James Bulgar killer Jon Venables possibly starting a new life abroad Watch

Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
We both know that prison is a joke in the UK; having met quite a few convicts in my time working for the NHS it doesn't seem to have done much to discourage them; nor has it done much for Venebles, as he has at least twice now shown that he is still a threat to children by his child pornography offences. Would you want him living next to you if you had children? Or even if you don't. The man deserves the Sarah Sands treatment or even a shotgun slug through the head
The idea of killing someone for something they did whilst still in primary school is crazy and I can’t believe there would be any opposition to that.

Prison not being effective is not a reason to start executing people, especially not ten year olds. Prison reform is desperately needed in this country.

I’m not saying that I would want him to live next door to me, I’m not even saying that he shouldn’t still be in jail; I agree that he’s shown he’s still a threat to children. However, I would much prefer to have him living next door to me than see this country abandon justice and human rights by shooting him in the head.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
If we re-introduced the death penalty even for adults who murder, there would be some who would get away with murder, as some jurors would not be prepared to convict someone and send them to death.
0
reply
Royal Oak
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by barnetlad)
If we re-introduced the death penalty even for adults who murder, there would be some who would get away with murder, as some jurors would not be prepared to convict someone and send them to death.
Let's also not forget the people who will inevitably be wrongly convicted. Imprisoning someone for something they didn't do is unforgiveable enough.
0
reply
Archurus23
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Rock Fan)
Apparently at our tax payers expense https://metro.co.uk/2019/06/24/child...e.top.facebook
Disgusting. He gets rewarded for the rest of his life when he should be having a new one torn in prison. A bit of hyperbole on my part but considering he was busted for child porn as an adult, that should pretty much be all the proof authorities need to know that he is too dangerous to be free. Even if you think a more sympathetic approach should be taken, it should be in a mental institution not allowing him to roam free on the outside
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
The idea of allowing someone to escape real justice for torturing and murdering a two year old boy is equally crazy and I can’t believe there’s any opposition to that. People like you always put the rights of the criminal above the rights of the victim and their families and this is why this country is in such a mess that’s it in. You’re lucky if murderers get over 8 years these days.

What about in the instance of a repeat offender? Such as, but not limited to, this scumbag? It makes a lot more sense to kill off criminals that repeatedly offend rather than trying fruitlessly to change who they are.

I would NOT prefer to have him living next door to me; and I can assure you that when I have kids if he ever touched them he’d be getting shot no questions asked
(Original post by Underscore__)
The idea of killing someone for something they did whilst still in primary school is crazy and I can’t believe there would be any opposition to that.

Prison not being effective is not a reason to start executing people, especially not ten year olds. Prison reform is desperately needed in this country.

I’m not saying that I would want him to live next door to me, I’m not even saying that he shouldn’t still be in jail; I agree that he’s shown he’s still a threat to children. However, I would much prefer to have him living next door to me than see this country abandon justice and human rights by shooting him in the head.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
The idea of allowing someone to escape real justice for torturing and murdering a two year old boy is equally crazy and I can’t believe there’s any opposition to that.
The someone we're talking about was a ten year old child. Besides, what is 'real justice'? I would agree that his 'punishment' wasn't sufficient or fit for purpose but killing him would have been lunacy and thankfully I live in a country that won't be executing primary school kids anytime soon.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
People like you always put the rights of the criminal above the rights of the victim and their families and this is why this country is in such a mess that’s it in.
Well in this instance the victim, legally, has no rights. As for the family, what right of there's has been violated? It's not that I'm place emphasis on anyone's rights, I'm simply respecting that people who commit murder are still humans and still have rights. Your understanding of criminal justice is poor; you don't lower crimes by dishing out exorbitant sentences, you lower crime by reforming criminals.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
You’re lucky if murderers get over 8 years these days.
Again you're showing your lack of knowledge. Virtually all murderers 'get' (as in are sentenced to) life in prison, a quick google search will tell you that the average murderer serves around sixteen years and will spend the rest of their life on probation. If someone were to commit an offence like the James Bulger murder as an adult they would likely not be paroled.

More to the point why are you in luck if a murderer serves a longer sentence? The idea that giving someone a long custodial sentence will make them realise what a naughty boy they've been is so antiquated.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
What about in the instance of a repeat offender? Such as, but not limited to, this scumbag? It makes a lot more sense to kill off criminals that repeatedly offend rather than trying fruitlessly to change who they are.
The current prison system isn't very good at rehabilitating people, like I said previously, it needs serious reform. By what legal process are you suggesting we sentence him to death? What crime would you have him charged with?

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I would NOT prefer to have him living next door to me; and I can assure you that when I have kids if he ever touched them he’d be getting shot no questions asked
Okay big man
1
reply
James2312
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
The idea of allowing someone to escape real justice for torturing and murdering a two year old boy is equally crazy and I can’t believe there’s any opposition to that. People like you always put the rights of the criminal above the rights of the victim and their families and this is why this country is in such a mess that’s it in. You’re lucky if murderers get over 8 years these days.

