Police worker who used Habbo to get children to perform sex shows is jailed

[xxMATTGxx]

Some what more bad press for Habbo Hotel as this is now in the Daily Mail:




Children as young as ten posed indecently for the PCSO
The officer was in his post for two-and-a-half years before he was exposed
Habbo, the controversial web-chat site attracts ten million youngsters each month who could be putting themselves at risk


A POLICE worker who coaxed children into performing webcam sex shows has been locked up.

Paedophile Ashley Whitfield used animated kids’ web-chat site ‘Habbo Hotel’ to find victims late at night.

Children as young as ten posed indecently for him via webcams in their bedrooms as their parents slept unawares.

The PCSO, who secretly recorded the images, won his victims’ trust by pretending to be a teenager.

In reality, Whitfield, 25, was a serving police community support officer with a secret obsession with child porn.

He had been in a £20,000-a-year post with Cheshire Constabulary for two-and-a-half years when he was exposed.

Whitfield, of Redfern Walk, Warrington, had used a string of different email addresses to avoid detection.

He sobbed in the dock as he was jailed for three-and-a-half years at Manchester Crown Court.

He had admitted six counts of causing a child to engage in sexual activity, three counts of taking indecent photographs of a child, and 13 counts of possessing child pornography at an earlier hearing.



Read the full article by going to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199095/Police-worker-coaxed-children-performing-webcam-sex-shows-jailed.html

[MKR&*42]

Lmao, another brilliant image for Habbo.

Absolutely disgusting what he did though +o(

[Nick]

I hope this don't start all over again -_-''''

Thats just ridiculous

[Demi]

Three years? Damn this country sucks for this. LIFE!

[Matt]

Worst thing was he was a member of the police!! That's messed up ..

[Kieran]

Wonder if anyone on here knew him :o

[Munex]

Gross, but Habbo is actually a lot safer than other chat sites. There are so many chat rooms that are constantly filled with old men that message you, "I'm 46, is that OK?", and then try to take things further on MSN; they purposely go into the 'teen' category and are purposely looking for children. I haven't seen a lot of this on Habbo - the Daily Mail know that Habbo is currently an interesting and saleable talking point.

On another note, I think three-years imprisonment is satisfactory. Life would be extreme, unless he touched a minor. Sickening.

[Mat7]

That's so wrong and disgusting. I agree that three years is acceptable as well.

[Hiding]

his sentence should be longer..

[kuzkasate]

Sentence is ridiculous, should have been much longer. This just leads me on to think that Habbo needs to be closed even though I opposed this a few months ago. But I wouldn't want my child playing a game like that? Rammed with paedophiles... it's not safe at all and its disgusting, because things like this will still carry on.

[scottish]

Sentence is ridiculous, should have been much longer. This just leads me on to think that Habbo needs to be closed even though I opposed this a few months ago. But I wouldn't want my child playing a game like that? Rammed with paedophiles... it's not safe at all and its disgusting, because things like this will still carry on.

Same as any other website on the internet....

[JerseySafety]

3 & a half years? wow whats wrong with the justice system, thats outrageous. not a good look for Habbo either.

[Jarkie]

Oh dear, this is the last thing habbo needed.

Just shows you can't trust anyone. Not even the law - at times.

And only three years - I swear you get more for stealing a loaf of bread.

[CaptainAce]

Habbo is actually alot better then other sites that i've seen and theres not much of the cam stuff going on anymore either.

[Undesirable]

I agree with someone who already posted. Habbo isn't the WORST site.. it just gets prime target because it's popular. There are hundreds of websites this happens on.. least Habbo does its best to monitor the website. You'll never, ever be 100 % safe. If your that young, you shouldn't be allowed to use the internet unsupervised or at ridicilious hours of the night. Parents do need to take some responsibility for what there children are doing.

[David]

he will most likely get what is coming to him in jail, they dont like paedos in there. 3 years is fine imo

[Cokes]

his sentence should be longer..

Agreed

[kuzkasate]

Same as any other website on the internet....

Thanks for the -rep. But there's a different, most other websites aren't specifically designed for young children are they? When you sign up to Habbo, as a parent you'd expect it to be safe, it SHOULD be a safe environment for your children, but it's far from that. Habbo is paedo heaven and the fact that this has been going on for years and nothings been done about it, is even more disgusting so please elaborate how that is the same as any other website? When you sign up to other websites you might expect that or you'd be more cautious, but when you sign up to a game specifically for children, you wouldn't expect stuff like that.

It's understandable that no site can ever be 100% safe, but you would expect that something would be done on Habbo to try and tackle this, that at least it is being monitored and controlled more, but it isn't and so far everything they have done is completely useless.

