.

So it's true it's easy to accuse a man of rape. But not so easy to get him charged, let alone prosecuted, especially if you're lying."

Yeah it is. A woman could have unprotected, relatively violent, sex with a man, then go to the Police and claim she was raped. There's his DNA, there's what the police would construe as signs of a "struggle". The man would, at the very least, be charged


Well there would be an investigation, but there wouldn't be a trial just because a person used a metal pole against a person who had no weapon (but was much weightier than the victim), as the police would be able, using this law, to easily determine it was reasonable force.

....which would be how things are done now anyway.

Nadkor, thanks for the replies, and I will respond, but some of what you said is wrong (I'll explain and back it up later or tomorrow, but I have to logg off the computer now).

O.K., here's my response. Again, answers in bold (saves on double-quoting to get both my quotes and yours): My original answers in italics, your responses in normal text, my new responses in bold.

It would have recognised that the rights of the victims of crime were more important than the rights of criminals. Thus, it would consider the rights of previous victims (such as the airline staff) who would be at risk due to the previous actions (and thus, potentially further actions) of the hijackers. In addition, section 2 would ensure that the "Human Rights" of the hijackers to remain in Britain, living in society, was not put above the right of society to live in safety. Considering the previous actions of the hijackers, section 2 would ignore the Human Rights of the hijackers "only to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the victim(s) of the criminal or the safety of society in general" - in other words, the right to live in British society would be ignored to ensure the safety of society from the hijackers, but the rest of their Human Rights would be left intact.

But hang on. What rights of the victims would you be considering in their asylum application? They're irrelevent. There is no need to consider those caught up in the hijacking in their asylum application. Maybe in a court case brought against the hijackers charged with the crime of hijacking, but not in their asylum case.

Now, you seem to be under the impression that they would be some sort of continued risk to the wider society. I call bullshit on that. They hijacked the plane for one reason and one reason only; to get to the UK and claim asylum. Now that they're here, why would they be hijacking any more planes?

Your idea makes no sense; the hijackers remaining in the UK has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of those who were on the plane, and absolutely everything to do with the right of asylum balanced against the threat they would face if they returned to Afghanistan

When an asylum application is made, the officials need to decide not just whether the applicants would be in danger in their own country, but also whether they would be a danger to this country. This is the way things work now - after all, it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to let someone in the country who is quite obviously willing to use violence for their own ends. Trouble is, in the recent widely-publicised hijackers case, the courts put the Human Rights of the hijackers first -ALL of their human rights, including the right to live here if they claim they are in danger somewhere else. Based on the fact they were willing to use violence for their own ends, it would appear they are dangerous people. So the hijacking needs to be taken into consideration. And if allowing them to live freely in this country means that they are likely to be a danger to the safety of those caught up in the hijacking, then the safety of those people (and the right not to be in fear of violence or death) needs to be put above the right of the hijackers to live freely in this country (ie. the supposed "right" to cause not only injustice, but also fear, to the victims). By the courts putting the latter rights above the former, they have gave the hijackers a green light to commit crimes, making it clear to them that they will not be deported. The Government is currently claiming they want to "re-write" the whole, or most of the, Human Rights Act. What I'm suggesting is a less drastic measure.

Even IF the intention of the hijacking was genuinely to get to this country, that doesn't mean they should be let off with it - it gives a green light to anyone who wants to seek asylum here (or who wants "economic migration", which, for all we know, was their actualy intention) to put the fear of death into people to get here. Shall we make it O.K. to rob banks and mug others for people who are starving, rather than them asking organisations for help (I'm not even Chriatisn and Christian churches have been very helpful to me, though the Catholic ones seem more intimidating - and there are other organisations and helplines set up for those in need)? The fact remains they were willing to use violence, or the threat of violence, to get what they want. We should not say everyone should be able to act violently just to get what they want. The fact that the hijackers were willing to use violence, or the threat of it, shows that they are capable of using it to get what they want - thus posing a risk to society.

Even if it would be inhumane to send them to Afghanistan, they should at least be imprisoned (at least for a period of time) to make it clear that violence is NOT acceptable in a civilised society. Otherwise, the message is being sent out that it is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged.

I put "on trial". The guy would only be kept in custody if the case went to trial. This happens in murder cases - why not rape cases? As stated, rape cases virtually never get even to charge stage, let alone prosecution stage, unless there's loads of evidence. And is it not possible to change the law so that rape cases are a priority and get into the courtroom quicker?

It doesn't happen in all murder cases; bail is only refused if the presiding judge believes the defendant is still a threat.

