Back
to top
Only murderers and other violent criminals should go to prison
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
People should only have to go to jail for crimes that are violent or potentially violent, so obviously murder, terrorism, physical attacks, torture, throwing chemicals on someone and disfiguring them, etc. Economic offenses, like shoplifting or wolf of wall street type ****, should result in the government seizing some of their property and forcing them to pay a heavy fine. Since having these people around doesn't compromise the safety of others, should they really be locked up? They're not a danger to society, and the money that they are forced to pay will compensate for the things they have stolen. Petty crimes like theft are usually repeat offenses anyways, so keeping the person in jail does not normally teach them a lesson as they're likely to do it again. If someone commits a large-scale economic crime, and whatever money they get from it is stripped off them, they would either decide not to waste their time doing something so risky again, or their greed will result in them doing it again. But since there are no victims to the crime, or the victims receive compensation, does the offender really need to go to prison?
Feel free to also offer any arguments on types of crimes I didn't think of
Feel free to also offer any arguments on types of crimes I didn't think of
0
reply
Report
#2
Repeat offender of robbery should just get their hands chopped off. Rapists should get their relevant bit removed. I would just apply this sort of logic to most crimes TBH. But as someone said earlier, I'm a bit odd so theres probably going to be a lot of unjustified disagreement with my suggestion.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by Laomedeia)
Repeat offender of robbery should just get their hands chopped off. Rapists should get their relevant bit removed. I would just apply this sort of logic to most crimes TBH. But as someone said earlier, I'm a bit odd so theres probably going to be a lot of unjustified disagreement with my suggestion.
Repeat offender of robbery should just get their hands chopped off. Rapists should get their relevant bit removed. I would just apply this sort of logic to most crimes TBH. But as someone said earlier, I'm a bit odd so theres probably going to be a lot of unjustified disagreement with my suggestion.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by flibber)
Isn't that similar to Sharia Law in some countries?
Isn't that similar to Sharia Law in some countries?
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Laomedeia)
Aint got a frickin clue. Never heard of Sharia law.
Aint got a frickin clue. Never heard of Sharia law.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Laomedeia)
Repeat offender of robbery should just get their hands chopped off. Rapists should get their relevant bit removed. I would just apply this sort of logic to most crimes TBH. But as someone said earlier, I'm a bit odd so theres probably going to be a lot of unjustified disagreement with my suggestion.
Repeat offender of robbery should just get their hands chopped off. Rapists should get their relevant bit removed. I would just apply this sort of logic to most crimes TBH. But as someone said earlier, I'm a bit odd so theres probably going to be a lot of unjustified disagreement with my suggestion.
There are too many flaws in that logic but I sort of get what you mean
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by anitsirk)
People should only have to go to jail for crimes that are violent or potentially violent, so obviously murder, terrorism, physical attacks, torture, throwing chemicals on someone and disfiguring them, etc. Economic offenses, like shoplifting orwolf of wall street type ****, should result in the government seizing some of their property and forcing them to pay a heavy fine. Since having these people around doesn't compromise the safety of others, should they really be locked up? They're not a danger to society, and the money that they are forced to pay will compensate for the things they have stolen. Petty crimes like theft are usually repeat offenses anyways, so keeping the person in jail does not normally teach them a lesson as they're likely to do it again. If someone commits a large-scale economic crime, and whatever money they get from it is stripped off them, they would either decide not to waste their time doing something so risky again, or their greed will result in them doing it again. But since there are no victims to the crime, or the victims receive compensation, does the offender really need to go to prison?
Feel free to also offer any arguments on types of crimes I didn't think of
People should only have to go to jail for crimes that are violent or potentially violent, so obviously murder, terrorism, physical attacks, torture, throwing chemicals on someone and disfiguring them, etc. Economic offenses, like shoplifting orwolf of wall street type ****, should result in the government seizing some of their property and forcing them to pay a heavy fine. Since having these people around doesn't compromise the safety of others, should they really be locked up? They're not a danger to society, and the money that they are forced to pay will compensate for the things they have stolen. Petty crimes like theft are usually repeat offenses anyways, so keeping the person in jail does not normally teach them a lesson as they're likely to do it again. If someone commits a large-scale economic crime, and whatever money they get from it is stripped off them, they would either decide not to waste their time doing something so risky again, or their greed will result in them doing it again. But since there are no victims to the crime, or the victims receive compensation, does the offender really need to go to prison?