[Ribbonaire]

Honestly the sentence is good

I'm not saying what he did was right, but first off - Habbo is for 13+, so 10 year old children should not be on it. Second, their parents were asleep so I don't know why 10 year olds bedtimes are after their parents, or if they sneak on or something? That should be dealt with.

Yes, it's partially Habbo's fault, YES, that man is at fault and deserves jailing but bad parenting is also a hand in this.

[Lewis]

Honestly the sentence is good

I'm not saying what he did was right, but first off - Habbo is for 13+, so 10 year old children should not be on it. Second, their parents were asleep so I don't know why 10 year olds bedtimes are after their parents, or if they sneak on or something? That should be dealt with.

Yes, it's partially Habbo's fault, YES, that man is at fault and deserves jailing but bad parenting is also a hand in this.


Sure, habbo need to get better safety, parents need to look after their children but no one forced a disgusting man to do this.

He deserves 50 years in prison, anyone who thinks I'm being too horrible... just take a think for a while what type of man this is, and especially since he's meant to be keeping us safe by being with the police. In three years time, there is no guarantee at all that he has changed his ways. Even if its only 15 years in jail, that would be more suitable. My opinion :) -- everyone has their right for their opinion.

[Lee]

Wonder if anyone on here knew him :o

I live not far from him, sick person terrible considering he was a PCSO.

[MKR&*42]

Sure, habbo need to get better safety, parents need to look after their children but no one forced a disgusting man to do this.

He deserves 50 years in prison, anyone who thinks I'm being too horrible... just take a think for a while what type of man this is, and especially since he's meant to be keeping us safe by being with the police. In three years time, there is no guarantee at all that he has changed his ways. Even if its only 15 years in jail, that would be more suitable. My opinion :) -- everyone has their right for their opinion.

There is no guarantee of that not matter what sentence they are given. I suspect that's one of many reasons why people like -:Undertaker:-; would support the death penalty. It ensures it doesn't happen again.

Not that I support it, just saying : P

[Lewis]

There is no guarantee of that not matter what sentence they are given. I suspect that's one of many reasons why people like @-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233); would support the death penalty. It ensures it doesn't happen again.

Not that I support it, just saying : P


I support the death penalty or the actual life in jail until you die sort of thing. You should get that for murder and things like this :). My own opinion :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

There is no guarantee of that not matter what sentence they are given. I suspect that's one of many reasons why people like -:Undertaker:-; would support the death penalty. It ensures it doesn't happen again.

Not that I support it, just saying : P

I only support the death penalty in cases of murder, rape and child rape are in my opinion worthy of a life sentence but not death.

[Munex]

Most people seem to think 3 years is too short - I still disagree. Three years is a very long time. It's easy to say "just three years!?", but when you think about it - think of life in your own experience - three years takes a long time to pass (well, it takes exactly three years, to be precise), especially when you're in a prison.

He never touched anyone. He never mentally harmed anyone. What he did was disgusting, but not life-threatening, and the sad truth is that the internet is absolutely riddled with guys just like him, most of which are not on Habbo but are on other sites. Has anyone watched the program "How To Catch A Predator"? Those guys actually meet up with children! That is a far worse offence, in my eyes...

I'm not condoning what he did, nor do I support, like or encourage paedophiles; he's a sick man. Better make that clear! I'm not sticking up for this paedophile - I'm supporting the actions of the court.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Most people seem to think 3 years is too short - I still disagree. Three years is a very long time. It's easy to say "just three years!?", but when you think about it - think of life in your own experience - three years takes a long time to pass (well, it takes exactly three years, to be precise), especially when you're in a prison.[/B]

And? this sounds to me like a pity plea for a man who took advantage of young children, and whilst I agree it is not as bad as touching children (which deserves life) three years is certainly too short - especially considering how soft our justice system is, a system where he will be met with a broadly comfortable life (warm single rooms, television provdied, good meals, console games, easy access to drugs and so on).

It does tire me the way some people seem to care more about the welfare of the criminals as opposed to their victims whose lives they have made incredibly difficult or hard to deal with, not to mention the lives of those close to them (the parents for one example).

[Munex]

It does tire me the way some people seem to care more about the welfare of the criminals as opposed to their victims whose lives they have made incredibly difficult or hard to deal with, not to mention the lives of those close to them (the parents for one example).

But with this mentality, why not lock every petty criminal up for life? Why not give them the death penalty? I'm only being rational with this case. It costs a lot of money to keep people locked up, and I think 3 years is enough money to be spent on him for the crime he did.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But with this mentality, why not lock every petty criminal up for life? Why not give them the death penalty? I'm only being rational with this case.

I am being rational also in thinking that a man who took advantage of children sexually should be punished for a longer period of time (and more harshly, see post above) rather than the paltry period of three years in a soft prison. I don't know the ins and outs of this case in particular, but i'd suggest a minimum of 10 to 15 years for the lesser crimes that fit into this category.


