Rolf Harris found guilty of indecent assaults

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561

Harris guilty of indecent assaults
Breaking news


http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2474227.ece/alternates/s615/Rolf-Harris.jpg


Veteran entertainer Rolf Harris has been found guilty of indecently assaulting four girls.

The 84-year-old was convicted of 12 attacks between 1968 and 1986.

Hard to believe really, isn't it? The guy has always had such a wholesome reputation for decades and now this.

Rolf Harris being convicted of this to me is as shocking as it would be if the Chuckle Brothers were sent down for murder.

Thoughts?

[dbgtz]

I don't understand how an assault from so long ago can even have sufficient proof. I can't help but remain sceptical of the verdict for this and other reasons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't understand how an assault from so long ago can even have sufficient proof. I can't help but remain sceptical of the trial outcome for this and other reasons.

I am the same with all these sexual assaults, there's always doubt in my mind.

[Inseriousity.]

I always have to remember that newspapers can only give you a snippet of information. A jury of peers listened to all the evidence - something we do not have access to - and found him guilty. To then say 'they're wrong' when we haven't had access to that evidence seems a bit silly to me.

[Danny]

I can't believe it, I use to really like watching Animal Hospital with him :(.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I always have to remember that newspapers can only give you a snippet of information. A jury of peers listened to all the evidence - something we do not have access to - and found him guilty. To then say 'they're wrong' when we haven't had access to that evidence seems a bit silly to me.

I'm not saying they're wrong, just with any crimes like this decades after: there's always doubt.

I accept the verdict from the jury, as much as I do not want it to be true.

Y'know, I can sort of understand how it was back then with 15 year olds and the entertainers (even if it is vile)... but a seven year old? Horrific.


I can't believe it, I use to really like watching Animal Hospital with him .

Exactly, nobody wants it to be true because it is just so opposite of the image everybody has of him.

Reading the comments on the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2675160/Rolf-Harris-GUILTY-12-indecent-assualts.html#comments), and it's the same with everybody. Generations grew up with him and it has all just been a facade.

[Red]

Can't get over this!! So disgusting.
How many more of these celebs dark pasts gonna come out. Makes you wonder how it was hidden for so long.

[FlyingJesus]

Probably the scariest thing about it all is that his Animal Hospital persona and all the art shows he did might not have been an "act" at all - it's quite possible even probable that he was/is in most ways a charming inoffensive chap but then has this one vile weakness that he wasn't able to hold back on. Such awful news

[Sian]

my childhood is ruined.

So shocked when i read this.

[dbgtz]

I always have to remember that newspapers can only give you a snippet of information. A jury of peers listened to all the evidence - something we do not have access to - and found him guilty. To then say 'they're wrong' when we haven't had access to that evidence seems a bit silly to me.

I understand this. I pretty much agree with Undertakers response but I believe there's a bit of a "paedo scare" at the moment and I think some people may just ignore the facts in favour of feeling and emotion. Also somewhat related is the face some people seem to be crying wolf a lot since Saville, but that could be down to other things related to what the media reports/ my attention to news.

[GommeInc]

I don't understand how an assault from so long ago can even have sufficient proof. I can't help but remain sceptical of the verdict for this and other reasons.
It is an incredibly complicated process which requires rigorous scrutinising of all possible evidence. If I recall correctly, Harris pretty much admitted to it in correspondence between his victims either using romantic language or apologising for his behaviour (as was the case with his daughter's friend he assaulted). It's arguably reliable, considering many actors/celebrities were found innocent (Kevin and Ken from Coronation Street) who allegedly committed either sexual assault or rape, and rape is an incredibly serious crime and even if found innocent of it you're likely to be found guilty of assault.


Probably the scariest thing about it all is that his Animal Hospital persona and all the art shows he did might not have been an "act" at all - it's quite possible even probable that he was/is in most ways a charming inoffensive chap but then has this one vile weakness that he wasn't able to hold back on. Such awful news
Did you see the few clips from Animal Hospital where he was consoling a few women? I can't help but think it was an act to be close to people who, with his charming persona, would console in him :/ That said, the most used clip involves a man and as far as I've seen he was only involved with women so he may have genuinely cared. Still quite worrying, seeing as Saville used this route to get to people.

