Prisons are super harsh & reform criminals!

[-:Undertaker:-]

When we were beheading people, locking them up for their lives, abusing people as punishments, yes there was less crime, but the system's design was significantly more corrupted, and the system had far too much power, not egging for our own sovereignty.

Sovereignty has nothing to do with this topic.

I am not saying lets go back to the beheading/dunking stools/torture days of Tudor times, all i'm saying is that if you commit a crime you should be locked up. As usual everything gets taken out of proportion just like how you brought slavery up when it has sod all to do with crime nowadays and crime back then also. You disagree that criminals should be locked up do you?

[HotelUser]

Sovereignty has nothing to do with this topic.

I am not saying lets go back to the beheading/dunking stools/torture days of Tudor times, all i'm saying is that if you commit a crime you should be locked up. As usual everything gets taken out of proportion just like how you brought slavery up when it has sod all to do with crime nowadays and crime back then also. You disagree that criminals should be locked up do you?

My point is completely valid because it references what I'm suggesting your idea would do: which is give the system more power than it should have. How on Earth will locking someone up for their entire life improve THEIR lives? You've completely neglected looking at this from a criminals perspective. No matter what they've done they have a right to live too, and if they've done wrong we should use our jurisdiction over them to teach them, not harm them further.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My point is completely valid because it references what I'm suggesting your idea would do: which is give the system more power than it should have. How on Earth will locking someone up for their entire life improve THEIR lives? You've completely neglected looking at this from a criminals perspective. No matter what they've done they have a right to live too, and if they've done wrong we should use our jurisdiction over them to teach them, not harm them further.

I haven't suggested locking people up for life who have committed crimes, I have stated very clearly that those who keep committing crime should have longer sentences imposed on them to act as a deterrent and protect the public, which is the central point of putting someone in prison. On you go to say I havent looked at this from a criminals perspective, of course I have because if I was in a criminals shoes I wouldnt commit the crime in the first place. You act as though they are innocent little angels who just dont realise what they are doing is wrong, of course they know robbing a pensioner is wrong, of course they know drug dealing is wrong - just you cant accept the fact that these people are bad and dangerous.

Please never become a judge I beg of you, because its people such as the likes of you who allow dangerous people out of prison early and who later go on to cause more misery for neighbourhoods, sometimes even going on to kill again.

[HotelUser]

I haven't suggested locking people up for life who have committed crimes, I have stated very clearly that those who keep committing crime should have longer sentences imposed on them to act as a deterrent and protect the public, which is the central point of putting someone in prison. On you go to say I havent looked at this from a criminals perspective, of course I have because if I was in a criminals shoes I wouldnt commit the crime in the first place. You act as though they are innocent little angels who just dont realise what they are doing is wrong, of course they know robbing a pensioner is wrong, of course they know drug dealing is wrong - just you cant accept the fact that these people are bad and dangerous.

Please never become a judge I beg of you, because its people such as the likes of you who allow dangerous people out of prison early and who later go on to cause more misery for neighbourhoods, sometimes even going on to kill again.

No, you fail to understand that 1) everybody thinks differently and things affect different people differently, and, 2) Not everyone is blessed with having a good upbringing like us. Wrong rolemodels in someones life can lead to the person justifying bad decisions. You saying you wouldn't commit the crimes in the first place is proof enough that you're unable to see things truly from their perspective.


Do you really think I like seeing child rapists getting a pathetic 6 months in jail? Of course not. But 10 years in jail wont guarantee that when they're released they'll do anything differently. We need not a more harsh approach, we need a more helpful approach to helping these people become normal citizens.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, you fail to understand that 1) everybody thinks differently and things affect different people differently, and, 2) Not everyone is blessed with having a good upbringing like us. Wrong rolemodels in someones life can lead to the person justifying bad decisions. You saying you wouldn't commit the crimes in the first place is proof enough that you're unable to see things truly from their perspective.