It costs a lot of money to keep people locked up, and I think 3 years is enough money to be spent on him for the crime he did.

It does, but that is something that could be drastically lowered if we stopped the justice system wasting money on 'rehabilitation' programmes (which do not work), providing illegal substances for prisoners, providing prisoners with entertainment and so on. And besides, law and order is one of the purposes of having a state as the state is there to provide the basics of law and order (protecting individual liberties) and national defence - if the state stopped trying to provide things it shouldn't be in the business of providing (aid, social programmes and cultural propaganda, state healthcare, state education and much more) then it would easily be able to afford and properly run a justice system as it is supposed to do.

There are few things I want the state to do, but the things it ought to do (in this case punishment for a genuine crime) I want it to do properly and administer strong justice.

[Munex]

I am being rational also in thinking that a man who took advantage of children sexually should be punished for a longer period of time (and more harshly, see post above) rather than the paltry period of three years in a soft prison. I don't know the ins and outs of this case in particular, but i'd suggest a minimum of 10 to 15 years for the lesser crimes that fit into this category.

Okay, but then you need to ask how young someone needs to be to merit 15 years in prison. In the UK, you can have sex at 16 - that is considered illegal in the USA. I was told by a friend the other day that the age of consent in Japan is 13! I'm sure other countries are even lower (although, I haven't done the research).

I personally think 3 years is satisfactory, perhaps not a great sentence, but nonetheless, satisfactory. I wouldn't give him over 6 years for what he did.

As for everything else you said, I agree with. Prisons need to be tough, not a pleasure.

[MissAlice]

He would have been caught sooner, had parents taken responsibility for supervising their children’s activities on the internet.

Well done to whoever exposed him.

[Oleh]

It's always a game used as a scapegoat for a parents behavior. Yes, it was the catalyst but it wasn't the direct cause. Why were the children up at that hour? Why did they have webcams? and more importantly, why were they up after their parents had gone to bed?

http://i.imgur.com/CgrMo.gif

[Seikou]

that's absolutely disgusting, sick man.

[Mikey]

Wasn't there a guy who was a PCSO on this forum around a year ago, was it him? In his mid 20s from what I can remember..

[Explorator]

oh god, this'll be all over the news again..

[Aiden]

I see another mute on the way. Soon the words Police and British Media will be banned. -.-

[Arron]

Awkward, this guy is in the same town as me.

[efq]

Lmao, another brilliant image for Habbo.

Absolutely disgusting what he did though +o(
Exactly that.

Habbo is going down the ****ter and that officier is gross and deserves everything he gets.

[Unsuspected]

He deserves 50 years in prison

You really want to be more like America and have a majority of prison population being non-violent offenders? Cause that's where your logic heads towards...

[Lewis]

Why do Americans love keeping non-violent criminals in prison? The majority of prison inmates in the US are non-violent offenders. People like this guy are terrible, but you really need to set some priorities.

I'm scottish (in Scotland). That is in Britain, not America... However, I totally agree with American's way of time in jail. I think it should be even stricter!

[Shockwave.2CC]

Yeah bad press for Habbo but you only find that sort of behavior if you go and look for it

Only like 2% of people who use Habbo would do that sort of thing

[The Don]

Sure, habbo need to get better safety, parents need to look after their children but no one forced a disgusting man to do this.

He deserves 50 years in prison, anyone who thinks I'm being too horrible... just take a think for a while what type of man this is, and especially since he's meant to be keeping us safe by being with the police. In three years time, there is no guarantee at all that he has changed his ways. Even if its only 15 years in jail, that would be more suitable. My opinion :) -- everyone has their right for their opinion.

50 years is a ridiculous sentence, Even 15 years is too long... Prison sentences are for either deterrence, protection of the public, Rehabilitation or retribution. In this case, we should be looking to rehabilitate and also deter others from doing it. If you threw 50 years at him and anyone else who committed these crimes, what punishment would deter them from committing other more serious crimes? If he knew he would get 50 years (might as well say life tbh) for that, then why not try and murder the police when they tried to arrest him? He's getting life anyway so why not try and escape and perhaps get away with it?
-:Undertaker:-;

[-:Undertaker:-]

50 years is a ridiculous sentence, Even 15 years is too long... Prison sentences are for either deterrence, protection of the public, Rehabilitation or retribution. In this case, we should be looking to rehabilitate and also deter others from doing it. If you threw 50 years at him and anyone else who committed these crimes, what punishment would deter them from committing other more serious crimes? If he knew he would get 50 years (might as well say life tbh) for that, then why not try and murder the police when they tried to arrest him? He's getting life anyway so why not try and escape and perhaps get away with it?
-:Undertaker:-;

Rehabilitation is a myth, those chosen for rehabilitation are those who are least likely to reoffend (grannys who don't pay council tax, those who commit fraud, tax avoiders) so naturally the statistics for rehabilitation look good when it is infact a fallacy. As for the deter point, I agree with you hence why we need longer prison sentences - but not just them, because long sentences won't work as a deterrent unless you also have proper punishment in place in the prison itself (as I mentioned earlier, prison conditions must be harsh but not brutal - much like our prisons in the 1950s).