[dbgtz]

It is an incredibly complicated process which requires rigorous scrutinising of all possible evidence. If I recall correctly, Harris pretty much admitted to it in correspondence between his victims either using romantic language or apologising for his behaviour (as was the case with his daughter's friend he assaulted). It's arguably reliable, considering many actors/celebrities were found innocent (Kevin and Ken from Coronation Street) who allegedly committed either sexual assault or rape, and rape is an incredibly serious crime and even if found innocent of it you're likely to be found guilty of assault.


I know, I know. I'm not outright saying this is all wrong bla bla bla just it's a doubt in my mind that wouldn't go unless I was actually on the panel myself :P

[GommeInc]

I know, I know. I'm not outright saying this is all wrong bla bla bla just it's a doubt in my mind that wouldn't go unless I was actually on the panel myself :P
Yeah it's hard to really understand it all, but if we were told everything it would be completely embarrassing for the victim. It's one of those times we really want to fulfil our morbid curiosity to find out what compelling evidence there was :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Does Russell Brand weirdly make sense here in analysing this story?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-0Rb0zweS8

I just agreed with Russell Brand on something. I need a lay down.

[peteyt]

I always remember hearing this years ago


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0rlYSJQkyw

[!:random!:!]

tbh next it will be the chuckle brothers or the guy of strictly :/ seems to be all these nice old guys to children are molesters ..

[Samantha]

5 years 9 months sentence, after 3 years he'll automatically be released and then do the rest.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I still can't get over this.

[Evanora]

good riddance

[-:Undertaker:-]

I understand this. I pretty much agree with Undertakers response but I believe there's a bit of a "paedo scare" at the moment and I think some people may just ignore the facts in favour of feeling and emotion. Also somewhat related is the face some people seem to be crying wolf a lot since Saville, but that could be down to other things related to what the media reports/ my attention to news.

This is interesting concerning some of the charges - http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt

[Kardan]

Anyone else feel the sentence is too small? 12 charges and all you get is under 6 years?

On an individual break down of each charge, apparently sexually assaulting a 7/8 year old girl only carries 9 months in jail. What?

[The Don]

Anyone else feel the sentence is too small? 12 charges and all you get is under 6 years?

On an individual break down of each charge, apparently sexually assaulting a 7/8 year old girl only carries 9 months in jail. What?

Don't they take into account his age and other aspects? 6 years is huge for an 84 year old, whereas its relatively light for say a 20 year old.

[Kardan]

Don't they take into account his age and other aspects? 6 years is huge for an 84 year old, whereas its relatively light for say a 20 year old.

Why should they take age into account? Surely a 20 year old is just as guilty as an 84 year old if they carry out the same offences?

[The Don]

Why should they take age into account? Surely a 20 year old is just as guilty as an 84 year old if they carry out the same offences?

Because the punishment is relative to a whole range of factors. A 6 year sentence is practically a life sentence for an 84 year old whereas it's a minor scratch for a young adult. We also do not know the full details of the crimes so how can you complain the sentence is too short when you don't know the details other than the vague ones which have been released?

[Kardan]

Do you think that 9 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year old girl is fair then? Seems far too little imo.

And the fact is, in this case, surely Harris has already had all his 'freedom' he should have, these assaults took place years and years ago, and since then, he's been living as a free man. So if they did reduce the sentence, just because he's old - that's not right.

[The Don]

Do you think that 9 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year old girl is fair then? Seems far too little imo.

And the fact is, in this case, surely Harris has already had all his 'freedom' he should have, these assaults took place years and years ago, and since then, he's been living as a free man. So if they did reduce the sentence, just because he's old - that's not right.

Again, we don't know what he did so how can I say what's fair? Although the figure on it's own may seem small, when you look at it in conjunction with his age you realise he'll probably die before he gets out. What do you think about prisoners being released on compassionate grounds?

[Kardan]

Again, we don't know what he did so how can I say what's fair? Although the figure on it's own may seem small, when you look at it in conjunction with his age you realise he'll probably die before he gets out. What do you think about prisoners being released on compassionate grounds?