What about in the instance of a repeat offender? Such as, but not limited to, this scumbag? It makes a lot more sense to kill off criminals that repeatedly offend rather than trying fruitlessly to change who they are.

I would NOT prefer to have him living next door to me; and I can assure you that when I have kids if he ever touched them he’d be getting shot no questions asked
What would you say is real justice? I think what you actually mean is revenge.Justice should be completely impartial and not imposed out of emotion.Its the price you pay to live in a civilised society.You can't just go around lynching people for their crimes because that would be barbaric.There is a process to follow.Executing two primary school children who had been brought up in difficult circumstances would not have done anything useful.
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by Underscore__)
The someone we're talking about was a ten year old child. Besides, what is 'real justice'? I would agree that his 'punishment' wasn't sufficient or fit for purpose but killing him would have been lunacy and thankfully I live in a country that won't be executing primary school kids anytime soon.



Well in this instance the victim, legally, has no rights. As for the family, what right of there's has been violated? It's not that I'm place emphasis on anyone's rights, I'm simply respecting that people who commit murder are still humans and still have rights. Your understanding of criminal justice is poor; you don't lower crimes by dishing out exorbitant sentences, you lower crime by reforming criminals.



Again you're showing your lack of knowledge. Virtually all murderers 'get' (as in are sentenced to) life in prison, a quick google search will tell you that the average murderer serves around sixteen years and will spend the rest of their life on probation. If someone were to commit an offence like the James Bulger murder as an adult they would likely not be paroled.

More to the point why are you in luck if a murderer serves a longer sentence? The idea that giving someone a long custodial sentence will make them realise what a naughty boy they've been is so antiquated.



The current prison system isn't very good at rehabilitating people, like I said previously, it needs serious reform. By what legal process are you suggesting we sentence him to death? What crime would you have him charged with?



Okay big man
So? The someone I was talking about who got killed was a 2 year old child. Like I've already said I would prefer the death penalty applied at the age of 18, not 10, obviously killing a ten year old is too much even for me. He has shown no sign that he has reformed or been rehabilitated as I said.

The victim has no rights because he got them callously stolen away from him, along with his life, by two very evil and sick ten year olds. As for the family, I seriously hope you are being facetious here; they got their little boy stolen from them along with their right to raise him safely and see him grow up and develop as a normal family would.

Rehabilitation has not worked in this case as evidenced by his repeated offending; I don't know how many more times you want me to repeat the same thing unless you're one of those that believes that everybody can be reformed no matter how much they have shown they cannot be.

This table on average lengths of custodial sentences would seem to tell a different story to your claim: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures....ype-of-offence

According to this the average white criminal serves 21 months in prison for 'violence against the person'. Where did you get your figure from for 16 years? A longer sentence is better because it means the criminal is away from society and therefore poses a danger for less of a time, isn't it blatantly obvious? It's not about making the criminal realise they were a 'naughty boy' (although I'm a bit concerned for you if you think torture and murder is an offence worthy of just being called a naughty boy) it's about keeping society safe; which is the intention of making prisons in the first place.

It needs serious reform to become somewhere criminals are actually scared of going to, not this rehabilitation business. If we were tougher on our criminals we would probably see less crime

We should reintroduce the death penalty legally and charge him for murder, obviously.

*Okay big WOman
1
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
See post 48
(Original post by James2312)
What would you say is real justice? I think what you actually mean is revenge.Justice should be completely impartial and not imposed out of emotion.Its the price you pay to live in a civilised society.You can't just go around lynching people for their crimes because that would be barbaric.There is a process to follow.Executing two primary school children who had been brought up in difficult circumstances would not have done anything useful.
0
reply
Windows97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
See post 48
do u want to b a doctor
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
So? The someone I was talking about who got killed was a 2 year old child. Like I've already said I would prefer the death penalty applied at the age of 18, not 10, obviously killing a ten year old is too much even for me. He has shown no sign that he has reformed or been rehabilitated as I said.
I'm confused as to what you're suggesting his sentence should have been then? You say he should have been executed but then say you don't want to execute children.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
The victim has no rights because he got them callously stolen away from him, along with his life, by two very evil and sick ten year olds. As for the family, I seriously hope you are being facetious here; they got their little boy stolen from them along with their right to raise him safely and see him grow up and develop as a normal family would.
The problem is that these aren't legal rights so it's not really for the court to remedy the breach of those supposed rights.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Rehabilitation has not worked in this case as evidenced by his repeated offending; I don't know how many more times you want me to repeat the same thing unless you're one of those that believes that everybody can be reformed no matter how much they have shown they cannot be.
To say that Jon Venables cannot be rehabilitated because he hasn't been is like saying steel can't be cut because you tried with a plastic spoon and failed. He hasn't been rehabilitated and he can never be but the current system is not going to rehabilitate him.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
This table on average lengths of custodial sentences would seem to tell a different story to your claim: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures....ype-of-offence