I've just checked this out on one of the links from http://www.coolinnit.blogspot.com and you appear to be correct. Though it is USUALLY the case in murder trials, as murder is considered by the Government to be the most serious of all crimes (http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/whats_new/news-3187.html)

In addition, there are time limits if a person is remanded in custody. These time limits would still apply if the "Detention of Persons on Trial for Serious Crimes Act" was introduced.

As for preseumption of innocence, I'm not saying assume they are guilty, even if the evidence points to the fact they are. But as I said above, "The last attack I read of, the attacker said something like "I'm going down anyway". So basically, he was not kept in custody, and knew he would be sent to prison, so saw no reason not to attack again - thus potentially destroying someone else's life.

That's funny, I never heard that. A link to a reputable source would be nice.

Here you go. Daily Mail. Does what it says on the tin. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=386230&in_page_id=1770

Judges are nuts here. They don't know what a harsh sentence is (less than 3 years for paedo-rape and various other tortures is NOT harsh).

When did this happen? Once again, a reputable source would be nice.

Gladly. This is one particular incident that SERIOUSLY pissed me off. It was so bad that even the Sun, a newspaper that you could claim exploits females (at least adult ones anyway) got involved, starting a petition (which I signed under my full real name and sent to the address given on it). This link reports on the sentences - the woman was only given a 5-year sentence, but she could only serve half of that - and it's not in prison, it's in a Young Offender's Institute - the reason the judge gave for being so soft was that he decided the woman had been "led on", but how the f*ck does that make sense?!?! So if Person A tells Person B to murder someone, and Person B decides to do it, he/she should get a lower sentence because they were "led on"?! That's ridiculous, but it's exactly what the judge in that case (Findlay Baker) is saying! The man was given a so-called "life sentence" but a minimum term was set at just 6 years - which despite appearances, actually means it's very likely he will be out in 6 years, rather than serving at least 6 years and then more. Read the second article on this page: http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16640635&method=full&siteid=93463&headline=exclusive--baby-rape-beast-pampered-in-jail-name_page.html

I've just discovered he's being pampered in prison too :headbang: :mad: :confused:

I've seen again and again and again judges give violent attackers tiny sentences. As for psychiatrists, they can be easily lied to.

Not a good expert witness psychiatrist. That's the reason they're experts; they can tell.

No matter how smart a psychitrist is, they can't be 100% accurate all of the time. Even a sophisticated Lie Detectorisn't 100% accurate. There are some very good liars out there. Including rapists. An expert psychiatrist may be absolutely astounding at figuring out when people are lying. But not all the time. People have been released after psychiatrists have said they were O.K. to be released, and they've gone on to offend again. A particular case comes to mind where a supposed expert based their opinion on years-outdated educational reports - their opinion on whether a sexual attacker was dangerous that is... but it's quite vague in my memory so going to be a while finding a reference for it.

Besides, for reasons of cheapness, it's usually psychologists, who are extremely easy to trick. Plus I think they were trained with Freudian theories - enough said.

Sometimes it's a psychiatrist, sometimes it's a psychologist; depends on the nature of the case.

You may be right. But as far as I'm aware, those in the Mental Health profession are still being trained in Freudian theories (which, as you will see from the following link, are very, very, dangerous) - and whilst that may not seem relevant considering that they are deciding the danger aspect of a sexual attacker, rather than deciding whether the victim lied, it's perfectly plausible that in considering the apparent danger of the attacker, the mental health professional will take into account what they believed to be lies from the victim, based on stupid Freudian theories such as the supposed "oedipus Complex). Links to show Freud's theories are not worth dog shit:

BOOK: Nye, R. D. Three Psychologies: Perspectives from Freud, Skinner, and Rogers (6th edition). Wadsworth Thomson Learning, Canada: 2000

JOURNAL: The future of freud's illusion. (Freud's theories set psychiatry back one hundred years) in World and I August 2000, v15

Both are respected (they helped me in a First Class Honours graded assignment), and the latter is available online at http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/300/96/82469503w1/purl=rc1_EAIM_0_A63411355&dyn=8!xrn_63_0_A63411355?sw_aep=salcal2 (if you can't access it and you are at university, ask about it at an Enquiry Desk, as universities should have access to this resource).

The waiting period may be ages, but virtually nobody is even charged with a sexual offence (let alone prosecuted) if there isn't a lot of evidence. Occasionally they are, but it virtually never happens. Except possibly in the case of people getting done for taking naked photos of their kids.

Often the problem with prosecuting in sexual offence cases is that the victim is unwilling to continue with the prosecution, or is unwilling to give evidence, not that there isn't sufficient evidence that could be made available.