They should serve the sentence they were dealt. Life means life. Someone getting cancer (for example) doesn't excuse them from their crimes.

[The Don]

They should serve the sentence they were dealt. Life means life. Someone getting cancer (for example) doesn't excuse them from their crimes.

Well then we fundamentally disagree because you obviously think prisons should be for punishment and retribution whilst I think they should be preventative and to rehabilitate.

[Kardan]

Well then we fundamentally disagree because you obviously think prisons should be for punishment and retribution whilst I think they should be preventative and to rehabilitate.

So does someone getting terminal cancer suddenly rehabilitate someone enough for them to be released then? :P

[The Don]

Kardan; I've just read that he can only be sentenced in accordance with the law at the time which is why he got a comparatively lenient sentence as under the modern sentencing structure I've read that it's apparently likely he would have received a life sentence.

- - - Updated - - -


So does someone getting terminal cancer suddenly rehabilitate someone enough for them to be released then? :P

And no, but if they're no longer a threat then why keep them locked up when that money and space could go towards housing a true threat?

[The Don]

Sentencing remarks: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf
Summary of the evidence: http://www.theage.com.au/world/rolf-harris-guilty-the-victims-of-the-12-counts-of-indecent-assault-20140701-zsrip.html?skin=text-only

Both links contain descriptions of the assaults.

[FlyingJesus]

What genius came up with giving 69 months for sexual assault

[The Don]

What genius came up with giving 69 months for sexual assault

The Labouchere Amendment (which made homosexuality a crime) had only been scrapped two years prior to his first offence, so it's no wonder the sentencing guidelines are ridiculous when they're being influenced by that time period.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And no, but if they're no longer a threat then why keep them locked up when that money and space could go towards housing a true threat?

I think you're forgetting what the justice system is for in the first place.

In any case, we can easily afford it - stop sending £11bn overseas and clean the scum up from our streets, there's your money worry sorted.


Well then we fundamentally disagree because you obviously think prisons should be for punishment and retribution whilst I think they should be preventative and to rehabilitate.

Punishment acts as a deterrence, thus preventing others from doing the same.

I agree with Kardan, from some of the charges - especially regarding the 7-year old - the sentence is disgusting. But again, as i've always said... if somebody in my family is ever murdered or harmed in the most serious way, and either the Judge or the system (politicians) decide to let that vermin out onto the streets then i'll hold the Judge/politicians just as responsible as the person who carried out the crime.

And I cannot say what I may decide to do to rectify that situation.

[The Don]

I think you're forgetting what the justice system is for in the first place.

If you think justice should defined by retribution then you're no better than those that support sharia law.


Punishment acts as a deterrence, thus preventing others from doing the same.

Sensible punishments, yeh. Harsh punishments do nothing but encourage more/worse crimes.


I agree with Kardan, from some of the charges - especially regarding the 7-year old - the sentence is disgusting. But again, as i've always said... if somebody in my family is ever murdered or harmed in the most serious way, and either the Judge or the system (politicians) decide to let that vermin out onto the streets then i'll hold the Judge/politicians just as responsible as the person who carried out the crime.

And I cannot say what I may decide to do to rectify that situation.

Vigilante justice is not justice.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you think justice should defined by retribution then you're no better than those that support sharia law.

Yes, because operating a civilised justice system with a jury and innocence until proven guilty is akin to cutting peoples hands off.


Sensible punishments, yeh. Harsh punishments do nothing but encourage more/worse crimes.

Who is arguing against sensible punishments? We're arguing here for sensible punishments, which are no longer handed out.


Vigilante justice is not justice.

Oh it is to me. I constantly find myself now wishing for murderers to have their throats slashed in prison because I know that our soft headed injustice system will let them out after a few years and they'll be back on the streets, likely to commit over and over.

Now I do not want that, as i'd prefer a civilised system as we used to have. But the politicians have brought me to this and the politicians will bring me to potentially having to administer justice myself if anybody I care about is ever harmed and does not recieve justice.

If a justice system starts failing to deliver justice, then vigilante groups/individuals will begin to do it. Look at failed states for examples.