According to this the average white criminal serves 21 months in prison for 'violence against the person'.
You were talking about murder not offences against the person.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Where did you get your figure from for 16 years?
https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-...-serve-prison/

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
A longer sentence is better because it means the criminal is away from society and therefore poses a danger for less of a time, isn't it blatantly obvious? It's not about making the criminal realise they were a 'naughty boy' (although I'm a bit concerned for you if you think torture and murder is an offence worthy of just being called a naughty boy) it's about keeping society safe; which is the intention of making prisons in the first place.
If your concern is public safety why are you so opposed to trying to rehabilitate prisoners? Rehabilitating prisoners will lower reoffending rates which increases public safety.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
It needs serious reform to become somewhere criminals are actually scared of going to, not this rehabilitation business. If we were tougher on our criminals we would probably see less crime
If you really think that the hellhole prison system works then I suggest you do more research.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
We should reintroduce the death penalty legally and charge him for murder, obviously.
He's already been convicted of murder, you can't be put on trial for the same offence twice so try again.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
*Okay big WOman
Well you'd be in luck, women don't get long sentences
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 weeks ago
#52
He should have been imprisoned until he was 18 and then promptly executed at 18. Simples. Same with the other ****ed up dude (although to his credit, if you could call it that, the other dude hasn’t since re-offended) This does not invalidate the fact that he committed a murder and also should have received the death penalty at 18

Under British law every human has the right to be free from torture, murder, the threat of torture or murder and freedom from other violations of human rights. What happened to Jamie Bulger is a direct violation of those rights, not to mention the parental custody granted to his parents legally and kidnapping laws which they were also in violation of; so you are incorrect on that count.

So out of 5500 people currently locked up for murder offences only 59 are serving a real “life in prison” whilst the rest will probably be getting out about halfway through their 16 year sentences for “good behaviour”! So that means that we could potentially have 5441 murderers walking around among us, parole or not they’re still in the community. Further more 16 years is a pitiful amount of time behind bars in relation to the human lifespan they have deprived from their victims.

No a more correct analogy would be to keep trying to get blood out of a stone. I don’t know enough about the neurological composition of Venebles brain to comment; but he seems to have paedophilic tendencies. As there is no cure for paedophilia the safest way to ensure he no longer poses a danger is to get rid of him

Rehabilitation has not been proven as effective yet

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...207?via%3Dihub

https://www.nij.gov/topics/correctio...s/welcome.aspx

This US study found that almost 70% of released prisoners reoffended within 3 years and this jumps up to 83% within 9 years with 82% of those that reoffended being caught within the first three years.

The UK isn’t much better; with nearly 50% of people re offending within a year (page 14)
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/...20factfile.pdf

I meant at the time; there isn’t much that can be done about now unless he commits another murder or paedophilic offence. (Yes I think child sex offenders should get the death too)
The fact that he’s looking at child pornography means the intentions are there but he should not be out in the community; whether that means he should be in prison or in another secure facility at least



(Original post by Underscore__)
I'm confused as to what you're suggesting his sentence should have been then? You say he should have been executed but then say you don't want to execute children.



The problem is that these aren't legal rights so it's not really for the court to remedy the breach of those supposed rights.



To say that Jon Venables cannot be rehabilitated because he hasn't been is like saying steel can't be cut because you tried with a plastic spoon and failed. He hasn't been rehabilitated and he can never be but the current system is not going to rehabilitate him.



You were talking about murder not offences against the person.



https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-...-serve-prison/



If your concern is public safety why are you so opposed to trying to rehabilitate prisoners? Rehabilitating prisoners will lower reoffending rates which increases public safety.



If you really think that the hellhole prison system works then I suggest you do more research.



He's already been convicted of murder, you can't be put on trial for the same offence twice so try again.



Well you'd be in luck, women don't get long sentences
0
reply
James2312
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
He should have been imprisoned until he was 18 and then promptly executed at 18. Simples. Same with the other ****ed up dude (although to his credit, if you could call it that, the other dude hasn’t since re-offended) This does not invalidate the fact that he committed a murder and also should have received the death penalty at 18

Under British law every human has the right to be free from torture, murder, the threat of torture or murder and freedom from other violations of human rights. What happened to Jamie Bulger is a direct violation of those rights, not to mention the parental custody granted to his parents legally and kidnapping laws which they were also in violation of; so you are incorrect on that count.

So out of 5500 people currently locked up for murder offences only 59 are serving a real “life in prison” whilst the rest will probably be getting out about halfway through their 16 year sentences for “good behaviour”! So that means that we could potentially have 5441 murderers walking around among us, parole or not they’re still in the community. Further more 16 years is a pitiful amount of time behind bars in relation to the human lifespan they have deprived from their victims.

