Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Chris
I hate to correct you but inmates are kept banged up not for their own protection but because of staff shortages or because of a landing rotation system.
Anyone who fears for his own safety may go on 'Rule 43' where they are taken (usually to a Nonces wing) and kept apart from fellow inmates.They have their own workshops,education classes and separate visits.Many don't like to go on Rule 43 as they automatically get classed as a nonce.
As for disciplinary procedures I regret that these are rarely taken up as (a) they will be forever classed as a grass and risk further beatings and (b) a complaint against an officer would result in the inmate being 'ghosted' to another nick (for his own safety..erhm) miles away from his loved ones therefore making visits near on impossible.
Society,fairness and rules stop at the prison gate. They lose all their rights.
As for your point about lifers they obtain the best that prison can offer, single cells,education classes,limited computer use and other privileges in order to placate them and keep them occupied.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith is right that we should "get them young" - as I think my own posts would support. Sid - it isn't anything about Dear Diddums, or do-gooders Keith - it's about taking an experienced eye to what works, not what suits. If we want to reduce offending we need to see what stops it recurring - and mostly what stops it occuring has nothing to do with punishment and more to do with changing behaviours - which never change without the person wanting it, which has nothing to do with punishment! I am not soft on criminals - I meet some very heavy-duty hardcore badboys on a daily basis these days and I offer no excuses for their crimes. What I do offer is the potential to reduce re-offending. Do-gooding/social work types are a problem, it has to be said - some nasties have been released because they hoodwinked the social workers and psychs - but a weathered and unsentimental eye taken to the evidence of what works is what we need. Punushment is very valid and has a place, but it won't impact on offending rates. Another tool entirely is needed for that, and the gutter press tabloids whipping up fear and loathing isn't going to achieve anything other than to impede progress.
PS - Marek - I think I love you
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
I think at the end of the day, it`s all down to the individual. I`m sure there`s a brain in a few/some/alot of them, and it`s just down to some knowledgable person dealing with them, who can strike the right note with them, (if that`s the right phrase), but other`s maybe just a waste of space. Rick`s right with all this being in us since earlier times, it`s actually what Richard Dawkins tells us, `The Selfish Gene`.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Death sentences don't usually bring dead people back to life, so they are not e remedy to solve the grief of the victim's relatives or to appease society's anger.
Prison is considered more humane. However, I would ask myself if to fire a nuc at some city comes under premeditated .... whatever...
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
Regarding death sentences Alexander, although I`m happy to see the 100% guilty party dispatched, rather than for a remedy or revenge, I still see it as a deterent for would be murderer`s, who maybe put off by being killed by the state in the process. Of course we`ll never know how many people are alive today or in the past, who wouldn`t have been without capital punishment in place as a deterrent. Regarding firing a missile at some city, yes premeditated, with split second timing. I suppose in a curious way, you could kill a German from September 1939 to May 1945, but before or after those dates you`d be murdering them, and subject to execution by the state.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
The difference, I guess between murder and self defence? But you are right, of course - two things: circumstances alter cases, and it's a funny old world................
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Colin even war you cannot just kill an enemy national, Geneva Convention and all that. Even war has rules. Only murderers dont have rules.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
I know what you mean Barry, but I was thinking more in legalised killing in general wartime conditions, the other way as you say is a war crime, hence Nuremburg.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Hmm! During World War Two, many people were killed through areal and artillary bombardments against cities and towns, including many civilians, and vast numbers were injured, and these barrages were caried out on the part of various armies involved. the Soviet air-force tended to avoid bombing towns and cities, concentrating missions on military forces, following a specific policy of avoiding civilian casualties. During the First World Waw, when the first areal bombs were dropped from German zepelins, in Britain this was considered a crime! Also, civilians were not subject to areal or artillary bombardments in the trench wars, as cities were considered non-battle grounds. The idea of bombarding towns and cities in the Second World War was not at all taken for granted in the First!
Barry is right, that the Geneva Convention is in conflict with areal bombardment of civilians centres as a form of military strategy.