[FlyingJesus]

"It's the politicians' fault that I have violent wishes towards people"

[-:Undertaker:-]

"It's the politicians' fault that I have violent wishes towards people"

If a family member is abused or murdered by somebody who is released after having committed those crimes in the past, then the blame in part then falls on either the Judge who sentenced them or the politicians who passed the law limiting sentences to a certain period. Absolutely.

The same applies to a scenario where a family member is murdered and a lax sentence is given. If the state won't administer justice, somebody has to.

[The Don]

Yes, because operating a civilised justice system with a jury and innocence until proven guilty is akin to cutting peoples hands off.

Wanting a retribution based law system is akin to the eye for an eye system which is a large principle in sharia law based countries.


Oh it is to me. I constantly find myself now wishing for murderers to have their throats slashed in prison because I know that our soft headed injustice system will let them out after a few years and they'll be back on the streets, likely to commit over and over.

What would you rather we do with murderers instead of trying to rehabilitate them? Kill them? How is that any different to cutting off somebody's hand for stealing? It's pure savagery and i'm glad that the death penalty has been abolished in the UK. The reality is that the large majority of criminals will eventually roam the streets again someday. Rather than trying to punish them we should attempt to rehabilitate them so that when they are released they can become functioning members of society. If you kept them in prison and didn't educate them (which I recall you're against, correct me if i'm wrong), allow them access to books and encourage them to improve themselves then they will simply resort to crime when released as they will be exactly the same as when they entered the correctional system, other than being older, having less job prospects due to their criminal record, and considerably more angry at society.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Wanting a retribution based law system is akin to the eye for an eye system which is a large principle in sharia law based countries.

So there's really no comparison except that Islamic countries believe in justice as we do, right.


What would you rather we do with murderers rather than try to rehabilitate them? Kill them? How is that any different to cutting off somebody's hand for stealing? It's pure savagery and i'm glad that the death penalty has been abolished in the UK. The reality is that majority of criminals will eventually roam the streets again someday, rather than trying to punish them we should attempt to rehabilitate them so that when they are released they can become functioning members of society. If you kept them in prison and didn't educate them (which I recall you're against, correct me if i'm wrong), allow them access to books and encourage them to improve themselves then they will simply resort to crime when released as they will be exactly the same as when they entered the correctional system, other than being older, less job prospects due to their criminal record, and considerably more angry at society.

Rehabilitation among murderers is a complete myth as those selected for rehabilitation, along with most murders in the first place are committed not by serial murderers but in fits of rage, anger or a long-standing personal grudge. Those selected for rehabiltation in those circumstances are unlikely to kill again for the reason that they never intended to go on a killing spree in the first place, that the person they killed was a one-off event, ie a neighbour who they really really really loathe and despise and it boils out of control (the anger). Or a thief who ends up in a struggle with an elderly homeowner and ends up knocking them on the head leading to their death.

But that isn't the point. The point is that my family member is DEAD via an unforgivable act of evil and I want justice for my family member or anybody for that precise matter. The person who ended the life of the one close to me should be punished (preferably via hanging in my opinion).

Now if people like you want to 'rehabilitate' the likes of savage and evil child-murderer Ian Huntley, then so be it. But just think what people like me will resort to because I can tell you that if somebody I know is murdered and the murderer is let off then I will be seeking revenge in spades, and not just against the murderer but also those who failed to administer the just penalty for the taking of a life. Think Michael Caine in Harry Brown (the film) who I was cheering on throughout.


..other than being older, having less job prospects due to their criminal record, and considerably more angry at society.

Typical liberal-left mentality, that the fault is with society (ie everybody else).

No, the fault is with the one who committed the crime in the first place.

[FlyingJesus]

If the state won't administer justice, somebody has to.

So you do support Sharia law

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you do support Sharia law

I support a strong civilised justice system (ran by the state) that punishes evil acts, provides deterrence and which grants justice.

Haebus corpus, trial by jury, innocence until proven guity, the right of appeal, civilised but harsh prisons and the death penalty. Like we used to have.

[FlyingJesus]

But just think what people like me will resort to because I can tell you that if somebody I know is murdered and the murderer is let off then I will be seeking revenge in spades, and not just against the murderer but also those who failed to administer the just penalty for the taking of a life.

