NationStates Jolt Archive

I've submitted a few ideas before, so having looked at the feedback I've created... my manifesto so far! If I was running for Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, would ya vote for me based on these? :

MANIFESTO




COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (CPS)

• Demand name of every CPS prosecutor who has dropped a case. Will look at details and reasons for dropping case and if it is found that cases have been dropped when they should not have been, prosecutor will be fired
• Launch re-training strategy – in the space of a year, all prosecutors will be re-trained so that they can best use the evidence that is available and so that they can best represent victims of crime

COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF JUSTICE SYSTEM

• Tougher sentences – no more £50 fines for assaulting NHS staff
• There will be a specific offence of “Assaulting a National Health Service staff member” which will ensure that anyone who assaults an NHS staff member shall be subject to a minimum £100 plus minimum 6 month immediate (not suspended) prison sentence
• Better sentences available to best punish the offender whilst ensuring justice for the victim
• Phased replacement of judges and magistrates who are consistently too lenient
• Phased replacement of Appeal Court judges who either (1) consistently increase sentences that are too lenient to sentences that are still too lenient or (2) consistently refuse too increase sentences that are too lenient
• Life sentence to mean life – offenders given a life sentence will remain in prison for life
• Automatic life sentence for rape – all rape cases must be tried in a Crown Court. This will be combined with an awareness campaign designed to increase the shockingly low conviction rate but most importantly designed to prevent rape. An exception to the requirement for cases to be tried in a Crown Court will be in a case where it is one person’s word against another’s (for example, where a woman has claimed her husband has raped her but the husband claims it was consensual sexual intercourse) – such cases will be tried in a magistrates’ court and the automatic sentence shall be 10 years imprisonment (magistrates will still have the freedom to refer the case to a Crown Court if they desire). A further exception will be where the accused is under 18 – such a case will be tried in a Youth Court and the maximum sentence shall be 7 years in a Youth Offending Institute
• Judges and magistrates will be given clear guidelines on sentencing

BETTER NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (NHS)

• Current funding directed better to where it will be most useful
• Chief Executives of hospitals to be given specific advice on the range of powers at their disposal – they actually have significant power, which can benefit a hospital, but they often do not realise this (or what types of powers are available to them)
• Chief Executives of hospitals required to regularly speak to ‘ground staff’ (doctors, nurses, etc.), formally and informally, regarding how a hospital can be
• Government will conduct a nationwide survey of all hospital staff to find out what problems exist within hospitals
• More hospitals refurbished rather than closed
• Tough disciplinary action (and criminal charges where appropriate) against NHS staff who neglect or abuse patients

CLEANER ENVIRONMENT

• All recycling bins to have clear markings stating what materials can be placed in them
• More street recycling bins
• More cycle lanes
• Safer cycle lanes – less lanes shared with buses
• More renewable energy

I wouldn't vote for you, simply because you wrote a "manifesto."

I wouldn't vote for you, simply because you wrote a "manifesto."

Uh? So you'd rather vote for people who won't tell you what they plan to do?

• Current funding directed better to where it will be most usefulHow wonderfully vague.

Why is there a mandatory life sentence for rape but not for murder?

Someone else saw that programme on the BBc about the NHS last night.

And what would be the sentance if a rape victim was found to be lying ? The same sentence?

Why is there a mandatory life sentence for rape but not for murder?

Because there's already one. For murder, a life sentence is the ONLY sentence that can given. For rape, the maximum sentence is life, but judges often give lower sentences

Because there's already one. For murder, a life sentence is the ONLY sentence that can given. For rape, the maximum sentence is life, but judges often give lower sentences
Hmm, didn't know there was that in Britain. But as someone pointed out in a thread long lost in the depths of time, wouldn't giving a mandatory life sentence to rapists (if you don't support capital punishment?) encourage them to simply kill off their victim since they have nothing to lose?

Someone else saw that programme on the BBc about the NHS last night.

And what would be the sentance if a rape victim was found to be lying ? The same sentence?