A spell of 10 to 15 years in a tough prison will act as a deterrent.

A period of 3 years spent in a comfortable prison won't.

A period of 50 years spent in a comfortable prison won't.

[A4R0N]

shows how ****** up our country is

[The Don]

Rehabilitation is a myth, those chosen for rehabilitation are those who are least likely to reoffend (grannys who don't pay council tax, those who commit fraud, tax avoiders) so naturally the statistics for rehabilitation look good when it is infact a fallacy. As for the deter point, I agree with you hence why we need longer prison sentences - but not just them, because long sentences won't work as a deterrent unless you also have proper punishment in place in the prison itself (as I mentioned earlier, prison conditions must be harsh but not brutal - much like our prisons in the 1950s).


Grittier prisons don’t necessarily help reduce crime rates. Rehabilitation is the primary function of prison, as well as deterrence (Retribution and to protect the public are only used in more extreme cases such as serial offenders/murderers). Since most prisoners will eventually end up back on the streets the primary goal of prison should be to rehabilitate criminals so they do not reoffend when they’re released. Take Norway for example, it has one of the lowest Murder rates in recent years yet also boasts some of the nicest and fanciest prisons. Norway only had 29 murders per 100,000 inhabitants last year, which was much lower than the UK’s 1.2 percent, or 722 per 100,000 inhabitants (however you like to look at it) so regardless of whether you blame our rehabilitation statistics on shady government tactics (which you have not provided one bit of evidence for, which is why I’ve crossed it out), the point still stands that rehabilitation does work and preparing the criminals for their eventual release will go a lot further than just chucking them in a dirty disgusting prison until their sentence finishes, wait for them to re-offend, rinse and repeat.

Here’s a link to one of Norway’s prisons
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html

And here’s a video of another one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-6XDSodbtw


A spell of 10 to 15 years in a tough prison will not necessarily act as a deterrent as it will take out a huge chunk of their life and when they eventually get out they will have nothing worth living for on the outside so there isn’t anything to prevent them from recommitting.

A period of 3 years spent in a comfortable prison won't necessarily rehabilitate, however statistics show that it does work for the majority.

A period of 50 years spent in a comfortable prison won't, and neither will a 50 year stint in a harsh prison.

[Munex]

Norway's prisons look wonderful, I really wouldn't mind going there. It's truly shocking, I can't believe they are so luxurious. As soon as I saw the music studio, I was sold - send me to Norway's prison.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Grittier prisons don’t necessarily help reduce crime rates. Rehabilitation is the primary function of prison, as well as deterrence (Retribution and to protect the public are only used in more extreme cases such as serial offenders/murderers).

You have contradicted yourself there, because you state harsher prison conditions do not reduce crime rates yet then go on to say how deterrence works - when punishment is a deterrence in itself.

Sending somebody to be rehabilitated (aka talking about how their crime makes other people feel when they know perfectly well or simply do not care) is not a deterrent and I have no idea what makes you think that it is.


Since most prisoners will eventually end up back on the streets the primary goal of prison should be to rehabilitate criminals so they do not reoffend when they’re released. Take Norway for example, it has one of the lowest Murder rates in recent years yet also boasts some of the nicest and fanciest prisons. Norway only had 29 murders per 100,000 inhabitants last year, which was much lower than the UK’s 1.2 percent, or 722 per 100,000 inhabitants (however you like to look at it)

The primary goal of British prisons has been to 'rehabilitate' prisoners as well as keep them in comfortable prisons for short periods of time (which you recommend as opposed to long sentences in harsh prisons) and yet crime continues to grow in the United Kingdom (unless you believe official statistics which we will get to in a minute).


so regardless of whether you blame our rehabilitation statistics on shady government tactics (which you have not provided one bit of evidence for, which is why I’ve crossed it out),

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2037989/Prison-population-riots-The-liberal-myth-prison-doesnt-work.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2129851/PETER-HITCHENS-Cushty-easily-A-criminals-mocking-words-sum-injustice-system.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyzut35wGrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyzut35wGrw
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/05/the-man-who-wants-to-gag-me-but-says-he-doesnt-and-other-topics.html (first part).

