Cameron Backs 'Life Means Life' Sentences

Well punishment for a start. If somebody brutally murdered a loved one of years would you like to see them serve a short sentence just because apparently they aren't a threat anymore? Just because they may have been rehabilitated doesn't mean they should not face punishment for what they have already done.

Then there are those that could just trick the system. Pretend they have been rehabilitated just to get out of prison, even if they actually feel no remorse for what they've done and may become a menace again when leaving prison.

Obviously i'm only talking murderers here but then i suppose they are usually only ever the people who get whole life sentences anyway.

For mass murder i.e terrorist attacks - Yes

Normal sentences of 30 years should be more harsh and not a trip to butlins.

Nah, Butlins is way worse than Prison

100 years is not likely to be a bigger deterrent than 30 years - if you're willing to go to prison for 30 years you've pretty much signed off on ruining your life by that point. It will however cost more and prevent people from working and making tax contributions.

If a prisoner is safe to be released, why keep them in prison except to satisfy the lust to punish? People like Cameron who indulge that lust are cruel.

30 years, then out in 15 or less, they could still go on and commit more crimes, probably in a more violent fashion since they've been caged for so long and learned more skills or become even more capable and violent, and now have no reason not to, unless you consider a crappy job reason not to..

If they're considered likely to go on and commit more crimes they aren't going to be approved for early release. By denying them you're saying to them, "we know you're probably not going to commit and crimes, but we're going to keep you imprisoned anyway, because this is apparently the best way to spend public money."

Many crimes committed are almost never one offs and if given the chance they would and do, do it again. The recidivism rate for most crimes is quite high.

Yeah, in the UK where we say things like "it's not a trip to Butlins" to justify our cruelty. In Scandinavia where they are treated as human beings and not the scum of society, they have far lower recidivism rates.

Crime is caused when there is incentive to commit crime. We should concentrate on reducing those incentives, not maximising them by eliminating offenders' options.

Yeah, in the UK where we say things like "it's not a trip to Butlins" to justify our cruelty. In Scandinavia where they are treated as human beings and not the scum of society, they have far lower recidivism rates.

Crime is caused when there is incentive to commit crime. We should concentrate on reducing those incentives, not maximising them by eliminating offenders' options.

There is certainly a lot of incentive to commit crimes in Scandinavia. In fact if i was brought up there rather than in Britain, I think I would of purposely commit crimes so I could go to prison! Far better life than my childhood!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Who would commit crime if they have a high quality of life regardless? Aside from behavioural disorders and the like, people generally prefer not to be criminals.

Bankers and politicians

Who would commit crime if they have a high quality of life regardless? Aside from behavioural disorders and the like, people generally prefer not to be criminals.

The point is many criminals do not previously have a high quality of life. How many people mugging old grannies are successful buisnessmen or sports stars? If you make prison nice and cushy like you say, people will have an incentive to go there as it is an escape from their **** lives. I certainly would of committed a crime in my younger years if i knew i would get a tv in my room, central heating and 3 meals a day.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think that punishment for the sake of punishment is a stupid idea. It is pointless and costs money.