Here it would appear that your ears have fallen victim to common misconceptions. A lot of the time, victims call off cases NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO PROCEED, but because they are told there is not much chance of success by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS very often require loads of evidence before they will prosecute a person accused of rape. It's the CPS (along with defence lawyers and criminals that lie of course) who cause the problems with prosecutions in rape cases, NOT the victims. Ask any (UK-based, as this particular thread is specific to UK law and UK policies) Rape Crisis Organisation such as http://www.rapecrisis.co.uk or http://savehaven-uk.org. The CPS only usually prosecute a rape case if there's enough evidence to satisfy them.

So it's true it's easy to accuse a man of rape. But not so easy to get him charged, let alone prosecuted, especially if you're lying."

Yeah it is. A woman could have unprotected, relatively violent, sex with a man, then go to the Police and claim she was raped. There's his DNA, there's what the police would construe as signs of a "struggle". The man would, at the very least, be charged

Not necessarily. Victims (and apparent victims who turn out to be liars) are treated so harshly by the criminal justice system -including the police- that if they are lying, they are caught out VERY easily, for example by being repeatedly questioned and contradicting themselves because they couldn't remember what the original story was. And even if he was charged, the Crown Prosecution Service wouldn't take it to court if they didn't believe there was a realistic prospect of a conviction (based on the evidence for example) - I know not just from the news, but also because I wrote to them.

Well there would be an investigation, but there wouldn't be a trial just because a person used a metal pole against a person who had no weapon (but was much weightier than the victim), as the police would be able, using this law, to easily determine it was reasonable force.

....which would be how things are done now anyway.

You'd have thought, wouldn't you? But nope, if a person is accused of assault when in reality they were acting in self-defence, it's usually the court that decides, not the police - which means a horrible experience for the person who acted in self-defence, rather than a much much shorter police interview. The "Self-defence Act" would allow police to make the investigation using specific parts of a specific law, rather than a very vague "reasonable force" law.

I think you have absolutely no concept of the value of money. Do realise how much even £3,000 is for most people? Only the rich would be able to pay such a fine, with even the moderately rich having to opt for the jail option with the higher fines. Comparing 1 month to £1000 is so ridiculous.

I think you have absolutely no concept of the value of money. Do realise how much even £3,000 is for most people? Only the rich would be able to pay such a fine, with even the moderately rich having to opt for the jail option with the higher fines. Comparing 1 month to £1000 is so ridiculous.

Any fine (at all) should be a percentage of a person's income. £3000 is a third of my annual income, while I know people for whom it isnt even 5%. I would have to go to prison while they could pay it easily.

I like the "show them what they may be doing to Jesus" part. I love it when they put little jokes in there.

The Infinite Dunes and Zolworld, you're both right about the money. I have decided it would be better to change it so that it will be a percentage of the person's income, rather than a set fine. Will modify document in due course.

As for the bit reklated to Jesus - some people are religious, yet they still seem to think rape is acceptable (or that it's acceptable if they repent each time). If it's possible to show them that they are causing suffering to Jesus, and they believe that, then why not show them? In this context, does it really matter whether Jesus exists or not as long as those people realise that what they have done is extremely bad?

High Court of Parliament being highest court of appeal in the land (Queen-in-Parliament exercised through the House of Lords) etc...
The “Queen in Parliament” describes how the Sovereign, the House of Lords and House of Commons act together to constitute Parliament, in a legislative sense. For example, it is demonstrated by providing Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament.

Perhaps you are confusing this with the House of Lords in its judicial capacity acting as the final court of appeal. The Queen has nothing to do with this, however, nor does the House of Commons, so it has nothing to do with the Queen in Parliament.

When one says that Parliament is the highest court, it is not meant in a judicial sense. It is meant in the sense that it is the authority of last resort from which no appeal is possible because it can make new laws, rather than merely reinterpret laws.

The Infinite Dunes and Zolworld, you're both right about the money. I have decided it would be better to change it so that it will be a percentage of the person's income, rather than a set fine. Will modify document in due course.

As for the bit reklated to Jesus - some people are religious, yet they still seem to think rape is acceptable (or that it's acceptable if they repent each time). If it's possible to show them that they are causing suffering to Jesus, and they believe that, then why not show them? In this context, does it really matter whether Jesus exists or not as long as those people realise that what they have done is extremely bad?

That is reasonable. I like these laws.

Introduce legislation preventing the early release of prisoners who have been sentenced to life – this shall be called “Life Means Life Act”.

Why? It's a waste of money to keep a rehabilitated person in prison.

I also disagree with mandatory minimum sentences. Keep power with the judiciary to decide on a case by case basis rather than a "one size fits all" solution.

1. In any case where the Human Rights of a criminal are in conflict with the Human Rights of any victim of that criminal, the Human Rights of the victim(s) shall overrule the Human Rights of the criminal, to whatever extent is necessary to ensure the Human Rights of the victim are protected (but no further than to this extent).