I shall have to find my older links on the topic, but Mr. Hitchens who wrote a book on the subject 'A Brief History of Crime' (no, not the Daily Mail before somebody accuses me of it) goes into how the system is fiddled and how rehabilitation is a myth - indeed, as in one of the links, the majority of those who partook in the riots last summer already had convictions and were 'rehabilitated' yet thousands of them still committed crime - yet officially they are down as 'rehabilitated'.

We hear time and time again now of criminals being found guilty of a crime, only to have found that the same people have already committed many crimes (sometimes going into the hundreds) and have undergone 'rehabilitation' via community service. The truth is, rehabilitation is a myth taught in sociology lessons.


the point still stands that rehabilitation does work and preparing the criminals for their eventual release will go a lot further than just chucking them in a dirty disgusting prison until their sentence finishes, wait for them to re-offend, rinse and repeat.

Here’s a link to one of Norway’s prisons
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1989083,00.html

And here’s a video of another one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-6XDSodbtw

We do all of this (indeed often we don't put them in prison, instead giving them 'warnings' and they continue to commit crime. Norway is a contrasting example in that it has low crime rates because of a population spread out (less crime in inner city areas due to lower population density).


A spell of 10 to 15 years in a tough prison will not necessarily act as a deterrent as it will take out a huge chunk of their life and when they eventually get out they will have nothing worth living for on the outside so there isn’t anything to prevent them from recommitting.

Perhaps they should have thought about this before committing the crime?

But here you make the classic mistake of thinking that criminals are just like you and me and who have just made a mistake, and therefore to punish them is unfair as then they would have 'nothing to live for' - I have news for you, criminality is not a disease and the reason why criminals commit crime is because they want to and they think they can get away with it (which they do).


A period of 3 years spent in a comfortable prison won't necessarily rehabilitate, however statistics show that it does work for the majority.

A period of 50 years spent in a comfortable prison won't, and neither will a 50 year stint in a harsh prison.

The statistics also show employment at low levels when its double, the statistics also show economic growth despite a slump in the private sector, the statistics also claimed the Olympics would cost a mere £3bn which ended up costing £15bn, the statistics also show that inflation is virtually at 0% (yeah, right), the statistics also claimed that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons yada yada yada yada....

In truth, government statistics say a lot of things which are no more true than the tooth fairy.


Norway's prisons look wonderful, I really wouldn't mind going there. It's truly shocking, I can't believe they are so luxurious. As soon as I saw the music studio, I was sold - send me to Norway's prison.

Indeed, even our prisons are rather nice - interestingly, we treat our criminals better than we do our older people who are in care yet people such as Don argue for more of this insanity.

[The Don]

You have contradicted yourself there, because you state harsher prison conditions do not reduce crime rates yet then go on to say how deterrence works - when punishment is a deterrence in itself.

Getting sent to prison (the punishment) is the deterrence, not the quality of the prison itself.


Sending somebody to be rehabilitated (aka talking about how their crime makes other people feel when they know perfectly well or simply do not care) is not a deterrent and I have no idea what makes you think that it is.

You clearly have no idea about prison rehabilitation if you think that’s all it consists of. I’ve never claimed the rehabilitation is the deterrent, you seem to be getting confused. The actual prison sentence should be the deterrent, the rehabilitation is to prevent them from reoffending, the deterrent is to prevent it from happening in the first place.


The primary goal of British prisons has been to 'rehabilitate' prisoners as well as keep them in comfortable prisons for short periods of time (which you recommend as opposed to long sentences in harsh prisons) and yet crime continues to grow in the United Kingdom (unless you believe official statistics which we will get to in a minute).

Please provide me here and now with evidence that I should not believe the statistics provided by our government.

Since you agree with handing out harsh and long sentences, let’s take a look at a few of these countries and see how they compare…
India, which has the death penalty (which, according to you should ultimately deter anybody and everybody from committing a crime) has 3.4% homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants.
Let’s take a look at another country which dishes out hefty sentences and focuses on retribution and punishment rather than rehabilitation…
The USA has an even higher percentage than India which seems odd, ranking in at 4.2%. Thailand at 4.8% and Russia at a huge 10.2%
Meanwhile, Norway rests at 0.6% and Hong Kong at 0.2%... They must be doing something right?


I shall have to find my older links on the topic, but Mr. Hitchens who wrote a book on the subject 'A Brief History of Crime' (no, not the Daily Mail before somebody accuses me of it) goes into how the system is fiddled and how rehabilitation is a myth - indeed, as in one of the links, the majority of those who partook in the riots last summer already had convictions and were 'rehabilitated' yet thousands of them still committed crime - yet officially they are down as 'rehabilitated'.

The Riots are a minor example and do not reflect the overall effectiveness of rehabilitation. Obviously some criminals who go through rehabilitation will recommit which is why we have a reoffending rate. Take a look at ‘Hasty Generalisation’ or ‘Nirvana Fallacy’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy


Norway is a contrasting example in that it has low crime rates because of a population spread out (less crime in inner city areas due to lower population density).