No a more correct analogy would be to keep trying to get blood out of a stone. I don’t know enough about the neurological composition of Venebles brain to comment; but he seems to have paedophilic tendencies. As there is no cure for paedophilia the safest way to ensure he no longer poses a danger is to get rid of him

Rehabilitation has not been proven as effective yet

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...207?via%3Dihub

https://www.nij.gov/topics/correctio...s/welcome.aspx

This US study found that almost 70% of released prisoners reoffended within 3 years and this jumps up to 83% within 9 years with 82% of those that reoffended being caught within the first three years.

The UK isn’t much better; with nearly 50% of people re offending within a year (page 14)
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/...20factfile.pdf

I meant at the time; there isn’t much that can be done about now unless he commits another murder or paedophilic offence. (Yes I think child sex offenders should get the death too)
The fact that he’s looking at child pornography means the intentions are there but he should not be out in the community; whether that means he should be in prison or in another secure facility at least
If everyone has a human right to be free from murder then by executing him you are violating his human rights.You don't stop having rights just because you commit a crime That's why they are called human rights.They apply so long as you are human.Any human.

Executing people for offences they committed as children puts us alongside such notable countries as Saudi Arabia and Iran.I don't know about you but I'd rather not have our country be like them.Also we don't generally tend to lock people up for what we think they might do so his intentions are irrelevant.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
He should have been imprisoned until he was 18 and then promptly executed at 18. Simples. Same with the other ****ed up dude (although to his credit, if you could call it that, the other dude hasn’t since re-offended) This does not invalidate the fact that he committed a murder and also should have received the death penalty at 18
But why wait until 18 then? If you're happy for 10 year olds to be sentenced to death then why wait until they're 18 to kill them?

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Under British law every human has the right to be free from torture, murder, the threat of torture or murder and freedom from other violations of human rights. What happened to Jamie Bulger is a direct violation of those rights,
1. Human rights tend to only be actionable against the state or public institutions, what happened to Jamie Bulger was a crime rather than an infringement on his human rights.
2. As I've said previously, human rights only apply to the living. During the trial Jamie Bulger had no human rights.
3. It's interesting that seem you seem to invoking Article 3 of the ECHR when you clearly haven't read it; it's absolute and the proposal in your first paragraph would certainly be a breach. There would also likely be a breach of Article 2 of the ECHR.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
not to mention the parental custody granted to his parents legally and kidnapping laws which they were also in violation of; so you are incorrect on that count.
There is no human right to custody of a child.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
So out of 5500 people currently locked up for murder offences only 59 are serving a real “life in prison” whilst the rest will probably be getting out about halfway through their 16 year sentences for “good behaviour”!
So you think that if 5441 people are serving eight years and the other 59 are serving full life tariffs the average would be 16 years? The maths on that are very clearly wrong; the average person convicted of murder will be sentenced to life and will serve 16 years.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
So that means that we could potentially have 5441 murderers walking around among us, parole or not they’re still in the community. Further more 16 years is a pitiful amount of time behind bars in relation to the human lifespan they have deprived from their victims.
I thought you were interested in public protection? This sounds like you're interested in revenge.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
No a more correct analogy would be to keep trying to get blood out of a stone.
No, like I said, the current system doesn't do enough to rehabilitate. To suggest that because we haven't rehabilitated someone they can't be rehabilitated is very egotistical and obviously silly.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I don’t know enough about the neurological composition of Venebles brain to comment; but he seems to have paedophilic tendencies. As there is no cure for paedophilia the safest way to ensure he no longer poses a danger is to get rid of him
Well Canada seems to be making progress in rehabilitating pedophiles. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7722456.html

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Rehabilitation has not been proven as effective yet

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...207?via%3Dihub
This article is literally making my point; the current system of just locking people up is not effective in rehabilitating. This article does not say it's not possible to rehabilitate offenders. This article is also referencing the American prison system which is much closer to the prison system you desire.

Where exactly does this say that rehabilitation doesn't work?

"In 2011, Peterborough Prison launched a new rehabilitation programme, which used money raised from charities and social investment groups to help incentivise inmates on their release, in a bid to discourage them from reoffending in the future. The money was used to help ex-inmates rebuild their lives; assisting with housing costs, education and finding a job. They also had access to mentoring and support.

Kieron, an ex-inmate of HMP Peterborough, comments: ‘I have been able to find housing ever since being released, and that has kept me away from that world. I have purpose again and I just want to live a normal life.’ By 2014, the programme had brought about an 11% reduction in reoffending. HMP Doncaster, which also piloted the scheme, has also experienced a drop in reoffending rates."

"Whilst many people in the UK would welcome harsher prison conditions for inmates, in Norway’s Bastoy Prison, the approach is rather different. This island-based prison allows inmates to enjoy sports, relax on the beach and take part in meaningful work. There’s also sunbeds, a sauna, a cinema room and a well-stocked library.

On the face of it, this seems like a strange approach to imprisonment. It seems a little uncomfortably close to rewarding an offender for their crime, rather than punishing them. However, at 16%, Bastoy’s rates of reoffending are lower than the rest of Norway, and considerably less than here in the UK. Whilst creating ‘hotel’ conditions for inmates is unlikely to be embraced in this country, it’s certainly worthwhile exploring just why Bastoy Prison is succeeding when it comes to rehabilitation and resettlement."

