The British justice system is the most barbaric in the world.

If you put somebody in jail for 25 years, you make it impossible for that person to properly and usefully re-enter society. Sometimes people do need to be kept in that long, other times it would be better for all concerned to give them a shorter sentence and actually attempt to rehabilitate them. What needs to stop is just locking them up as a punishment, and then being shocked that somebody kept surrounded by criminals for years and made to hate the system even more doesn't magically exit as a model citizen.

I think this talk illustrates my point well. Do you genuinely think society would have been better off if this man had just been executed or left to rot in jail?

[video="youtube;GtXyGFMBWBs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtXyGFMBWBs[/video]



If the sentencing drives convicted criminals to re-offend (as current systems do), it isn't doing its job as a deterrent very well is it? Acting as a deterrent is important, but it needs to be balanced with other factors and there is only so much increasing a sentence can do to act as a deterrent. I am not saying that we should just give criminals light sentences, I am saying that we should actually use prison as a way to try and break the cycle of re-offence rather than ensuring that once someone commits a crime they are stuck in that life.

Why do we have to define them as "Pakistani Muslims"?? BECAUSE THEY ARE PAKISTANI MUSLIMS!!! LOL

Had they been Hindus, we would have said "Hindus". Had they been Indians, we would have said "indians".

Can you Muslims ever stop playing the race card?

Which is why a balance needs to be struck between deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. Neither pathetic nor excessive sentences meet this balance and I think Britain can be guilty of the former in many instances.

In addition, sentencing represents the extent to which society views an act as unacceptable. A suspended sentence for a violent assault resulting in serious injuries, for example, provides a poor reflection of society's outlook on how we should treat each other.

Black ghettos in America are utterly different to the UK. Out there, they have no choice but to get involved in crime as they are offered terrible education, and the poverty and lack of jobs in the area means that crime is the only way forward. Thus, it is wrong to lock those folks up for 25+ years as they are screwed over from birth.

However, in the UK this is not a problem. Our education system is far better and the poor do not have the social stigma black Americans have when trying to get a job. This means that those who commit crimes in the UK do so because they are bad people rather than being forced. These people had a chance to join society and chose not to....so let them rot.
They should be tested for the ability to reintegrate at the end of the sentence. If they can't, let them rot.

Crime is not that simple anywhere, maybe things are not quite as serious as in american Ghettos but most people do turn to crime because of poor upbringing and opportunities. I agree that if somebody is judged t be unable to enter society they simply shouldn't be allowed to, I just think that only judging whether they have been reformed after you have taken away all their other opportunities and reinforced their criminal tendencies by locking them up for years with other criminals is just plain retarded.

True. Modern British justice is designed to protect criminals and punish the innocent.

If criminals were in jail and the country was at peace, then I suspect lawyers would not be making any money. Crime does pay in Britain, and those being paid are lawyers.

[h="1"]Lee Rigby's killers received more than £200,000 in legal aid[/h]

Look at this guy:



This mans name was Thavisha Lakindu Peiris. He was an immigrant who came to Britain, believing that Britain was a better place than his home country of Sri Lanka. Thavisha's parents saved up to send him here, believing that Britain was a safe place for their son. Thavisha was a hard woking guy, working as as a pizza delivery man to make his way while he tried to secure a job in IT. He did secure that job. However, in his final shift before quitting, he was murdered by a violent thug who stabbed him 14 times for his mobile phone:






This persons name is Kasim Ahmed, a 17 year old ( at the time of the murder ) low life criminal who had a string of previous violent convictions and was well know to authorities.

According to the judge during the trial, Kasim's record was 'truly terrible for somebody so young' adding 'this was a murder waiting to happen'.

The obvious question is then obvious: IF THIS WAS A MURDER WAITING TO HAPPEN THEN WHY WAS THIS VIOLENT THUG OUT ON THE STREETS IN THE FIRST PLACE???

British justice is so weak. So permissive. So indifferent to the suffering of victims that it sees fit to release known violent offenders back out onto the streets, in the full knowledge that they will go on to commit more violent crimes.

Basically, British justice is like a psychopath who releases a rabid dog into a school playground while claiming its the civilised thing to do.

There is saying which goes: Those that are kind to the cruel, are cruel to the kind.

BRITAIN IS PATHOLOGICALLY CRUEL TO THE KIND!!!!!

Thavisha's cousin summed up Britain well: "....a glossy red apple with a rotten core."


-----

Full story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704921/Murdered-iPhone-natural-born-killer-bail-Serial-robber-never-let-out.html