Then please explain the extremely small 16% reoffending rate.


Perhaps they should have thought about this before committing the crime?

But here you make the classic mistake of thinking that criminals are just like you and me and who have just made a mistake, and therefore to punish them is unfair as then they would have 'nothing to live for' - I have news for you, criminality is not a disease and the reason why criminals commit crime is because they want to and they think they can get away with it (which they do).

You’re missing my point, I’m not defending criminals, I’m saying that if prisons functioned how you seem to think they should, and criminals were just chucked into a prison cell with no effort to rehabilitate them (after all, you seem to think it’s a myth) and then released after their extremely long sentence, they wouldn’t be able to function in society and will most likely return to crime. Whereas if you work with the criminals and give them motivation, something to work for when they’re released, they are less likely to reoffend, and Norway’s statistics are a testament to this.


The statistics also show employment at low levels when its double, the statistics also show economic growth despite a slump in the private sector, the statistics also claimed the Olympics would cost a mere £3bn which ended up costing £15bn, the statistics also show that inflation is virtually at 0% (yeah, right), the statistics also claimed that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons yada yada yada yada....
In truth, government statistics say a lot of things which are no more true than the tooth fairy.

Again, take a look at these fallacies to realize why I won’t dignify the above quote with a response…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


Indeed, even our prisons are rather nice - interestingly, we treat our criminals better than we do our older people who are in care yet people such as Don argue for more of this insanity.
Irrelevant post is irrelevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

That’s a lot of fallacies for one post Dan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

Here’s a couple of links for you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18121914

[Lewis]

50 years is a ridiculous sentence, Even 15 years is too long... Prison sentences are for either deterrence, protection of the public, Rehabilitation or retribution. In this case, we should be looking to rehabilitate and also deter others from doing it. If you threw 50 years at him and anyone else who committed these crimes, what punishment would deter them from committing other more serious crimes? If he knew he would get 50 years (might as well say life tbh) for that, then why not try and murder the police when they tried to arrest him? He's getting life anyway so why not try and escape and perhaps get away with it?
@-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233);


Perhaps if things were more strict, and people got over 75 years for every crime... there'd only be one crime in a lifetime... and for those who do commit it, they won't come back to do it again.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Getting sent to prison (the punishment) is the deterrence, not the quality of the prison itself.

Absolute nonsense, how can sending somebody (who is usually a carefree criminal anyway hence why he was prepared to do the crime in the first place) to a nice cushy prison a deterrence? I don't think you quite understand the people the criminal justice system deals with - they are not like me and you in that they will miss going the park, seeing family - the way many of them see it (and have admitted it) is they are being given a warm room with entertainment and food provided free of charge via the taxpayer.


You clearly have no idea about prison rehabilitation if you think that’s all it consists of. I’ve never claimed the rehabilitation is the deterrent, you seem to be getting confused. The actual prison sentence should be the deterrent, the rehabilitation is to prevent them from reoffending, the deterrent is to prevent it from happening in the first place.

The system you describe is exactly the system we have now, where prisons are not a deterrent and they are simply sent there for a period of time, undergo 'rehabilitation' and are released again.

Where is the punishment? see above.


Please provide me here and now with evidence that I should not believe the statistics provided by our government.

Is this a serious question? unemployment figures, inflation figures, growth figures are all fixed. The state simply moves things around hence why it introduce EMA (to cite one example) to hide terrible youth unemployment figures. But if you want a specific example of how crime figure are fiddled, look at the Cannabis warning system which has no legal status despite the holding of cannabis being a legal crime.

Yet they are not included in the crime figures.


Since you agree with handing out harsh and long sentences, let’s take a look at a few of these countries and see how they compare…
India, which has the death penalty (which, according to you should ultimately deter anybody and everybody from committing a crime) has 3.4% homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants.
Let’s take a look at another country which dishes out hefty sentences and focuses on retribution and punishment rather than rehabilitation…
The USA has an even higher percentage than India which seems odd, ranking in at 4.2%. Thailand at 4.8% and Russia at a huge 10.2%
Meanwhile, Norway rests at 0.6% and Hong Kong at 0.2%... They must be doing something right?

I just described how Norways small population being spread out thinly makes a difference, as does Hong Kong as whilst it may be densely populated, a vast proportion of people there are ex-pats or businessmen - meaning the ratio of crimes to population looks much better. Besides, a quick check of Hong Kongs justice system appears harsh to me.

..oh and as for the US of A, I have never advocated the US justice system as a shining example. I have always offered our justice system back in the 1950s and beforehand as a model justice system, one which was civilised yet harsh - and crime even in the poorest of areas (areas that were genuinely poor) was much lower.