Just two examples of rehabilitation being shown to work, I can provide more if you'd like?

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
This US study found that almost 70% of released prisoners reoffended within 3 years and this jumps up to 83% within 9 years with 82% of those that reoffended being caught within the first three years.

The UK isn’t much better; with nearly 50% of people re offending within a year (page 14)
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/...20factfile.pdf
Yes this is exactly what I mean. The US prison system is much more brutal and sentences are much longer yet reoffending rates are much higher. Clearly treating people so poorly is not making them behave better in the future. I don't see how you feel that this supports your point?

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I meant at the time; there isn’t much that can be done about now unless he commits another murder or paedophilic offence. (Yes I think child sex offenders should get the death too)
Well thankfully capital punishment is currently unenforceable in this country and incredibly unlikely to make a return.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
The fact that he’s looking at child pornography means the intentions are there but he should not be out in the community; whether that means he should be in prison or in another secure facility at least
While he's a danger to society in should be in prison, I'm not going to argue that. However, whilst in prison his time should be spent in rehabilitation programs.
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
Where did I say I was happy for ten year olds to be sentenced to death? Please quote where I explicitly said that. I have now reiterated twice that death penalty should only apply to adults

So if you got murdered by an individual you wouldn’t consider an infringement of your human rights because if it’s not done by the state? So that makes it okay? Also where does it say it’s only actionable against the state?

This is blatantly false anyway; the dead have rights under law too, or else necrophilia and graverobbery wouldn’t be considered illegal.

False again; the entire process of custody is granting the process of you having legal rights over the child. That’s why you are legally responsible for a child until they become legally adult.
In the UK mothers are granted this automatically upon birth of the child, otherwise abandoning the child wouldn’t be considered a serious crime because the mother wouldn’t have legal rights over the child to begin with

59 cases of life would drag up the average. In any case my point still stands that 16 years is a pathetically short time

If you consider keeping the public safe as revenge, sure, whatever you say pal.

I have given you statistics of re-offending rates in both the US and the UK (which aren’t much better than the USA’s) which you have ignored on the account of “our prisons not doing anything correctly.” At least we can agree on that!

Interesting news article; although I would prefer to see the study itself before making any further comment.

The article was for the statistics I referenced; scroll down to the bottom to see them. I should also state that Norway’s culture is quite different to our own; so what works for Norway’s criminals may not work for ours. It’s also morally abhorrent to provide these conditions for criminals when the money could be used for rehousing the homeless, feeding school children without lunches, investing it into the NHS or a myriad of other ways of helping people who have never broken the law in their lives and who are certainly more deserving of it.

Also a drop of only 11%?

But yes whilst I admit America’s prisons are nastier than our own by a long shot there’s only a 19% difference between their criminals and ours for re-offending, so this implies to me that more rehabilitation focused prison conditions like our own don’t make that much of a difference.

Anyway, I’m getting bored of this conversation, we’ll have to agree to disagree



(Original post by Underscore__)
But why wait until 18 then? If you're happy for 10 year olds to be sentenced to death then why wait until they're 18 to kill them?



1. Human rights tend to only be actionable against the state or public institutions, what happened to Jamie Bulger was a crime rather than an infringement on his human rights.
2. As I've said previously, human rights only apply to the living. During the trial Jamie Bulger had no human rights.
3. It's interesting that seem you seem to invoking Article 3 of the ECHR when you clearly haven't read it; it's absolute and the proposal in your first paragraph would certainly be a breach. There would also likely be a breach of Article 2 of the ECHR.



There is no human right to custody of a child.



So you think that if 5441 people are serving eight years and the other 59 are serving full life tariffs the average would be 16 years? The maths on that are very clearly wrong; the average person convicted of murder will be sentenced to life and will serve 16 years.



I thought you were interested in public protection? This sounds like you're interested in revenge.



No, like I said, the current system doesn't do enough to rehabilitate. To suggest that because we haven't rehabilitated someone they can't be rehabilitated is very egotistical and obviously silly.



Well Canada seems to be making progress in rehabilitating pedophiles. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7722456.html



This article is literally making my point; the current system of just locking people up is not effective in rehabilitating. This article does not say it's not possible to rehabilitate offenders. This article is also referencing the American prison system which is much closer to the prison system you desire.



Where exactly does this say that rehabilitation doesn't work?

"In 2011, Peterborough Prison launched a new rehabilitation programme, which used money raised from charities and social investment groups to help incentivise inmates on their release, in a bid to discourage them from reoffending in the future. The money was used to help ex-inmates rebuild their lives; assisting with housing costs, education and finding a job. They also had access to mentoring and support.

Kieron, an ex-inmate of HMP Peterborough, comments: ‘I have been able to find housing ever since being released, and that has kept me away from that world. I have purpose again and I just want to live a normal life.’ By 2014, the programme had brought about an 11% reduction in reoffending. HMP Doncaster, which also piloted the scheme, has also experienced a drop in reoffending rates."