Punishment would depend - under the current system (and partly due to jury bias), a lot of cases do not result in a conviction, but that does not mean the crime did not happen. Also if you advocate a harsh sentence for if a supposed victim of rape is found beyond all doubt to have been lying, does that mean you also advocate a harsh sentence for fake victims of every other crime? The prisons would be even more overpopulated than they already are, meaning serious criminals would still be given low sentences to avoid overfilling the prisons even more. So in short, in general, no, it would not be the same sentence for the victim if they were found to be lying.

Hmm, didn't know there was that in Britain. But as someone pointed out in a thread long lost in the depths of time, wouldn't giving a mandatory life sentence to rapists (if you don't support capital punishment?) encourage them to simply kill off their victim since they have nothing to lose?

I believe I responded with some ideas at the time. However, a lot of rapists feel (wrongly of course) that they are justified - "she's a slut", "she was wearing a short skirt", etc., but consider murder to be despicable. Thus I don't think there would be a strong likelihood of murder - just as someone either likes thieving or doesn't, a person either likes to rape or doesn't, and a person either likes to murder or doesn't - the threat of a prison sentence isn't likely to suddenly turn someone into a murderer.

Hmm, didn't know there was that in Britain. But as someone pointed out in a thread long lost in the depths of time, wouldn't giving a mandatory life sentence to rapists (if you don't support capital punishment?) encourage them to simply kill off their victim since they have nothing to lose?

well they may be let out if they luckly like, some who have been give life sentence but let out

Punishment would depend - under the current system (and partly due to jury bias), a lot of cases do not result in a conviction, but that does not mean the crime did not happen. Also if you advocate a harsh sentence for if a supposed victim of rape is found beyond all doubt to have been lying, does that mean you also advocate a harsh sentence for fake victims of every other crime? The prisons would be even more overpopulated than they already are, meaning serious criminals would still be given low sentences to avoid overfilling the prisons even more. So in short, in general, no, it would not be the same sentence for the victim if they were found to be lying.

So someone can ruin someones life but if they are found to do so. Ahh well doesn't matter.

Hmm, didn't know there was that in Britain. But as someone pointed out in a thread long lost in the depths of time, wouldn't giving a mandatory life sentence to rapists (if you don't support capital punishment?) encourage them to simply kill off their victim since they have nothing to lose?


That someone was me. They'd be killing the best witness against them. Of course it would encourage them to kill their victims.

But then, nobody ever really listens to logic, not when they can wrap themselves in emotional claptrap.

So someone can ruin someones life but if they are found to do so. Ahh well doesn't matter.

That's not what I said. If there was definite proof that the victim had lied, they would be punished, but it's a bit stupid filling up prisons for many years with people who have lied about something when the spaces could be used for violent offenders, just for the sake of revenge. As someone once pointed out on here, the justice system is supposed to be about justice, not revenge.

I believe I responded with some ideas at the time. However, a lot of rapists feel (wrongly of course) that they are justified - "she's a slut", "she was wearing a short skirt", etc., but consider murder to be despicable. Thus I don't think there would be a strong likelihood of murder - just as someone either likes thieving or doesn't, a person either likes to rape or doesn't, and a person either likes to murder or doesn't - the threat of a prison sentence isn't likely to suddenly turn someone into a murderer.

You're delusional.

You're delusional.

Why is it delusional to believe that someone won't suddenly turn into something they weren't already. I was never a murderer, but if someone claimed rape against me (not that they would as I would not rape anyone) and it looked like I was going to be imprisoned for life, I wouldn't suddenly turn into a murderer. Believing that someone would is delusional.

That's not what I said. If there was definite proof that the victim had lied, they would be punished, but it's a bit stupid filling up prisons for many years with people who have lied about something when the spaces could be used for violent offenders, just for the sake of revenge. As someone once pointed out on here, the justice system is supposed to be about justice, not revenge.

I'm not talking about revenge I'm talking about how peoples lives get ruined through false accusation and the accuser doesn't suffer at all. I mean just that both parties should be kept anon until a verdict is made.