The Riots are a minor example and do not reflect the overall effectiveness of rehabilitation. Obviously some criminals who go through rehabilitation will recommit which is why we have a reoffending rate. Take a look at ‘Hasty Generalisation’ or ‘Nirvana Fallacy’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Then please explain the extremely small 16% reoffending rate.

Because as stated before, the rehabilitation programme will be offered to those who are least likely to recommit crimes again - think about it; if a prison runs a rehabilitation programme that relies on government grants (as they do) that is dependent on good results, who are they going to select for rehabilitation? they are not going to select the few drug users that are placed into prison (or if they do, they will simply place them on meth and say that he or she is 'rehabilitated' simply because they changed drug use) - they will pick those who are likely to not commit a crime again, ie fraudsters and grannys who refuse to pay council tax.

A brief summary using statistics of why rehabilitation and soft justice has failed can be found here; http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/11/whats-the-point-of-prison.html


You’re missing my point, I’m not defending criminals, I’m saying that if prisons functioned how you seem to think they should, and criminals were just chucked into a prison cell with no effort to rehabilitate them (after all, you seem to think it’s a myth) and then released after their extremely long sentence, they wouldn’t be able to function in society and will most likely return to crime. Whereas if you work with the criminals and give them motivation, something to work for when they’re released, they are less likely to reoffend, and Norway’s statistics are a testament to this.

I never said criminals should be 'chucked into a prison cell and then released after an extremely long sentence', I said very clearly that the best form of defence against people reoffending is for conditions to be unpleasant so that they will think twice before committing a crime again - just as the harsh teachers in schools who quickly punish year 7's are treated with more respect by the same pupils in their later years

I do support educational programmes in prison though, old style 'rehabilitation' (if you want to call it that) as we used to have with our pre-1960s justice system. A system based firstly on punishment, but with education at the same time - not sit downs with social workers or victims telling eachother how sorry we all are that little johnny terrorised his neighbours for a year.


Again, take a look at these fallacies to realize why I won’t dignify the above quote with a response…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


Irrelevant post is irrelevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

That’s a lot of fallacies for one post Dan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

Here’s a couple of links for you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18121914[/QUOTE]

Posting phrases i'd hazard a guess you've learnt in your sociology class to me doesn't prove anything. Indeed, throughout your reply you've mainly posted back with straw man replies (such as thinking I want a justice system based on the US model or a justice system with just long sentences).

I want a justice system that works, like our own used to.


Getting sent to prison (the punishment) is the deterrence, not the quality of the prison itself.

Absolute nonsense, how can sending somebody (who is usually a carefree criminal anyway hence why he was prepared to do the crime in the first place) to a nice cushy prison a deterrence? I don't think you quite understand the people the criminal justice system deals with - they are not like me and you in that they will miss going the park, seeing family - the way many of them see it (and have admitted it) is they are being given a warm room with entertainment and food provided free of charge via the taxpayer.


You clearly have no idea about prison rehabilitation if you think that’s all it consists of. I’ve never claimed the rehabilitation is the deterrent, you seem to be getting confused. The actual prison sentence should be the deterrent, the rehabilitation is to prevent them from reoffending, the deterrent is to prevent it from happening in the first place.

The system you describe is exactly the system we have now, where prisons are not a deterrent and they are simply sent there for a period of time, undergo 'rehabilitation' and are released again.

Where is the punishment? see above.


Please provide me here and now with evidence that I should not believe the statistics provided by our government.

Is this a serious question? unemployment figures, inflation figures, growth figures are all fixed. The state simply moves things around hence why it introduce EMA (to cite one example) to hide terrible youth unemployment figures. But if you want a specific example of how crime figure are fiddled, look at the Cannabis warning system which has no legal status despite the holding of cannabis being a legal crime.

Yet they are not included in the crime figures.


Since you agree with handing out harsh and long sentences, let’s take a look at a few of these countries and see how they compare…
India, which has the death penalty (which, according to you should ultimately deter anybody and everybody from committing a crime) has 3.4% homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants.
Let’s take a look at another country which dishes out hefty sentences and focuses on retribution and punishment rather than rehabilitation…
The USA has an even higher percentage than India which seems odd, ranking in at 4.2%. Thailand at 4.8% and Russia at a huge 10.2%
Meanwhile, Norway rests at 0.6% and Hong Kong at 0.2%... They must be doing something right?

I just described how Norways small population being spread out thinly makes a difference, as does Hong Kong as whilst it may be densely populated, a vast proportion of people there are ex-pats or businessmen - meaning the ratio of crimes to population looks much better. Besides, a quick check of Hong Kongs justice system appears harsh to me.

..oh and as for the US of A, I have never advocated the US justice system as a shining example. I have always offered our justice system back in the 1950s and beforehand as a model justice system, one which was civilised yet harsh - and crime even in the poorest of areas (areas that were genuinely poor) was much lower.