"Whilst many people in the UK would welcome harsher prison conditions for inmates, in Norway’s Bastoy Prison, the approach is rather different. This island-based prison allows inmates to enjoy sports, relax on the beach and take part in meaningful work. There’s also sunbeds, a sauna, a cinema room and a well-stocked library.

On the face of it, this seems like a strange approach to imprisonment. It seems a little uncomfortably close to rewarding an offender for their crime, rather than punishing them. However, at 16%, Bastoy’s rates of reoffending are lower than the rest of Norway, and considerably less than here in the UK. Whilst creating ‘hotel’ conditions for inmates is unlikely to be embraced in this country, it’s certainly worthwhile exploring just why Bastoy Prison is succeeding when it comes to rehabilitation and resettlement."

Just two examples of rehabilitation being shown to work, I can provide more if you'd like?



Yes this is exactly what I mean. The US prison system is much more brutal and sentences are much longer yet reoffending rates are much higher. Clearly treating people so poorly is not making them behave better in the future. I don't see how you feel that this supports your point?



Well thankfully capital punishment is currently unenforceable in this country and incredibly unlikely to make a return.



While he's a danger to society in should be in prison, I'm not going to argue that. However, whilst in prison his time should be spent in rehabilitation programs.
0
reply
username4658476
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
This isn't the 18th century where we would ship convicts to Australia and leave them there. It's not fair that other countries have to take in criminals from our society.
0
reply
Profesh
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
Oh, boo-hoo. So what?
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Where did I say I was happy for ten year olds to be sentenced to death? Please quote where I explicitly said that. I have now reiterated twice that death penalty should only apply to adults
You said: "He should have been imprisoned until he was 18 and then promptly executed at 18." - this would mean that when he was sentenced at 10 years old (he may have turned 11 by the time he was sentenced), he would have been sentenced to death with the execution to take place after his eighteenth birthday.


(Original post by AngryRedhead)
So if you got murdered by an individual you wouldn’t consider an infringement of your human rights because if it’s not done by the state? So that makes it okay? Also where does it say it’s only actionable against the state?
Well no, I would be dead. Speaking hypothetically, no, I wouldn't consider it a violation of my human rights because that's not what human rights law is about. The purpose of human rights law is to protect individuals from organisations with more power. If you're insistent on continuing to argue about human rights please do some more research on the ECHR and HRA; it's silly to argue about something you don't have any knowledge on.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
This is blatantly false anyway; the dead have rights under law too, or else necrophilia and graverobbery wouldn’t be considered illegal.
As above, dead people do not have human rights. Something being illegal does not mean that it's a violation of another person's human rights.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
False again; the entire process of custody is granting the process of you having legal rights over the child. That’s why you are legally responsible for a child until they become legally adult.
In the UK mothers are granted this automatically upon birth of the child, otherwise abandoning the child wouldn’t be considered a serious crime because the mother wouldn’t have legal rights over the child to begin with
Custody rights and human rights are not the same thing.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
59 cases of life would drag up the average. In any case my point still stands that 16 years is a pathetically short time
59 out of 5500 is statistically irrelevant. If we suppose that the 59 who are serving whole life tariffs average serving 50 years, all other people sentenced to life would have to served 15.63 years for the average to be 16 years. Those serving full life tariffs drag the average up by about 130 days.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
If you consider keeping the public safe as revenge, sure, whatever you say pal.
No, that's what you've implied repeatedly. If your true concern is keeping the public safe then it should make no difference how long a person serves so long as they are no longer a danger. Instead you seem to want people to serve long sentences.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I have given you statistics of re-offending rates in both the US and the UK (which aren’t much better than the USA’s) which you have ignored on the account of “our prisons not doing anything correctly.” At least we can agree on that!
I didn't ignore them, I directly quoted those and explained why it shows your idea of creating hellhole prisons is ridiculous. US prisons are far worse and sentences are far longer yet they don't seem to be serving as a deterrent.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Interesting news article; although I would prefer to see the study itself before making any further comment.
Which study did you want to see?