Feel free to also offer any arguments on types of crimes I didn't think of
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Laomedeia)
Repeat offender of robbery should just get their hands chopped off. Rapists should get their relevant bit removed. I would just apply this sort of logic to most crimes TBH. But as someone said earlier, I'm a bit odd so theres probably going to be a lot of unjustified disagreement with my suggestion.
Repeat offender of robbery should just get their hands chopped off. Rapists should get their relevant bit removed. I would just apply this sort of logic to most crimes TBH. But as someone said earlier, I'm a bit odd so theres probably going to be a lot of unjustified disagreement with my suggestion.
That'd be me. I actually agree with you, doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by flibber)
Google it.
Google it.
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by flibber)
Google it.
Google it.
0
reply
Report
#12
Yeah, because if your neighbour was a convicted rapist you'd still want him living besides you.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Laomedeia)
What a dullard reply. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum. Isnt the whole point of such forums to talk and ask about stuff?
What a dullard reply. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum. Isnt the whole point of such forums to talk and ask about stuff?
(Original post by Anonymoùs)
What a stupid answer. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum, thus defeating the purpose of a message forum.
What a stupid answer. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum, thus defeating the purpose of a message forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7234870.stm
On topic, sentencing policy is, and should be far more complex than statements 'doing X results in Y', although that approach is attractive in terms of simplicity and legal certainty. What sentence is given in any given case should be the one which is best to achieve the numerous objectives which the criminal law seeks to achieve.
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Stefano93)
Yeah, because if your neighbour was a convicted rapist you'd still want him living besides you.
Yeah, because if your neighbour was a convicted rapist you'd still want him living besides you.
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
On topic, sentencing policy is, and should be far more complex than statements 'doing X results in Y', although that approach is attractive in terms of simplicity and legal certainty. What sentence is given in any given case should be the one which is best to achieve the numerous objectives which the criminal law seeks to achieve.
On topic, sentencing policy is, and should be far more complex than statements 'doing X results in Y', although that approach is attractive in terms of simplicity and legal certainty. What sentence is given in any given case should be the one which is best to achieve the numerous objectives which the criminal law seeks to achieve.
A battered housewife who hits her husband with a vase as she's had enough of his abuse should not get the same sentence as a career criminal who stabs someone as part of gang warfare.
0
reply
Report
#16
A single con artist or embezzler can ruin the lives of hundreds of people without ever doing anything so dramatic as sinking a knife into anyone. I would consider that kind of person deserving of jail time regardless.
0
reply
Report
#17
(Original post by Laomedeia)
What a dullard reply. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum. Isnt the whole point of such forums to talk and ask about stuff?
What a dullard reply. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum. Isnt the whole point of such forums to talk and ask about stuff?
(Original post by Anonymoùs)
What a stupid answer. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum, thus defeating the purpose of a message forum.
What a stupid answer. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum, thus defeating the purpose of a message forum.
I'll tell you what I know of it anyway, since you insist.
Sharia Law is an Islamic code based on the Quran and Hadith used in some countries where Islam is the official religion of the state, most notably in Saudi Arabia and Iran. There are different schools of Sharia Law, such as the Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, and Jafari schools, with some schools issuing stricter punishments than others for violations of Sharia Law. Sharia Law is only meant to be applicable to Muslims, and non-Muslims are exempt from religious law. The Jafari school is (if I'm right), exclusive to Shia Islam. The punishments proscribed by Sharia Law are controversial as it included stoning for crimes such as adultery, which has been decriminalised and viewed as a private matter between couples in the West. Even actions that are crimes in the West (and pretty much everywhere else in the world) such as theft would not result in amputation in the UK. The problem lies in the fact that Islam considers itself to be a timeless religion, therefore what was considered right in the 7th century CE is right even now [at least according to the Quran]. I hold the view that while morality is fixed, we are progressing as we as a race (at least in the Western world) have discovered (or maybe still discovering) what is moral (in actions and in punishment) and what is not, whereas other groups of people have not. I believe that peace can only be attained when all groups of people discover how to behave morally.
Does this suffice?
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Laomedeia)
You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum.
You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum.
(Original post by Anonymoùs)
You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum
You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum
0
reply
Report
#19
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
I get the feeling these two accounts are run by the same person.
I get the feeling these two accounts are run by the same person.
(Original post by Laomedeia)
What a dullard reply. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum. Isnt the whole point of such forums to talk and ask about stuff?
What a dullard reply. You could say that to any question somebody asks on a forum. Isnt the whole point of such forums to talk and ask about stuff?
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- What Harry Potter house are you in?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health