Do you really think I like seeing child rapists getting a pathetic 6 months in jail? Of course not. But 10 years in jail wont guarantee that when they're released they'll do anything differently. We need not a more harsh approach, we need a more helpful approach to helping these people become normal citizens.

What do you propose then? lets send in government officals to every household every day of the week to make sure people are being brought up in the correct way? i'm sorry but once you reach your teen years you start to realise whats right and whats wrong, some people are brought up badly but they still know themselves that smashing a bus stop is wrong, robbing somebody is wrong and the rest of it - they are often served with behaviour orders and all the rest so its not as though we are giving them a free hand and they are oblivious to the fact what they are doing is wrong - despite what you'd like me to think. These people arent stupid, they know how to play the powerless police and how to play the system.

The idea is very simple and even young children can understand the basics of this idea; commit the crime, you do the time. so what are you saying to me here, that they dont understand what i've bolded? if thats the case then you really are kidding yourself.

So you'd like them allowed on the outside around your family and your friends? fair dos if you want to take that chance, but maybe you should consider the nightmare some people have to live through their entire lives because these people are allowed to roam our streets, all because the likes of yourself and Ken Clarke believe in chance after chance after chance for these people.

You dont like these people being let out but at the same time you want them on the outside, do you even know yourself what you want?

[HotelUser]

Now you're assuming many many things which I did not say or imply at all. Criminals should be punished to an extent, yes, but they need to be offered better education and therapy in prison. It has to be more about teaching them to become acceptable and responsible people. The problem now is we're giving short punishments in which the criminals aren't learning anything, so what's to stop them from recommitting if they're in jail for 5 years, or 10 years?

What do you propose then? lets send in government officals to every household every day of the week to make sure people are being brought up in the correct way? i'm sorry but once you reach your teen years you start to realise whats right and whats wrong, some people are brought up badly but they still know themselves that smashing a bus stop is wrong, robbing somebody is wrong and the rest of it - they are often served with behaviour orders and all the rest so its not as though we are giving them a free hand and they are oblivious to the fact what they are doing is wrong - despite what you'd like me to think. These people arent stupid, they know how to play the powerless police and how to play the system.

The idea is very simple and even young children can understand the basics of this idea; commit the crime, you do the time. so what are you saying to me here, that they dont understand what i've bolded? if thats the case then you really are kidding yourself.

So you'd like them allowed on the outside around your family and your friends? fair dos if you want to take that chance, but maybe you should consider the nightmare some people have to live through their entire lives because these people are allowed to roam our streets, all because the likes of yourself and Ken Clarke believe in chance after chance after chance for these people.

You dont like these people being let out but at the same time you want them on the outside, do you even know yourself what you want?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Now you're assuming many many things which I did not say or imply at all. Criminals should be punished to an extent, yes, but they need to be offered better education and therapy in prison. It has to be more about teaching them to become acceptable and responsible people.

Hang on a second, the rest of us use our education to our advantage and obey the law - why should somebody who has done something wrong and somebody whom threw away their education, be treated in a special manner as though they are the victim? It is very simple how to be respectable and they know it otherwise they wouldnt want to go to prison. The problem is, they dont want to be respectable and obey the law - they like disobeying the law, they like smashing things up, they like mugging people and in general they enjoy committing crime hence why they do it in the first place.

What you and Ken Clarke are proposing goes along the lines of this; we all know that stealing is wrong (the criminal included), so lets spend tax payers money telling the criminal what he already knows, that theft is wrong.

The problem now is we're giving short punishments in which the criminals aren't learning anything, so what's to stop them from recommitting if they're in jail for 5 years, or 10 years?

Nothing if i'm honest, its better for them to be in prison for 10 years and committing no crime than for them to be out every few months, committing a crime and then going back in. Prison is about protecting the law abiding majority, not pandering to criminals.