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
The article was for the statistics I referenced; scroll down to the bottom to see them. I should also state that Norway’s culture is quite different to our own; so what works for Norway’s criminals may not work for ours.
While Norway is culturally different causes of crime tend to be pretty consistent across most countries, the attitude taken in Norway to criminals is not proof that the same system would work here but is proof that rehabilitation can be successful.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
It’s also morally abhorrent to provide these conditions for criminals when the money could be used for rehousing the homeless, feeding school children without lunches, investing it into the NHS or a myriad of other ways of helping people who have never broken the law in their lives and who are certainly more deserving of it.
Well that's a question of public policy, the government would have to decide whether it was more focused on reducing crime or providing children with free school lunches but you're looking at this very one dimensionally; rehabilitating prisoners isn't only good for those people, it benefits society as a whole.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Also a drop of only 11%?
Well the choice is we change nothing about our prisons and watch reoffending rates continue to rise or we start to make changes toward a system that has shown it can lower reoffending rates. An 11% decrease is far better than no decrease or even an increase in reoffending.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
But yes whilst I admit America’s prisons are nastier than our own by a long shot there’s only a 19% difference between their criminals and ours for re-offending, so this implies to me that more rehabilitation focused prison conditions like our own don’t make that much of a difference.
1. Our prisons aren't focused on rehabilitation, they are also punitive just not as punitive as American prisons.
2. Even if we suppose our prisons do attempt to rehabilitate; the evidence would still support what I'm saying, the more rehabilitative prison is achieving lower reoffending rates.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Anyway, I’m getting bored of this conversation, we’ll have to agree to disagree
Well feel free to stop replying whenever you like
0
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
Most of your response is meaningless nitpickery; if the dead have rights under law not to be the victim of necrophilia or graverobbery then they have legal rights, irrespective of whether or not they are explicitly considered 'human' rights or not, although the rights are derived from the fact that the dead person has 'personhood' of sorts even after they are deceased hence why the aforementioned violations are considered illegal, so they are human rights in a roundabout way. Similarly with custody rights, I never said that depriving Bulger's mother of Jamie was a violation of her human rights, just a violation of her legal rights over Jamie; that much is something you cannot quibble over, no matter how much you seem to want to defend the criminal individual here. If you kidnap a child from their parent then by law you are performing an action that breaks the current law on kidnapping, or else it wouldn't be an offence in the first place. So you can argue all you want that kidnapping a child isn't depriving their parent of their guardianship right over the child; but it is by default anyway as the parent doesn't have possession of the child.

Okay, so by what metric would you consider the release of a prisoner after a stint of 'rehabilitation' to be appropriate and how long should a prison sentence for murder be? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? How would you determine which prisoners have successfully been rehabilitated and which ones have not, bearing in mind in many cases you are not dealing with ordinary and honest human beings with a set of morals; but at best you're dealing with people who would easily fake being rehabilitated to get out of prison early and at worst you're dealing with charming, deceptive and cunning innocent looking psychopaths who would have no more qualm about raping and killing 30 women than you would about swatting a fly. You aren't dealing with ordinary human beings here; but predators and monsters in the worst cases. What safeguarding measures would you introduce to ensure that officers aren't deceived by the criminals? (It happens sometimes as my contacts in the prison service can testify to)

I assume the newspaper article you linked me too regarding Canada rehabilitating paedophiles had some kind of factual basis? You don't expect me to just take what a newspaper says at its word, do you?

Whilst I agree in theory that rehabilitating criminals would reduce the crime rate and re-offending rate and from the studies you've quoted it would seem to work, I don't know, it just doesn't sit right with me that criminals have all these luxurious living conditions when people who have valiantly served our country in the military and have never committed a crime in their life are left homeless and jobless and there are a myriad of other sections of society needing financial help too. You'd also risk creating a situation which you also see in sometimes america whereby vulnerable sections of society commit crime in order to get a roof over their heads. I can imagine to a lot of our homeless the prospect of living in a shelter where you get fed, get to sit in a sauna and lie on sunbeds sounds a lot better than life on the streets. So my personal opinion on this is mixed.
















(Original post by Underscore__)
You said: "He should have been imprisoned until he was 18 and then promptly executed at 18." - this would mean that when he was sentenced at 10 years old (he may have turned 11 by the time he was sentenced), he would have been sentenced to death with the execution to take place after his eighteenth birthday.




Well no, I would be dead. Speaking hypothetically, no, I wouldn't consider it a violation of my human rights because that's not what human rights law is about. The purpose of human rights law is to protect individuals from organisations with more power. If you're insistent on continuing to argue about human rights please do some more research on the ECHR and HRA; it's silly to argue about something you don't have any knowledge on.



As above, dead people do not have human rights. Something being illegal does not mean that it's a violation of another person's human rights.



Custody rights and human rights are not the same thing.



59 out of 5500 is statistically irrelevant. If we suppose that the 59 who are serving whole life tariffs average serving 50 years, all other people sentenced to life would have to served 15.63 years for the average to be 16 years. Those serving full life tariffs drag the average up by about 130 days.



No, that's what you've implied repeatedly. If your true concern is keeping the public safe then it should make no difference how long a person serves so long as they are no longer a danger. Instead you seem to want people to serve long sentences.



I didn't ignore them, I directly quoted those and explained why it shows your idea of creating hellhole prisons is ridiculous. US prisons are far worse and sentences are far longer yet they don't seem to be serving as a deterrent.



Which study did you want to see?



While Norway is culturally different causes of crime tend to be pretty consistent across most countries, the attitude taken in Norway to criminals is not proof that the same system would work here but is proof that rehabilitation can be successful.



Well that's a question of public policy, the government would have to decide whether it was more focused on reducing crime or providing children with free school lunches but you're looking at this very one dimensionally; rehabilitating prisoners isn't only good for those people, it benefits society as a whole.