2. In any case where ensuring that one or more Human Rights of a criminal are protected is likely to result in a danger to the victim(s) of that criminal, or to society in general, the Human Rights of the criminal are to be ignored only to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the victim(s) of the criminal or the safety of society in general.

How can human rights conflict with each other?

Answers in bold...

Introduce legislation preventing the early release of prisoners who have been sentenced to life – this shall be called “Life Means Life Act”.

Why? It's a waste of money to keep a rehabilitated person in prison.

But what about people who have not been rehabilitated? Or can not be rehabilitated? So many times, prisoners have been let free from their supposed "life" sentences, only to attack again. In any case, a sentence should mean what it says - for example, what's the point of having a 10-year sentence to scare people off doing a particular crime (assault for example) if they know that in realsity they may only get 1 year? And the life sentences are saved for extremely serious crimes.

I also disagree with mandatory minimum sentences. Keep power with the judiciary to decide on a case by case basis rather than a "one size fits all" solution.

If the power was left up to the judiciary, I fear things would be as they are now in the UK - massive discrepancies for almost identical crimes. But I've left in the power for the sentence to be changed in exceptional circumstances, which I think is enough.

1. In any case where the Human Rights of a criminal are in conflict with the Human Rights of any victim of that criminal, the Human Rights of the victim(s) shall overrule the Human Rights of the criminal, to whatever extent is necessary to ensure the Human Rights of the victim are protected (but no further than to this extent).

2. In any case where ensuring that one or more Human Rights of a criminal are protected is likely to result in a danger to the victim(s) of that criminal, or to society in general, the Human Rights of the criminal are to be ignored only to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of the victim(s) of the criminal or the safety of society in general.

How can human rights conflict with each other?

The Human Right of a an asylum seeker to stay in the country (and to live freely in it) may conflict with the Human Right of someone else to be safe from that person (they may have murdered a person for example). With the above Law (the Rights of Victims Act), it would be much less likely that the asylum seeker (if they have murdered a person and are therefore considered a danger to UK society) would be allowed to live freely in the UK under Human Rights Laws, as the Human Rights of the rest of society would be put first. This already happens in other countries (they don't interpret the Human Rights Act the way judges in this country do), but the difference is that there would be a specific law making this easier (and also preventing the complete ignorance of ALL of the asylum seeker's rights, with this part of the law: "whatever extent is necessary to ensure the Human Rights of the victim are protected (but no further than to this extent)"

But what about people who have not been rehabilitated? Or can not be rehabilitated? So many times, prisoners have been let free from their supposed "life" sentences, only to attack again. In any case, a sentence should mean what it says - for example, what's the point of having a 10-year sentence to scare people off doing a particular crime (assault for example) if they know that in realsity they may only get 1 year? And the life sentences are saved for extremely serious crimes.

A reform of the parole system would be a cheaper and more humane solution to this.


If the power was left up to the judiciary, I fear things would be as they are now in the UK - massive discrepancies for almost identical crimes. But I've left in the power for the sentence to be changed in exceptional circumstances, which I think is enough.

"Exceptional circumstances" is a bit vauge though, isn't it? As it stands, if the state is unhappy with the sentence handed down then the state can appeal.


The Human Right of a an asylum seeker to stay in the country (and to live freely in it) may conflict with the Human Right of someone else to be safe from that person (they may have murdered a person for example). With the above Law (the Rights of Victims Act), it would be much less likely that the asylum seeker (if they have murdered a person and are therefore considered a danger to UK society) would be allowed to live freely in the UK under Human Rights Laws, as the Human Rights of the rest of society would be put first. This already happens in other countries (they don't interpret the Human Rights Act the way judges in this country do), but the difference is that there would be a specific law making this easier (and also preventing the complete ignorance of ALL of the asylum seeker's rights, with this part of the law: "whatever extent is necessary to ensure the Human Rights of the victim are protected (but no further than to this extent)"

Sorry, I still don't get your point. If an asylum seeker has murdered someone then they should be in jail and if they have served their debt to society then they should be allow freely go wherever they want, no? I still fail to see the purpose of this act.

Okay, firstly, Multiland, using the uniform quoting system that is provided on this board would make it much easier for other people to read your posts.

Secondly, you seem to be displaying an incredible amount of faith in the prison system, and seem to desire it to serve two main functions - those of protecting the convicted from society and of punishing them. Is this really the best idea we can come up with in the C21st?

Answers in bold...

But what about people who have not been rehabilitated? Or can not be rehabilitated? So many times, prisoners have been let free from their supposed "life" sentences, only to attack again. In any case, a sentence should mean what it says - for example, what's the point of having a 10-year sentence to scare people off doing a particular crime (assault for example) if they know that in realsity they may only get 1 year? And the life sentences are saved for extremely serious crimes.