All this means is that you're a dangerously violent person with no regard for the law or humanity, it doesn't make you some paragon of justice


I support a strong civilised justice system (ran by the state) that punishes evil acts, provides deterrence and which grants justice.

Haebus corpus, trial by jury, innocence until proven guity, the right of appeal, civilised but harsh prisons and the death penalty. Like we used to have.

"Justice" in your view is just eye-for-an-eye punishment, and as we've seen from the last few responses you don't even care who administers the punishment, so no that is clearly not what you support (and when did we ever have "civilised but harsh" prisons?). You support damage for damage's sake.

[-:Undertaker:-]

All this means is that you're a dangerously violent person with no regard for the law or humanity, it doesn't make you some paragon of justice

I have no interest in being viewed in a positive light by people who wish to allow murderers, paedophiles and violent criminals walk our streets.


"Justice" in your view is just eye-for-an-eye punishment, and as we've seen from the last few responses you don't even care who administers the punishment, so no that is clearly not what you support (and when did we ever have "civilised but harsh" prisons?). You support damage for damage's sake.

Not at all, did I not repeat that I believe and *want* justice to be administered by the state?

My point is simply that once the state fails in its duty, then I naturally still want that duty carried out but it'll have to be via other means.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVwVXD7X3As

My view on punishment and justice summed up much better than I ever can.

[FlyingJesus]

Superb news but I don't think I've said that I want such people on the streets - and it's hilarious that you use that as an argument when you are stating yourself that you'd be fine with being a criminal murderer for the sake of your perverted view of justice

[The Don]

So there's really no comparison except that Islamic countries believe in justice as we do, right.

"We" You mean "I", our justice system is based on rehabilitation, not retribution. Nice try at twisting it though.


Rehabilitation among murderers is a complete myth as those selected for rehabilitation, along with most murders in the first place are committed not by serial murderers but in fits of rage, anger or a long-standing personal grudge.
Those selected for rehabiltation in those circumstances are unlikely to kill again for the reason that they never intended to go on a killing spree in the first place, that the person they killed was a one-off event, ie a neighbour who they really really really loathe and despise and it boils out of control (the anger). Or a thief who ends up in a struggle with an elderly homeowner and ends up knocking them on the head leading to their death.

Rehabilitation is to prevent the criminal from committing ANY crime in the future and to make them a functioning member of society; it is not to prevent them from committing specifically the crime they've been charged with. So your examples are false, the mugger who killed the granny (albeit unintentionally) is being rehabilitated to prevent them from committing any crimes in the future. This is a prime example of somebody who needs rehabilitation, a thief. If this thief is then educated whilst serving their sentence and receives encouragement to work for a living rather than simply taking what they can, we've gained ourselves another functioning member of society rather than killing them to quench your primitive thirst for blood.


But that isn't the point. The point is that my family member is DEAD via an unforgivable act of evil and I want justice for my family member or anybody for that precise matter. The person who ended the life of the one close to me should be punished (preferably via hanging in my opinion).

Your family member is dead, killing the perpetrator simply makes them a scapegoat by ignoring the problems in society which leads to people committing these sorts of crimes. Instead we should be aiming to tackle the causes of crime such as poverty, a lack of/poor education and neglectful parenting, as well as rehabilitating those that have fallen through societies cracks so that they can eventually contribute back to society as a law abiding, tax paying citizen.


Now if people like you want to 'rehabilitate' the likes of savage and evil child-murderer Ian Huntley, then so be it.

Those 'evil child-murderers' make up a negligible percentage of the overall population. The overwhelming majority of criminals fall into the petty category as opposed to the sociopathic, serial killing Ted Bundy categories.


But just think what people like me will resort to because I can tell you that if somebody I know is murdered and the murderer is let off then I will be seeking revenge in spades, and not just against the murderer but also those who failed to administer the just penalty for the taking of a life. Think Michael Caine in Harry Brown (the film) who I was cheering on throughout.

Back to an eye for an eye again, if you were to do that then you're literally no better and would deserve to face the justice system yourself.


Typical liberal-left mentality, that the fault is with society (ie everybody else).

