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

[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/photogaller...989083,00.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/ar...esnt-work.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ce-system.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyzut35wGrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyzut35wGrw
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....er-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/photogaller...989083,00.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.





Here’s a couple of links for you
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...-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:-;

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....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.





Here’s a couple of links for you

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...-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....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.





Here’s a couple of links for you

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...-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.