A reform of the parole system would be a cheaper and more humane solution to this.

I don't see how it would be cheaper. It would have to hundreds or thousands of parole staff in better re-analysing of suspects (who indeed may be great actors who seem to even the best psychiatrist to be completely rehabilitated, only to go out and kill as soon as they are released). And more humane for the criminals, maybe. But what about the victims? Hearing that their brother's murderer has been sent down for life, only to see him or her on the high street a few years later, is not exactly fair to the victim (or their family) and not exactly a deterrent to potential criminals: "don't murder him, you'll be sent down for life"... "life? don't be stupid, I'll be out after a few years!" And if a person has the capacity to murder a person in cold blood, the I don't think it's particularly inhumane to prevent them from ever doing the same to anyone else

If the power was left up to the judiciary, I fear things would be as they are now in the UK - massive discrepancies for almost identical crimes. But I've left in the power for the sentence to be changed in exceptional circumstances, which I think is enough.

"Exceptional circumstances" is a bit vauge though, isn't it? As it stands, if there are massive discrepancies then the state can appeal.

CAN appeal. Never does (almost never anyway). There recently had to be a petition from the Sun newspaper to increase the extremely low sentences of two paedophiles. The petition should not have been necessary - the state should have appealed off its own back. But there are MANY other things that a government has to deal with. Look in a newspaper that gives a page with details of local trials and the results. Massive discrepancies. If "exceptional circumstances" is too vague, then I will change the document to provide further examples of exceptional circumstances (as well as examples of circumstances that are NOT to be considered to be exceptional circumstances), OR the judges would be issued with guidance to the same effect.

The Human Right of a an asylum seeker to stay in the country (and to live freely in it) may conflict with the Human Right of someone else to be safe from that person (they may have murdered a person for example). With the above Law (the Rights of Victims Act), it would be much less likely that the asylum seeker (if they have murdered a person and are therefore considered a danger to UK society) would be allowed to live freely in the UK under Human Rights Laws, as the Human Rights of the rest of society would be put first. This already happens in other countries (they don't interpret the Human Rights Act the way judges in this country do), but the difference is that there would be a specific law making this easier (and also preventing the complete ignorance of ALL of the asylum seeker's rights, with this part of the law: "whatever extent is necessary to ensure the Human Rights of the victim are protected (but no further than to this extent)"

Sorry, I don't get your point. If an asylum seeker has murdered someone then they should be in jail and if they have served thier debt to society then they should be allow freely go wherever they want, no? I still fail to see the purpose of this act.

IF the murder was not in cold blood and they have been properly punished and totally rehabilitated, then yes they should be allowed to go freely. But if they haven't, then it's ridiculous to say they should be allowed to live freely in the UK just because they are seeking asylum, when there is evidence that they still have the capacity (AND the will) to kill another person. But, it would seem, according to UK judges, the Human Rights of the asylum seeker in this case would be more important than the Human Rights of the rest of society (a right not to live in fear of murder for example). The "Rights of Victims Act" would ensure that safety is put before the Human Rights of this particular asylum seeker, but ONLY to the extent necessary to prtect society, and no more than to that extent.

Also, remember these are only suggestions, they are here for feedback. :)

AAnd more humane for the criminals, maybe. But what about the victims? Hearing that their brother's murderer has been sent down for life, only to see him or her on the high street a few years later, is not exactly fair to the victim (or their family)

Making assumptions about what the families of the victims want, are we? There are those who forgive, you know.

Okay, firstly, Multiland, using the uniform quoting system that is provided on this board would make it much easier for other people to read your posts.

Don't see how if I'm answering a question in response to a question in response to a response about a question - the quoting system only quotes the most recent reply.

I've made my answers bold, the text I'm responding to in normal text, and the text that THAT text was repsonding to in italics. If that makes things difficult, can you explain how?

Secondly, you seem to be displaying an incredible amount of faith in the prison system, and seem to desire it to serve two main functions - those of protecting the convicted from society and of punishing them. Is this really the best idea we can come up with in the C21st?

I don't place lots of faith in the prison system, except for one thing - that of stopping prisoners escaping, which (usually) it is pretty good at. I think it needs changing, but in the meantime, it needs to be made use of to prevent serious crimes from re-occurring. And my suggestions are only related to crimes that either cause death, or cause long-term suffering. Other crimes, depending on what they were, Community Service may well be sufficient, along with ensuring the criminals know why what they did was so wrong (eg. stealing from pensioners).

Other crimes, depending on what they were, Community Service may well be sufficient, along with ensuring the criminals know why what they did was so wrong (eg. stealing from pensioners).