No, the fault is with the one who committed the crime in the first place.

The fault is (for the large part) due to society. Most people aren't inherently evil sociopaths that kill for fun. It's easy for you to sit there and simply blame the individual without addressing the real issues.

[dbgtz]

I'm kind of in between on peoples views on this. Akeam is right that, for most people, there is a much deeper issue involved and they didn't kill for the sake of killing. However, in few instances it can be proven that some people are just unstable or "against society" such as with those who killed Lee Rigby.

Anyway on the subject of Rolf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkzxGr4Yx8U

[wixard]

i watched this funny vid with rolf harris


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3US5J8gDFQ

[-:Undertaker:-]

Superb news but I don't think I've said that I want such people on the streets - and it's hilarious that you use that as an argument when you are stating yourself that you'd be fine with being a criminal murderer for the sake of your perverted view of justice

Well yes you have, if you don't believe in justice and punishment and instead believe that crime is a disease caused by poverty, abuse and whatever other ills then ultimately you absolve the criminal from the guilt of the crime itself and therefore have a weak justice system which believes in 'rehabilitation'. That's exactly what your side of the argument believes, as shown by The Don below, and increasingly what our politicians believe.

My belief is that evil people should be punished and punished severely for making the lives of the good a living hell.


"We" You mean "I", our justice system is based on rehabilitation, not retribution. Nice try at twisting it though.

Increasingly it is based on 'rehabilitation' you are correct, which is why law and order is collapsing around this country.


Rehabilitation is to prevent the criminal from committing ANY crime in the future and to make them a functioning member of society; it is not to prevent them from committing specifically the crime they've been charged with. So your examples are false, the mugger who killed the granny (albeit unintentionally) is being rehabilitated to prevent them from committing any crimes in the future. This is a prime example of somebody who needs rehabilitation, a thief. If this thief is then educated whilst serving their sentence and receives encouragement to work for a living rather than simply taking what they can, we've gained ourselves another functioning member of society rather than killing them to quench your primitive thirst for blood.

I'm sorry, but this is so naive it's impossible to even reason with it. Do you really believe thieves and nasty criminals don't know what they are doing is wrong in the first place? Have you ever come across a nasty person, a bully or somebody who treats others as dirt on their shoe? Let me tell you this: they know what they are doing is 'wrong' and they do not care. They don't give a damn about the family they've robbed, they don't give a damn about the pensioner they've stamped to death.

But fools like you instead seem to show more compassion to the killer than to the victims. Incredible.


Your family member is dead, killing the perpetrator simply makes them a scapegoat by ignoring the problems in society which leads to people committing these sorts of crimes. Instead we should be aiming to tackle the causes of crime such as poverty, a lack of/poor education and neglectful parenting, as well as rehabilitating those that have fallen through societies cracks so that they can eventually contribute back to society as a law abiding, tax paying citizen.

Astounding that you call a murderer a 'scapegoat' and that it is the fault of society that he took a knife and slit somebodies throat for a mobile phone down by the local canal. I'm absoutely speechless. No my friend, evil people exist and they prosper when good sits back and does nothing.


Those 'evil child-murderers' make up a negligible percentage of the overall population. The overwhelming majority of criminals fall into the petty category as opposed to the sociopathic, serial killing Ted Bundy categories.

Indeed, which is why those 'petty' criminals (it is not petty when YOUR house is being robbed by a gang of men) need to be deterred from acting upon their evil thoughts in the first place, which you do by having a strong justice system which sets an example that if caught you WILL be punished for your actions which are entirely your fault.


Back to an eye for an eye again, if you were to do that then you're literally no better and would deserve to face the justice system yourself.

But why should it bother me? 10 years in a soft prison for seeking revenge on those who killed the one I loved? Worth it.

After all, you could simply 'rehabilitate' me. I'd play along with that ******** to get away with it.


The fault is (for the large part) due to society. Most people aren't inherently evil sociopaths that kill for fun. It's easy for you to sit there and simply blame the individual without addressing the real issues.