I read to the part where you talk about justice for the victims at which point I considered voting conservative

1) justice is a backwards concept used to support knee jerk reactions

2) harsher punishments have never solved crime the fact that you should of learnt this in school worries me (then again we do have prison ships now:( )

3) your policies on the NHS have no plan what-so-ever I suggest when you don’t know about something you keep quite

4) your policies remind me of something we would see if we left labour in power for another term

Why is it delusional to believe that someone won't suddenly turn into something they weren't already. I was never a murderer, but if someone claimed rape against me (not that they would as I would not rape anyone) and it looked like I was going to be imprisoned for life, I wouldn't suddenly turn into a murderer. Believing that someone would is delusional.


No, that's called logical.

No, that's called logical.

No, people either are something or they aren't. I am straight. I'm not going to suddenly "become" gay (despite a jokey post some time ago) because I've been drugged up so much that I've had sex with a man - "oh I've already had sex with a man now, I might as well be gay"... I don't think so. If I steal something and get arrested, I'm not going to burn the shop down because I'm going to prison anyway - I may like the appeal of grabbing something out of a shop from under someone's nose and the possibility of a chase, but I'm not going to suddenly turn into an arsonist because I've been caught. If I accidentally kill someone but hiw wife sees it and it looks like murder, I'm not going to suddenly "become" a murderer and kill the wife because I may go to prison for life anyway. And by the same LOGIC, if someone rapes someone and gets caught, they're not going to suddenly "become" a murderer because they may be locked up for life anyway.

In regard to justice, and environment, I would vote for you, however, the NHS is a collosal, irretrievable mess, and hence should be privatised. Hence, you don't get my vote, for refusing to look the patently obvious in the face and accept it.

No, people either are something or they aren't. I am straight. I'm not going to suddenly "become" gay (despite a jokey post some time ago) because I've been drugged up so much that I've had sex with a man - "oh I've already had sex with a man now, I might as well be gay"... I don't think so. If I steal something and get arrested, I'm not going to burn the shop down because I'm going to prison anyway - I may like the appeal of grabbing something out of a shop from under someone's nose and the possibility of a chase, but I'm not going to suddenly turn into an arsonist because I've been caught. If I accidentally kill someone but hiw wife sees it and it looks like murder, I'm not going to suddenly "become" a murderer and kill the wife because I may go to prison for life anyway. And by the same LOGIC, if someone rapes someone and gets caught, they're not going to suddenly "become" a murderer because they may be locked up for life anyway.

Sorry, you can't be a murderer the way you can be gay.

No, people either are something or they aren't. I am straight. I'm not going to suddenly "become" gay (despite a jokey post some time ago) because I've been drugged up so much that I've had sex with a man - "oh I've already had sex with a man now, I might as well be gay"... I don't think so. If I steal something and get arrested, I'm not going to burn the shop down because I'm going to prison anyway - I may like the appeal of grabbing something out of a shop from under someone's nose and the possibility of a chase, but I'm not going to suddenly turn into an arsonist because I've been caught. If I accidentally kill someone but hiw wife sees it and it looks like murder, I'm not going to suddenly "become" a murderer and kill the wife because I may go to prison for life anyway. And by the same LOGIC, if someone rapes someone and gets caught, they're not going to suddenly "become" a murderer because they may be locked up for life anyway.

Wow...talk about muddling the issue. :rolleyes:

Bob rapes a woman. Bob knows that the penalty for rape and murder are the same (under your screwy system). Bob also knows that the best witness against him in either case is his victim, so Bob kills her. Witness eliminated. Now there's less of a chance he'll be convicted of either rape or murder.

Again, it's called logic. I suggest you look into it.

Wow...talk about muddling the issue. :rolleyes:

Bob rapes a woman. Bob knows that the penalty for rape and murder are the same (under your screwy system). Bob also knows that the best witness against him in either case is his victim, so Bob kills her. Witness eliminated. Now there's less of a chance he'll be convicted of either rape or murder.

Again, it's called logic. I suggest you look into it.