Why is it worse to steal from someone over the age of 65 than from somebody under that age?

Making assumptions about what the families of the victims want, are we? There are those who forgive, you know.

I forgive people. I still don't think they should not be punished for serious crimes. Just because someone has been forgiven by one victim, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to go out and harm another one, if they are still likely to do so.

I forgive people. I still don't think they should not be punished for serious crimes. Just because someone has been forgiven by one victim, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to go out and harm another one, if they are still likely to do so.

You are changing your argument here: you raised the issue of the victim's family and what was fair and just for them in defence of life imprisonment, but now you are falling back onto just using prison as a way of protecting society, not one of justice.

Why is it worse to steal from someone over the age of 65 than from somebody under that age?

It was just an example. And I meant elderly people. But my logic at the time of writing was that elderly people are often more frail, and depending on the method used, could cause worse suffering than on much younger people. It wasn't part of my suggestions to changes (hadn't thought it out - I was just using it as an example).

It was just an example. And I meant elderly people. But my logic at the time of writing was that elderly people are often more frail, and depending on the method used, could cause worse suffering than on much younger people. It wasn't part of my suggestions to changes (hadn't thought it out - I was just using it as an example).

So, are you now asserting that stealing from a frail person is worse than stealing from a robust person, all other things being equal?

Originally Posted by Multiland
I forgive people. I still don't think they should not be punished for serious crimes. Just because someone has been forgiven by one victim, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to go out and harm another one, if they are still likely to do so.


You are changing your argument here: you raised the issue of the victim's family and what was fair and just for them in defence of life imprisonment, but now you are falling back onto just using prison as a way of protecting society, not one of justice.

I'm not changing my argument. I'm adding to it. Prison needs to be fair to the victims and families of victims of criminals, but it also needs to be a punishment (it needs to be part of justice) and needs to protect society from very dangerous criminals. In addition, just because a family has forgiven a criminal, there's no gurantee the criminal wouldn't attack again solely because of the forgiveness.

I'm not changing my argument. I'm adding to it. Prison needs to be fair to the victims and families of victims of criminals, but it also needs to be a punishment (it needs to be part of justice) and needs to protect society.

So you are then sticking with your assumption about what the victims' families will consider fair?

So, are you now asserting that stealing from a frail person is worse than stealing from a robust person, all other things being equal?

Not asserting that at all. Llike I said, it was an example. I thought it off the top of my head. Ignore it if you want.

Not asserting that at all. Llike I said, it was an example. I thought it off the top of my head. Ignore it if you want.

No, no. I find it interesting. You now seem to be distancing yourself from it, so do you consider the crime to be equally bad regardless of how frail or robust the victim is?

So you are then sticking with your assumption about what the victims' families will consider fair?

Yes. BUT if they consider it fair that the criminal (murderer for example) should be released after a year, but the criminal is still likely to be a danger to society, then the safety of society needs to be seriously considered before doing what the victim's family considers fair.

No, no. I find it interesting. You now seem to be distancing yourself from it, so do you consider the crime to be equally bad regardless of how frail or robust the victim is?

Start another thread and I'll answer you. :P

Start another thread and I'll answer you. :P

Divorcing jurisprudence from any discussion of the applied justice system is a bad idea in my view.

Divorcing jurisprudence from any discussion of the applied justice system is a bad idea in my view.

Was worth a try. :) I don't consider the crime to be equally bad regardless of the age of the victim or of how frail or robust they are. Which is precisely why beating up your kid comes under "Child Abuse" and not "Assault and Battery". The more frail the person, the more of an effect it will have, in my opinion. If a person is hit for their bag and they are elderly, they will probably have worse injuries because of their body providing less of a defence than when they were younger.

BUT I believe that each crime needs to be considered on its merits. However, for extremely serious crimes, I believe there needs to be a set long sntence that can only be changed in exceptional circumstances.

I don't see how it would be cheaper. It would have to hundreds or thousands of parole staff in better re-analysing of suspects (who indeed may be great actors who seem to even the best psychiatrist to be completely rehabilitated, only to go out and kill as soon as they are released).

Your argument here is based on an extremely unlikely scenario. Sure, there may be a murder who's such a great actor that they can fool the best psychiatrists and desire nothing more to go on a killing spree. Nothings impossible. It's just not very likely.

I'll go look up the costs for holding someone for life. IIRC the cost is around a million pounds per head.

And more humane for the criminals, maybe.

Yes. Criminals are people too. And if one makes a serious effort to rehabilitate themselves, then they should be given help.


But what about the victims? Hearing that their brother's murderer has been sent down for life, only to see him or her on the high street a few years later, is not exactly fair to the victim (or their family)

Tough. Justice is not about revenge.


and not exactly a deterrent to potential criminals: "don't murder him, you'll be sent down for life"... "life? don't be stupid, I'll be out after a few years!"