Yes, it's all societies fault. It is the fault of society that two student in Hull followed a gay guy home and threw him into the River Humber and left him to drown. It is completely the fault of society that a yob threw a brick near my house a few years ago at a cyclist driving past which resulted in that cyclist losing his life. It's completely the fault of society that Jimmy Savile abused all them children. It's completely the fault of society that my neighbour and his wife were broken into in the middle of the night and had their property stolen that they'd worked for all of their lives. It's completely the fault of society that increasingly we're seeing helpless old people having their homes broken into by young men, and the young men leave not only with their property but not before stamping on their face a hundred times and battering them.

People like you are so naive and make me so angry words fail me. Evil needs to be confronted head on, or we'll all lose.

[The Don]

Increasingly it is based on 'rehabilitation' you are correct, which is why law and order is collapsing around this country.

Law and order is collapsing around the UK? Please, spare the hyperbole. Is that why our crime rates are the lowest in the past 33 years?

http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1398362409803/Crime-survey-trends.svg

Rehabilitation has been proven to work, as reinforced by our falling crime rates, as well as other countries with Rehabilitation focused prison systems, such as Norway which has incredibly low reoffending rates.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

I guarantee that if we look at countries with harsh prison systems we'll find that their crime rates are far higher on average than those focused on rehabilitation. It's all good repeating uneducated rhetoric such as "lock 'em up and throw away the key" but it's simply unfeasible. Majority of criminals will eventually be back out on the streets and if we give them skills whilst they are in prison they will be able to become productive members of society once out, if we lock them up and treat them like dirt they're just going to go back out and commit more crimes because it's all they know.


I'm sorry, but this is so naive it's impossible to even reason with it. Do you really believe thieves and nasty criminals don't know what they are doing is wrong in the first place? Have you ever come across a nasty person, a bully or somebody who treats others as dirt on their shoe? Let me tell you this: they know what they are doing is 'wrong' and they do not care. They don't give a damn about the family they've robbed, they don't give a damn about the pensioner they've stamped to death.

Of course thieves know what they're doing, I've never claimed they don't. The important part is WHY they do it, not whether or not they're sentient enough to understand what they're doing. A large portion of criminals are career criminals, where they have little to no skills and resort to crime to survive. It's all fine and dandy saying "They know what they're doing! Why can't they get a job?" when in the EU threads you're arguing that it's hard for REGULAR people to get jobs, career criminals often come from deprived areas where jobs are sparse. Obviously people know what they're doing, but the way society is set up It's almost impossible for these people to escape from this vicious circle.


But fools like you instead seem to show more compassion to the killer than to the victims. Incredible.

Not at all, of course compassion should be shown to the victims, but you're branding every criminal as though they're evil child murders, which, as we've already established, make up a tiny percent of the prison populace. I recognise that you keep using extreme examples to get your point across, but we're talking about the prison systems in general, they need to be set up in the most suitable way for the majority of prisoners. The average prisoner isn't Harold Shipman or Fred West, who are arguably irredeemable, the average prisoner generally comes from a troubled childhood, has little to no qualifications (almost half, 47% of the prisons population had no academic qualifications) and comes from a deprived household (64% of prisoners had been in receipt of benefits at some point in the 12 months prior to coming into custody).



Astounding that you call a murderer a 'scapegoat' and that it is the fault of society that he took a knife and slit somebodies throat for a mobile phone down by the local canal. I'm absoutely speechless. No my friend, evil people exist and they prosper when good sits back and does nothing.

Woah, I don't remember that example, nor calling the murderer in that example a scapegoat, are you perhaps putting words into my mouth? If you would care to read what I wrote you would see that I said killing the perpetrator makes them a scapegoat as you're refusing to acknowledge the societal problems that has crafted that person into what they are. Of course the individual needs to take responsibility for their actions, they are the ones that did it, but it's not as simple as branding that person as evil and completely ignoring all the other factors that determine who we are as people. Evil people do exist, I'm not disputing that, but as I've put previously, they are negligible, the overwhelming vast majority of criminals are not sociopaths. Of the 3.7 million offences committed in 2013, only 550 of them were murders, that is a tiny percentage. Yet you want the prison systems to focus on harsh punishments in general, using that tiny minority as examples to somehow prove your point. The overwhelming majority of offenders can be rehabilitated; pointing out child killers doesn't paint a true representation of what the average criminal is.