Well the choice is we change nothing about our prisons and watch reoffending rates continue to rise or we start to make changes toward a system that has shown it can lower reoffending rates. An 11% decrease is far better than no decrease or even an increase in reoffending.



1. Our prisons aren't focused on rehabilitation, they are also punitive just not as punitive as American prisons.
2. Even if we suppose our prisons do attempt to rehabilitate; the evidence would still support what I'm saying, the more rehabilitative prison is achieving lower reoffending rates.



Well feel free to stop replying whenever you like
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 week ago
#60
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Most of your response is meaningless nitpickery; if the dead have rights under law not to be the victim of necrophilia or graverobbery then they have legal rights, irrespective of whether or not they are explicitly considered 'human' rights or not, although the rights are derived from the fact that the dead person has 'personhood' of sorts even after they are deceased hence why the aforementioned violations are considered illegal, so they are human rights in a roundabout way. Similarly with custody rights, I never said that depriving Bulger's mother of Jamie was a violation of her human rights, just a violation of her legal rights over Jamie; that much is something you cannot quibble over, no matter how much you seem to want to defend the criminal individual here. If you kidnap a child from their parent then by law you are performing an action that breaks the current law on kidnapping, or else it wouldn't be an offence in the first place. So you can argue all you want that kidnapping a child isn't depriving their parent of their guardianship right over the child; but it is by default anyway as the parent doesn't have possession of the child.
It's not nitpicking, I've told you on numerous occasions that you're arguing about something you don't have knowledge on and your continuous use of incorrect terminology and inability to understand basic legal principles is evidence of that. It's fine to not be well versed in the jurisprudence of England and Wales but continuously arguing is silly. However, let's go back to the original point you were making, that I value the rights of the defendant above those of the victim and family of the victim. You keep bringing up custody rights (which, for the last time is not a human right) and how they were breached by kidnap, they were found guilty of abduction therefore the court did what it could to remedy this. As far as I can remember you haven't listed any other right of the family that was breached and not remedied.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Okay, so by what metric would you consider the release of a prisoner after a stint of 'rehabilitation' to be appropriate and how long should a prison sentence for murder be? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years?
The sentence should be for an indefinite term, until such a point that sufficient evidence has been gained that the prisoner is rehabilitated. How would you judge if they're rehabilitated is the much harder question which I won't pretend to have the answer to. However, there are plenty of people with a far better understanding of psychology and criminology than me who will have a better understanding of when someone has been rehabilitated.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
How would you determine which prisoners have successfully been rehabilitated and which ones have not, bearing in mind in many cases you are not dealing with ordinary and honest human beings with a set of morals; but at best you're dealing with people who would easily fake being rehabilitated to get out of prison early and at worst you're dealing with charming, deceptive and cunning innocent looking psychopaths who would have no more qualm about raping and killing 30 women than you would about swatting a fly.
You're very plainly being hyperbolic and it just looks silly. There is no one in the history of this country who is known to have raped and killed anywhere close to 30 women. Most killers are not the people you paint them to be. It's also laughable that you think psychologists are so unintelligent that they'd routinely be duped by murderers.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
You aren't dealing with ordinary human beings here; but predators and monsters in the worst cases. What safeguarding measures would you introduce to ensure that officers aren't deceived by the criminals? (It happens sometimes as my contacts in the prison service can testify to)
It will happen sometimes, the justice system will never be perfect but I would feel much more comfortable knowing that people who have committed violent offences are coming out of prison with experts believing they aren't a danger anymore than having those people come out, after an arbitrary amount of time, of what is considered a crime university.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I assume the newspaper article you linked me too regarding Canada rehabilitating paedophiles had some kind of factual basis? You don't expect me to just take what a newspaper says at its word, do you?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...79063209347724

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Whilst I agree in theory that rehabilitating criminals would reduce the crime rate and re-offending rate and from the studies you've quoted it would seem to work, I don't know, it just doesn't sit right with me that criminals have all these luxurious living conditions when people who have valiantly served our country in the military and have never committed a crime in their life are left homeless and jobless and there are a myriad of other sections of society needing financial help too.
I agree, the idea of that seems wrong and it's all about priorities. The government has a limited amount of money, should it fund initiatives that reduce crime or should it put more money into a million other different things. In my opinion crime reduction should be a key priority. If you disagree on the basis that the money should be used for other things then I can't really argue, it's just a difference of priorities.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
You'd also risk creating a situation which you also see in sometimes america whereby vulnerable sections of society commit crime in order to get a roof over their heads. I can imagine to a lot of our homeless the prospect of living in a shelter where you get fed, get to sit in a sauna and lie on sunbeds sounds a lot better than life on the streets. So my personal opinion on this is mixed.
That is a risk but prison is already better than living on the street and I think any increase in that regard would be offset by the reduction in reoffending.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (121)
19.45%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (58)
9.32%
No I am happy with my course choice (351)
56.43%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (92)
14.79%

Watched Threads

View All