You kid, right? People don't consider sentences at all when they commit crimes, because they don't expect to be caught.

And if a person has the capacity to murder a person in cold blood, the I don't think it's particularly inhumane to prevent them from ever doing the same to anyone else

Once a person is rehabilitated, they no longer possess the capacity to murder in cold blood. That's practicably the definition of "rehabilitation"

CAN appeal. Never does (almost never anyway). There recently had to be a petition from the Sun newspaper to increase the extremely low sentences of two paedophiles. The petition should not have been necessary - the state should have appealed off its own back. But there are MANY other things that a government has to deal with.

The problem lies with the state prosecutor then. Look to reforming this area rather than reducing the power of the judiciary.

If "exceptional circumstances" is too vague, then I will change the document to provide further examples of exceptional circumstances (as well as examples of circumstances that are NOT to be considered to be exceptional circumstances), OR the judges would be issued with guidance to the same effect.

Good idea.

IF the murder was not in cold blood and they have been properly punished and totally rehabilitated, then yes they should be allowed to go freely. But if they haven't, then it's ridiculous to say they should be allowed to live freely in the UK just because they are seeking asylum, when there is evidence that they still have the capacity (AND the will) to kill another person.

Why is this ridiculous? First of all, there's no way to see if someone has the will to kill. Second, a criminal who has paid his debt to society should be treated like all others. You shouldn't just assume that they'll commit more crime. It's against the principle of natural justice.

Yes. BUT if they consider it fair that the criminal (murderer for example) should be released after a year, but the criminal is still likely to be a danger to society, then the safety of society needs to be seriously considered before doing what the victim's family considers fair.

You're saying that if a victim or the victim's family says that a criminal should be released and the state says that they present a danger then the criminal shouldn't be released but if a victims family says that a criminal shouldn't be released and the state says thay present no danger then they shouldn't be released?

How does that work?

My answers in bold, your previous reponses in normal text, the writing that you have responded to in italics...

I don't see how it would be cheaper. It would have to hundreds or thousands of parole staff in better re-analysing of suspects (who indeed may be great actors who seem to even the best psychiatrist to be completely rehabilitated, only to go out and kill as soon as they are released).

Your argument here is based on an extremely unlikely scenario. Sure, there may be a murder who's such a great actor that they can fool the best psychiatrists and desire nothing more to go on a killing spree. Nothings impossible. It's just not very likely.

I'll go look up the costs for holding someone for life. IIRC the cost is around a million pounds per head.

Unlikely? No way. Read more newspapers. There have been a significant number of reports of those locked up for serious crimes (usually rape,
often murder) being released and subsequently committing further crimes.

IIRC? What does that mean? And anyway, the cost would be reduced if it wasn't for the special treatment some prisoners get (sky TV etc - and YES, that really does happen in some prisons)

And more humane for the criminals, maybe.

Yes. Criminals are people too. And if one makes a serious effort to rehabilitate themselves, then they should be given help.

Yes. They should. But if they are not rehabilitated, or if the crime is so serious that to try to rehabilitate them was likely to result in further danger to society, then why waste taxpayer's money doing that when they can instead just be locked up, thus providing a serious deterrent to other potential committers of the same or similar crimes?

But what about the victims? Hearing that their brother's murderer has been sent down for life, only to see him or her on the high street a few years later, is not exactly fair to the victim (or their family)

Tough. Justice is not about revenge.

No. It's not. But it's about punishment (partially). On the one hand you say that what the victims want should be taken into account, now you appear to be saying the opposite. And a criminal hasn't exactly been properly punished if they are still going around putting the fear of death (or actual death) into people.


and not exactly a deterrent to potential criminals: "don't murder him, you'll be sent down for life"... "life? don't be stupid, I'll be out after a few years!"

You kid, right? People don't consider sentences at all when they commit crimes, because they don't expect to be caught.

Wrong. Sometimes they don't, but often they do. If you believe the opposite, then please back it up. Often they're not that worried about being caught because they know they will be out in a relatively short time. I can't go into detail, but there are certain people I've spoken to who have confirmed this - and who have subsequently offended, been re-arrested, sent down, and came out again only to be perfectly happy to commit a similar crime again.


And if a person has the capacity to murder a person in cold blood, the I don't think it's particularly inhumane to prevent them from ever doing the same to anyone else

Once a person is rehabilitated, they no longer possess the capacity to murder in cold blood. That's practicably the definition of "rehabilitation".