My ideal system would have people scared of prison, not wanting to end up there so they wouldnt commit the crime in the first place - if they do then they are sent to prison for a generous length of time depending on the crime itself. You say whats to stop them reoffending, well with my idea the prison walls would prevent them from reoffending, whereas with your idea the only thing that would 'prevent' them from reoffending would be their word - as a lot of them are career criminals I wouldnt hang onto their words with much hope and trust.

[Nixt]

To which both come back to the central point which is; dont commit the crime in the first place.

I am confused by your opinion, Dandertaker. It seems to me as if you are suggesting that, if someone commits a crime, we send them to prison. When they are released, if they commit another crime, we send them to prison again. I am not going to say that I do not believe we need tougher prisons and tougher penalties, but it seems silly not to attempt to rehabilitate the prisoners at the same time as punishing them. If you simply throw them back into prison, you are simply following what has already become an endless cycle of repeated crime by reoffenders who, after being sent to prison, have little prospect in life and merely return to their old ways. I am not saying they don't have a choice, because of course they do, what I am saying is that unfortunately, the majority of the great unwashed need a prod in the right direction and as such the government should be ensuring something is in place to do just that.

I do also think that the media exaggerates the problem of crime today. As far as I am aware a lot of crime has dropped and is continuing to drop - merely, certain incidents are reported and exaggerated by the tabloids in what seems to be an increasing desire to condemn "broken Britain" and the poor within it. The media is only creating a stigma attached to the lower classes and younger people that I believe only makes things worse.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am confused by your opinion, Dandertaker. It seems to me as if you are suggesting that, if someone commits a crime, we send them to prison. When they are released, if they commit another crime, we send them to prison again. I am not going to say that I do not believe we need tougher prisons and tougher penalties, but it seems silly not to attempt to rehabilitate the prisoners at the same time as punishing them. If you simply throw them back into prison, you are simply following what has already become an endless cycle of repeated crime by reoffenders who, after being sent to prison, have little prospect in life and merely return to their old ways. I am not saying they don't have a choice, because of course they do, what I am saying is that unfortunately, the majority of the great unwashed need a prod in the right direction and as such the government should be ensuring something is in place to do just that.

I do also think that the media exaggerates the problem of crime today. As far as I am aware a lot of crime has dropped and is continuing to drop - merely, certain incidents are reported and exaggerated by the tabloids in what seems to be an increasing desire to condemn "broken Britain" and the poor within it. The media is only creating a stigma attached to the lower classes and younger people that I believe only makes things worse.

I am suggesting that prison conditions be tougher in the first place (thus putting a great deal of many off the prospect of prison in the first place) and that sentences be made tougher the more they reoffend. It is not the job of the government to provide a prospect in life for these people, the rest of us get by and pay our taxes on virtually anything - criminals barely do that. I am confused by your opinion more so, because you are suggesting rehabilition which is nothing more than a chat and a talk with a criminal by an unknown offical which surely will not give them any prospects. Unless you are suggesting we provide criminals with cash grants and council housing, to which I would ask 'why should crime be rewarded?'.

The second point is not true, reported crime has dropped. A lot of crime goes unreported nowadays as the childrens representative on Question Time pointed out, therefore that does not indicate at all that crime has dropped.

[HotelUser]

I am suggesting that prison conditions be tougher in the first place (thus putting a great deal of many off the prospect of prison in the first place) and that sentences be made tougher the more they reoffend. It is not the job of the government to provide a prospect in life for these people, the rest of us get by and pay our taxes on virtually anything - criminals barely do that. I am confused by your opinion more so, because you are suggesting rehabilition which is nothing more than a chat and a talk with a criminal by an unknown offical which surely will not give them any prospects. Unless you are suggesting we provide criminals with cash grants and council housing, to which I would ask 'why should crime be rewarded?'.

The second point is not true, reported crime has dropped. A lot of crime goes unreported nowadays as the childrens representative on Question Time pointed out, therefore that does not indicate at all that crime has dropped.

Yeah. Getting 100 tough angry men and locking them up for 20 years in one cell will make them less tough and less angry :S