Talk about simplistic thinking. If Bob was the sort of a person who cared so little for human life, then yes he would kill her - however, that would mean Bob would have probably killed other people who were a threat to him, as he cared so little for human life. However, if Bob is not the sort of person who cares so little for human life that he would do such a thing (and is one of the many rapists who think that rape is 'justified' in some way, at least in some circumstances) he is not going to suddenly have a complete personality transplant in the space of a few seconds - if, though he clearly would not care much for human life if he raped someone, he cared enough for human life not to murder people who were a threat to him (and by your "logic", that would be a perfectly sensible thing to do if he was that sort of person, as by your "logic" there would be no evidence), he is not going to *suddenly* care so little for human life that he is willing to murder. Again, talk about simplistic thinking. :rolleyes:

Talk about simplistic thinking. If Bob was the sort of a person who cared so little for human life, then yes he would kill her - however, that would mean Bob would have probably killed other people who were a threat to him, as he cared so little for human life. However, if Bob is not the sort of person who cares so little for human life that he would do such a thing (and is one of the many rapists who think that rape is 'justified' in some way, at least in some circumstances) he is not going to suddenly have a complete personality transplant in the space of a few seconds - if, though he clearly would not care much for human life if he raped someone, he cared enough for human life not to murder people who were a threat to him (and by your "logic", that would be a perfectly sensible thing to do if he was that sort of person, as by your "logic" there would be no evidence), he is not going to *suddenly* care so little for human life that he is willing to murder. Again, talk about simplistic thinking. :rolleyes:


Definition of ignorance. Ever hear of self-preservation?

Definition of ignorance. Ever hear of self-preservation?

Don't compare apples to oranges.

Don't compare apples to oranges.

I was comparing apples to apples, ignorance to ignorance. Not surprising, though, that you failed to understand that.

I was comparing apples to apples, ignorance to ignorance. Not surprising, though, that you failed to understand that.

Let me put it this way. If a rapist were to become a murderer due to a threat of a prison sentence which, in and of its self, was not of an appropriation of significant appurtenance, and if said branch of learning were not of a set of constituent properties that would be of a trammel, suffice to say that it's decisive properties would not be hindered, per se.

Talk about simplistic thinking. If Bob was the sort of a person who cared so little for human life, then yes he would kill her - however, that would mean Bob would have probably killed other people who were a threat to him, as he cared so little for human life. However, if Bob is not the sort of person who cares so little for human life that he would do such a thing (and is one of the many rapists who think that rape is 'justified' in some way, at least in some circumstances) he is not going to suddenly have a complete personality transplant in the space of a few seconds - if, though he clearly would not care much for human life if he raped someone, he cared enough for human life not to murder people who were a threat to him (and by your "logic", that would be a perfectly sensible thing to do if he was that sort of person, as by your "logic" there would be no evidence), he is not going to *suddenly* care so little for human life that he is willing to murder. Again, talk about simplistic thinking. :rolleyes:

Bob just raped someone. Bob no doubt realises that, under your system, he's now facing life in prison. This puts Bob under approximately one metric fuckton of stress. Bob is very very desperate to stay out of prison, because he's heard of thye awful things that happen to rapists in prison. Stressed Desperate Bob is capable of doing things that Bob isn't. Like killing Jane, his victim, and trying to hide the evidence.

You were saying something about simplistic thinking?

Bob just raped someone. Bob no doubt realises that, under your system, he's now facing life in prison. This puts Bob under approximately one metric fuckton of stress. Bob is very very desperate to stay out of prison, because he's heard of thye awful things that happen to rapists in prison. Stressed Desperate Bob is capable of doing things that Bob isn't. Like killing Jane, his victim, and trying to hide the evidence.

You were saying something about simplistic thinking?


Thank you.

Bob just raped someone. Bob no doubt realises that, under your system, he's now facing life in prison. This puts Bob under approximately one metric fuckton of stress. Bob is very very desperate to stay out of prison, because he's heard of thye awful things that happen to rapists in prison. Stressed Desperate Bob is capable of doing things that Bob isn't. Like killing Jane, his victim, and trying to hide the evidence.

You were saying something about simplistic thinking?

Stress = murder capability. Yes, talk about simplistic thinking.

Stress = murder capability. Yes, talk about simplistic thinking.

Stress and desperation can lead a person to do things they normally wouldn't. That's not always kill, but in this case it could be.


You know that being capability to kill isn't an on/off switch in your head right? It comes in degrees.

And again your pot calls my kettle black.

I wouldn't vote for you. You failed to admit to your racism, which we've seen on this forum many, many times.

the fact that he asked us to give opinions based on his manifesto means nothing to you?