When it works. But show me some -ANY- examples of rehabilitation working. Until it does, then prison needs to be used instead. Besides, as I suggested, it's not exactly a deterrent to know that you'll just get "rehabilitation" rather than a long stretch in prison


CAN appeal. Never does (almost never anyway). There recently had to be a petition from the Sun newspaper to increase the extremely low sentences of two paedophiles. The petition should not have been necessary - the state should have appealed off its own back. But there are MANY other things that a government has to deal with.


The problem lies with the state prosecutor then. Look to reforming this area rather than reducing the power of the judiciary.

You may be right. I will re-consider.


If "exceptional circumstances" is too vague, then I will change the document to provide further examples of exceptional circumstances (as well as examples of circumstances that are NOT to be considered to be exceptional circumstances), OR the judges would be issued with guidance to the same effect.


Good idea.


IF the murder was not in cold blood and they have been properly punished and totally rehabilitated, then yes they should be allowed to go freely. But if they haven't, then it's ridiculous to say they should be allowed to live freely in the UK just because they are seeking asylum, when there is evidence that they still have the capacity (AND the will) to kill another person.


Why is this ridiculous? First of all, there's no way to see if someone has the will to kill. Second, a criminal who has paid his debt to society should be treated like all others. You shouldn't just assume that they'll commit more crime. It's against the principle of natural justice.

And thus, there is no way to see if they don't have the will to kill. Therefore, if they have, then it makes sense to provide a punishment that will not mean taking the risk that they do have the will to kill. And I again repeat what I said about a deterrent - if so-called "lifers" are constantly being released, it provides no deterrent to other potential murderers. In addition, it causes a loss of faith in the justice system (as has happened in the UK) and contributes to less crimes being reported and less people wanting to be witnesses in court, leading to less convictions, and more dangerous people being left on the streets.

My answers in bold, your previous reponses in normal text, the writing that you have responded to in italics...

There's really no need to do this. Just use quote boxes. We'll understand what you're talking about.

Unlikely? No way. Read more newspapers. There have been a significant number of reports of those locked up for serious crimes (usually rape,
often murder) being released and subsequently committing further crimes.

You weren't talking about those cases. You said (I paraphrase)"what about a criminal who is such a great actor that they can convince the best pyscrasists that they are rehabilitated "

That's unlikely.

IIRC? What does that mean? And anyway, the cost would be reduced if it wasn't for the special treatment some prisoners get (sky TV etc - and YES, that really does happen in some prisons)

If I recall correctly. But there is a level to where the cost can be reduced to. Food, light, heat, medical attention and guards mount up to a lot.

Yes. They should. But if they are not rehabilitated, or if the crime is so serious that to try to rehabilitate them was likely to result in further danger to society, then why waste taxpayer's money doing that when they can instead just be locked up, thus providing a serious deterrent to other potential committers of the same or similar crimes?

I think you and I have different definitions of "rehabilitate". When I say it, I mean "Will, in the opinion of experts in this matter, never re-offend". I think people like that shouldn't be in jail. Don't you?

And we should waste taxpayers money because if we do rehabilitate them then we'll save on providing food, light, heat, medical attention and guards for them for the next sixty years or so.

No. It's not. But it's about punishment (partially). On the one hand you say that what the victims want should be taken into account, now you appear to be saying the opposite. And a criminal hasn't exactly been properly punished if they are still going around putting the fear of death (or actual death) into people.

"Properly punished"? What do you mean by that? Is it "Will, in the opinion of experts in this matter, never re-offend". Because we could be looking for the same thing here.

Also, I don't think I ever said that "what the victims want should be taken into account"


Wrong. Sometimes they don't, but often they do. If you believe the opposite, then please back it up. Often they're not that worried about being caught because they know they will be out in a relatively short time. I can't go into detail, but there are certain people I've spoken to who have confirmed this - and who have subsequently offended, been re-arrested, sent down, and came out again only to be perfectly happy to commit a similar crime again.

If a criminal expected to be caught, then they wouldn't commit the crime. Since they don't expect to be caught, the punishment has no meaning to them. Logic. It's much more convincing than allusions to secret information.



When it works. But show me some -ANY- examples of rehabilitation working. Until it does, then prison needs to be used instead. Besides, as I suggested, it's not exactly a deterrent to know that you'll just get "rehabilitation" rather than a long stretch in prison

Prision is part of the rehabilitation process. Oh, and for your example: a person who leaves prison with a degree will stastically never re-offend. The rediction level is below the margin of error on that one. A long strech in prision never carries that kind of rate, unless the prisioner is a pensioner by the time they get out.


And thus, there is no way to see if they don't have the will to kill. Therefore, if they have, then it makes sense to provide a punishment that will not mean taking the risk that they do have the will to kill.

Dumb argument. You can't prove I don't have the will to kill. Why am I being allowed walk the streets?