Indeed, which is why those 'petty' criminals (it is not petty when YOUR house is being robbed by a gang of men) need to be deterred from acting upon their evil thoughts in the first place, which you do by having a strong justice system which sets an example that if caught you WILL be punished for your actions which are entirely your fault.

Yes, it's all societies fault. It is the fault of society that two student in Hull followed a gay guy home and threw him into the River Humber and left him to drown. It is completely the fault of society that a yob threw a brick near my house a few years ago at a cyclist driving past which resulted in that cyclist losing his life. It's completely the fault of society that Jimmy Savile abused all them children. It's completely the fault of society that my neighbour and his wife were broken into in the middle of the night and had their property stolen that they'd worked for all of their lives. It's completely the fault of society that increasingly we're seeing helpless old people having their homes broken into by young men, and the young men leave not only with their property but not before stamping on their face a hundred times and battering them.

Do you think the vast majority of robbers steal to inflict misery on others with ill intent? Doubtful, the majority of buglers are actually juveniles, stealing to support themselves because they think it's acceptable. There was a particular youtube video I watched the other day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGpBz3yVK8c) where this young African-American girl stole a purse from an old lady, knocking her over in the process. A passerby caught the young girl and the video was essentially of him holding her down, making a citizens arrest on her whilst waiting for the police to arrive. Do you know what the girl said to justify her stealing from this lady? "She can afford it, she's rich. She's eating at a restaurant!". She didn't try and steal that lady's purse to ruin her day, there was no malice, she simply thought it was acceptable to take what she wanted from the lady because she looked like she could afford to lose it. The fact that the thief assumed the woman was rich simply because she was eating at a restaurant highlights the sort of deprived background this girl comes from and how society has failed her. With correct parenting and education things like this simply wouldn't happen. Rehabilitation offers people like this a second chance, it gives them the skills that they should have gained but never had the opportunity to. Not all people can be rehabilitated, I don't doubt that, but the vast majority can and the system should be established in a way that those that want a second chance are able to earn one through prison workshops and education. Punishing them and not enabling them to better themselves will simply lead to them reoffending once released.


People like you are so naive and make me so angry words fail me. Evil needs to be confronted head on, or we'll all lose.

You're the naive one for thinking the world is some sort of Disney film with either evil villains or perfect law abiding citizens.

[FlyingJesus]

Well yes you have

No I haven't. Stop lying.


if you don't believe in justice and punishment and instead believe that crime is a disease caused by poverty, abuse and whatever other ills then ultimately you absolve the criminal from the guilt of the crime itself

Also not something I've said. Stop lying.


and therefore have a weak justice system which believes in 'rehabilitation'. That's exactly what your side of the argument believes, as shown by The Don below, and increasingly what our politicians believe.

I'm not on the "side" of Akeam either, there are more than two possible views and you can't just make things up that I haven't said and claim that that's my argument. Stop lying.


My belief is that evil people should be punished and punished severely for making the lives of the good a living hell.

Your belief is that the state only has a say in justice if it directly matches your personal views.
Your belief is that it is good and proper to violently break laws and carry out your own brand of justice if you don't agree with a court ruling.
Your belief is that opposition should be silenced with slander and violence.
Your belief is that your morals and your morals alone are worth defending, no matter what stands in your way.
You don't like democracy and justice, you like bullying and tyranny of the most forceful. You directly oppose all of the things you claim to hold dear by being a criminally minded bigot with no stronger argument than "BECAUSE". You openly state that you'd love to murder someone and get away with it and the have the audacity to try discrediting others on their moral standing. You are not only terrible at debating, you are terrible at being a human.

[GommeInc]

I have no idea why Sharia Law has anything to do with Rolf Harris but oh well.

I hate how Vanessa Feltz, stupid blond bimbo, has got in on the act by saying he groped her. Instead of selling your story maybe you should assist as a character witness or get involved in the investigation rather than sit on your pathetic backside giving your story to the Sunday Gazette after the case has gone through the system.

[MilksAreUs]

Wow, thats really disgusting. Next you'll be telling us Bruce Forsythe has been took in for questioning.