Things that are absent from his manifesto are relevant to his manifesto.

I wouldn't vote for you. You failed to admit to your racism, which we've seen on this forum many, many times.

the fact that he asked us to give opinions based on his manifesto means nothing to you?

the fact that he asked us to give opinions based on his manifesto means nothing to you?

It goes to his character, and to what he isn't saying that would shape his policies.

Would you elect someone who embezzles funds for a living, based soley on her manifesto?

You'd be foolish to ignore these 'faults in character'.

i dont think prisons are right anyway. think how much money would be saved that could be redirected to what we actually need

you could just beat(or death for things like murder) people to varying degrees based on the crime and show it where everyone can see it. that should discourage people quickly enough.

i dont think prisons are right anyway. think how much money would be saved that could be redirected to what we actually need

you could just beat(or death for things like murder) people to varying degrees based on the crime and show it where everyone can see it. that should discourage people quickly enough.

How barbaric.

I wouldn't vote for you. You failed to admit to your racism, which we've seen on this forum many, many times.

I seriously take offence at that. It's one thing to disagree with my view, but to make blatant accusations is low. I have no problem with anyone of ANY race. I have a problem with THE GOVERNMENTS of certain countries, but no problem with particular races. Grow up.

P.S. What I posted, as stated, is my manifesto so far. I posted it to get feedback.

Talk about simplistic thinking. If Bob was the sort of a person who cared so little for human life, then yes he would kill her - however, that would mean Bob would have probably killed other people who were a threat to him, as he cared so little for human life. If killing these people wouldn't get him a worse punishment than he'd get from doing whatever it is that he did, then yes, he would.
There are numerous examples of rapists who've gotten out of jail, raped again, and knowing that they'd get a life sentence the next time, killed their victims to eliminate the witness.

How retarded.

Fixed.

Psst. It's countries that have governments, not races. There's no [race]'s Government.

No need to be pedantic :P

I seriously take offence at that. It's one thing to disagree with my view, but to make blatant accusations is low. I have no problem with anyone of ANY race. I have a problem with THE GOVERNMENTS of certain races, but no problem with particular races. Grow up.

Psst. It's countries that have governments, not races. There's no [race]'s Government.

Your manifesto is far too vague and open to interpretation; much like actual Labour, Tory and Lib Dem manifestos. Also, there’s way too much interference in the judicial system for my liking. You seem to be well on the road of politicians prononcing sentences, not judges. Not that I believe for one sec that the CPS is perfect.

No need to be pedantic :P
There’s always need to be pedantic; being pedantic is being right.

If killing these people wouldn't get him a worse punishment than he'd get from doing whatever it is that he did, then yes, he would.
There are numerous examples of rapists who've gotten out of jail, raped again, and knowing that they'd get a life sentence the next time, killed their victims to eliminate the witness.

Exactly.

If murder is going to get you a life sentence (or the death penalty), and rape is going to get you the same...you are facing that life setence either way. Your only sliver of hope is to kill your victim and hope you get away with it.

Wow...talk about muddling the issue. :rolleyes:

Bob rapes a woman. Bob knows that the penalty for rape and murder are the same (under your screwy system). Bob also knows that the best witness against him in either case is his victim, so Bob kills her. Witness eliminated. Now there's less of a chance he'll be convicted of either rape or murder.

Again, it's called logic. I suggest you look into it.

Why would there be less chance of Bob getting a murder conviction by murdering his rape victim. Before murdering her, he had no chance of gaining a murder conviction.

I do see your point but it is dificult to get away with murder but easier to get away with rape. A body will have evidence of the rape but a raped woman does not aways report the attack and may wash away incriminating DNA after the attack. It is logic that if you have already committed an offence, you don't committ an offence that is easier to prove. There is possible doubt over rape cases as consent may have been given and it is difficult to find conclusive evidence.

I wouldn't vote for you, simply because you wrote a "manifesto."

"Manifesto" is the standard British word for a political programme. Hence, for each election, the Conservative Party (for example) has a "manifesto".

And I agree with JB, Neesija, Cluich & alii: saying that rape won't get you a longer sentence than murder is inciting rapists to murder their victims.