The Riots are a minor example and do not reflect the overall effectiveness of rehabilitation. Obviously some criminals who go through rehabilitation will recommit which is why we have a reoffending rate. Take a look at ‘Hasty Generalisation’ or ‘Nirvana Fallacy’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Then please explain the extremely small 16% reoffending rate.

Because as stated before, the rehabilitation programme will be offered to those who are least likely to recommit crimes again - think about it; if a prison runs a rehabilitation programme that relies on government grants (as they do) that is dependent on good results, who are they going to select for rehabilitation? they are not going to select the few drug users that are placed into prison (or if they do, they will simply place them on meth and say that he or she is 'rehabilitated' simply because they changed drug use) - they will pick those who are likely to not commit a crime again, ie fraudsters and grannys who refuse to pay council tax.

A brief summary using statistics of why rehabilitation and soft justice has failed can be found here; http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/11/whats-the-point-of-prison.html


You’re missing my point, I’m not defending criminals, I’m saying that if prisons functioned how you seem to think they should, and criminals were just chucked into a prison cell with no effort to rehabilitate them (after all, you seem to think it’s a myth) and then released after their extremely long sentence, they wouldn’t be able to function in society and will most likely return to crime. Whereas if you work with the criminals and give them motivation, something to work for when they’re released, they are less likely to reoffend, and Norway’s statistics are a testament to this.

I never said criminals should be 'chucked into a prison cell and then released after an extremely long sentence', I said very clearly that the best form of defence against people reoffending is for conditions to be unpleasant so that they will think twice before committing a crime again - just as the harsh teachers in schools who quickly punish year 7's are treated with more respect by the same pupils in their later years

I do support educational programmes in prison though, old style 'rehabilitation' (if you want to call it that) as we used to have with our pre-1960s justice system. A system based firstly on punishment, but with education at the same time - not sit downs with social workers or victims telling eachother how sorry we all are that little johnny terrorised his neighbours for a year.


Again, take a look at these fallacies to realize why I won’t dignify the above quote with a response…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettle_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy


Irrelevant post is irrelevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

That’s a lot of fallacies for one post Dan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

Here’s a couple of links for you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18121914[/QUOTE]

Posting phrases i'd hazard a guess you've learnt in your sociology class to me doesn't prove anything. Indeed, throughout your reply you've mainly posted back with straw man replies (such as thinking I want a justice system based on the US model or a justice system with just long sentences).


I want a justice system that works, like our own used to.

Indeed, but we don't even need that - we just need an element of punishment in the criminal justice system which punishes people for doing bad things. Sadly and strangely, people like Don believe that if you are nice to bad people then they will be nice back to you along with everybody else .... a fallacy, as anybody who has ever come across a nasty person will know fully well. As do the law abiding people on council estates who have to live with these 'rehabilitated' people, people who have multiple crimes on their records yet who still walk free provided they wear a high viz vest and pick up litter for the weekend.

[The Don]

Absolute nonsense, how can sending somebody (who is usually a carefree criminal anyway hence why he was prepared to do the crime in the first place) to a nice cushy prison a deterrence?


criminality is not a disease and the reason why criminals commit crime is because they want to and they think they can get away with it (which they do).


You contradict yourself left right and center...

Whatever excuse you use, the statistics still show that rehabilitation does work. Don't come up with any of the "but they only rehabilitate old grannies" excuses, because that's utter ****e which you haven't got a single shred of evidence to backup.


(or if they do, they will simply place them on meth and say that he or she is 'rehabilitated' simply because they changed drug use)

Wow, you really do talk some nonsense. I simply cannot debate with someone who fabricates ridiculous lies to make their points more eligible with the above quote being a perfect demonstration.


Is this a serious question? unemployment figures, inflation figures, growth figures are all fixed. The state simply moves things around hence why it introduce EMA (to cite one example) to hide terrible youth unemployment figures. But if you want a specific example of how crime figure are fiddled, look at the Cannabis warning system

I want specific evidence to the bolded points above, to me it just sounds like you've stopped taking your meds...

You really should learn how to debate properly Dan rather than counter every point I make with lies which you've concocted or reiterating what you've heard from any of the conspiracist forums which i'm sure you browse.

[Kardan]

I came to post a comment in this thread, but it seems that Undertaker has took on another battle and there will now be a fight to the death.

Ontopicness; Good riddance to the cop.

[The Don]

Posting phrases i'd hazard a guess you've learnt in your sociology class to me doesn't prove anything. Indeed, throughout your reply you've mainly posted back with straw man replies (such as thinking I want a justice system based on the US model or a justice system with just long sentences).

I want a justice system that works


Really think you should look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy