14th Teenager to die violently in London.

[Lord Braykewynde]

I can see what you are saying Chrisbee but if you had killed that person, what then? The fact of the matter is you committed a crime, whether manslaughter or murder. You planned the confrontation so should have expected trouble. The police and child care agencies should have been informed before the confrontation.

What this debate boils down to is should offenders be sent to prison. A couple think not, it's not a deterrent, Lutz calls it vengeance. As I stated before I agree it's no deterrent because life is so soft behind bars as the prisoners will admit themselves and have done so publicly.

What I do find amazing though is no one else has mentioned an alternative. The prison reformers have been trying alternatives since the 70s and still haven't solved public disorder. Infact it is even worse.

Now is the time for the pendulum to swing the other way. The left-wing softies have had their chance and have failed on all counts miserably.

 

[Chrisbee]

LB. I am not getting into protracted debate on my actions. Suffice to say other agencies were involved but proved ineffective. It never occured to me that violence would be the outcome, however, the problem was resolved by my actions. Would I do the same again? No, but hindsight is a wonderfull thing

 

[colin(bridgend)]

Chrisbee - as things are at the moment I can understand you saying no you would not do it again. However I am sure that in the heat of the moment if history was to repeat itself you would react in a similar manner. Any average parent would go to the ends of the world to protect their child just like in the animal world. You would only be carrying out a guarding protective and parental act to your young.

 

[Lutz]

I must correct you regarding your statement, LB, that, quote: ..... should offenders be sent to prison. A couple think not, it's not a deterrent, Lutz calls it vengeance. I never said that. I said that the death penalty is pure vengeance. It's an easy way out to wash one's hands of a most serious problem in sheer frustration for want of a better solution. I repeat, the period and toughness of a prison sentence should be appropriate to the crime, but considered as punishment, not as a deterrent and I don't subscribe to 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. Going that way one might just as well introduce the concept of the Sharia into the British legal system.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Chrisbee neither do I want to get into a protracted debate over one individual action. My main concern here are the VICTIMS. I'm sorry for putting it in upper-case letters but it seems that those who say prison is no deterrent have forgotten or care not about the VICTIMS.

Not once as anyone given an alternative or a way that would stop people re-offending.

We can all sit on our asses saying no that doesn't work or this doesn't work, it's constructive answers that are needed to make the system work and those are shortcoming.

For those who say prison doesn't work and find they can't find an alternative deterrent please use up your energies by thinking of the VICTIMS. I'm sure if you do you will find life far more rewarding by helping grief stricken relatives, sexually abused children, Victims who are confined to a wheelchair because of others criminal actions. The list is endless. These are the people who need help, the scum will survive by being the parasites they are until locked up out of harms way.

 

[Lutz]

I don't think we disagree about the need for prisons and, where appropriate, long prison sentences, but we do disagree about the their purpose.

As you say, "Not once as anyone given an alternative or a way that would stop people re-offending.". That's the whole crux of the problem that, I think we all agree, needs to be resolved, but to abuse the prison system as a deterrent for want of a better solution isn't the answer, either.

 

[Guest]

Like everything else there are 2 sides to the story, and in this case both are correct. Yes, we all know prison is not a deterrent, especially nowadays, but it is the only tool we have to protect the innocent from criminals. At least while the lags are in incarcerated in the Bar L (barlinnie) the victims can live easier.

So, there are 2 options. make the sentences longer so that Jimmy the Blag comes out a pensioner and in no mood to renew his wicked ways. Therefore build more prisons. Or introduce a sentence that is permanent. The right of the victim should always come first. If someone takes a life then they should be aware they are forfeiting their own. Looking back through our history there were very few miscarriages of justice in the case of the death penalty. Most of the posthumous pardons were given on the grounds that it stopped the protest, not because the perpetrator was actually innocent. That was usually never answered. Just as the IRA bombers such as the Guildford 4 were released, no one else was ever charged with the crime. Curious isn't it? Did this mean there are perpetrators wandering around scot free, or....? Politics has a convenient way of addressing things.

As the majority of crimes are still of the minor nature, unless of course yu are the victim. We do know that intensive policing does work in these circumstances. When it comes to major crimes such as murder, then it is a different story. If we have feral youths with no fear of law, then any crime can be committed without any remorse. In these cases the best answer is the death penalty.

 

[BrianStAlbans]

As someone who had a gun pulled on them while working in a north London car dealership because the "customer" had changed his mind and wanted his

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

As someone who had a gun pulled on them while working in a north London car dealership because the "customer" had changed his mind and wanted his

 

[BrianStAlbans]

Didn't report it Lord B . Do you think I have a death wish?

 

[robin_374227834]

Didn't report it Lord B . Do you think I have a death wish?

the Problem is though Brian that the perpetrator is still free to do this again as you did not report him

 

[BrianStAlbans]

I totally agree Robin but as the key holder I was often alone on site and decided that was the safest action. I am sure that if I had reported it things would have got a whole lot worse.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

Quote from Brian ...."can I just add that we should lock these b****ds up and throw away the key".

I'm sorry Brian, I have to disagree with you on that mate. Where is your compassion? Would you like to see them die a long lingering death from starvation?

No Brian, just hang them, far more compassionate and besides, doing it your way they might escape or the loons in government could pass an amnesty to all prisoners.

 

[BrianStAlbans]

Good point Lord B.

String um up I say ;O)

 

[ShadySadie]

Lutz said -

"Like I said before, the death penalty is only a sign of vengeance. It has never been proved to have a deterrent effect"

I beg to differ, I have never heard of a criminal who has been put to death commiting another or repeat crime. Unlike numerous cases of psycho's who have been let out only to kill or rape again or like those that kill and mame in prison as they have nothing more to lose.

If 100000 are in prison and you dispose of all the murderers that would reduce the number of criminals we have in total.

It might not be a deterrent to some but its more cost effective for the tax payer and it would leave many victims families and loved ones to sleep in peace. Fact not vengeance.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

There is a perfect solution to the overcrowding or lack of prisons.

The way this government is halving the number of Royal Navy ships we have ready made prisons. There are also lots of redundant oil and gas platforms that could be used.

I would then look after their "human rights" by making them self sufficient, I would give each prisoner a fishing rod and enough bait for one day.

There would be no warders so the prisoners couldn't go on strike or riot, no point. If for some reason they did get out of hand and make nuisances of themselves simply put a shell through the ships bows and sink it.

 

[Lutz]

Of course a dead criminal can't commit another crime, but it doesn't stop other criminals from doing the same, so it's not a deterrent for others.

I find the suggestion that the concept of cost effectiveness entering the equation absolutely abhorrent. That can only be a case of basic instincts taking over from intelligent reasoning.

Going back to Chrisbee's experience, would it have been right to eliminate him if he had gone just that one bit further?

 

[Chrisbee]

Going back to LB's comment about victims, who was the victim in my case? Ex wifes new parter with cuts and bruises, My son for his suffering, or me because of the mental anguish of knowing what my son was going through but being powerless to help? You may all think you're perfect but believe me, if I crossed the line then anyone can, given the circumstances.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

I thought you didn't want a "protracted debate on your actions" Chrisbee???? That is why I agreed with you.

I will answer your question beings you feel the need to continue it.

Your ex-wife was a victim but she was in the relationship of her choosing and for your sons sake she should have left it.

Your child was a victim for being mistreated and your ex wifes partner was a victim from your assault on him.

How long had this mistreatment been going on and how long had you known about it? I'm sure you hadn't taken this action from just being told. The police and social services should have been involved before taking the law into your own hands and if it was my son I would be fighting tooth and nail for custody unless it was proved that my son was no longer under threat.

I myself have a vile temper but thankfully as fast as I lose it it comes down again. When I have lost it I must admit I'm not responsible for my own actions but I know my limits so never allow myself to be put in a position where I will lose my rag.

 

[colin(bridgend)]

In your latest posting Lord B. you are right in what you have stated. However when actually faced with the problem it is a totally different kettle of fish. My daughter and grandchildren were in this situation for a couple of years. She was too scared to leave him because she was afraid of what he might have done to either herself or the children. In the end she took the step of going as he had tried to strangle her with the dog's chain. He would then be stalking her day and night and phoning her constantly. He was actually sent to jail for ramming her car when she and my grandson were in it. Following this he had her on the front lawn of a neighbouring property trying to strangle her - it took two men to pull him off and restrain him till the police arrived. My daughter was in hospital for multiple injuries for quite a while and the grandson was constantly having nightmares. His penalty was 27 months in prison - out in September to carry on with his evil ways. As I said previously who is suffering for his bad ways? I'll tell you who - my daughter, grandchildren, wife and myself as we can see the day of his release coming closer.

 

[Gumbo]

Lutz pointed out earlier that some times people do not consider a prison sentence, when contemplating a crime.

Just look at this borrowed from another thread written by a caravanner " If I had been on the receiving end of such careless selfish abuse, I may have ofered the offenders a knuckle sandwich"

And as the man fell he struck his head on the A frame and later died in hospital. Did the caravanner consider a jail sentence before he hit the moron?? even though he may get 10 years for murder.

 

[Guest]

There is a world of difference between vengeance and justice. Civilised nations use justice as the tool to define right and wrong. If a crime is committed and the perpetrator is judged by his/her peers to have committed the offence then the penalty agreed by the nation should apply. Vengeance is merely satifying anger, although I admit at times it may seem a good idea.

Where we have lost the plot is that we have allowed unscrupulous lawyers (and Cherie Blair) to knock holes by any devious means in what was a simple and just system to further the own selfish demands. This has allowed criminals to make a mockery of justice, and instead of stopping it, the current Government seems Hell bent on promoting it. And they wonder why they are unpopular? I work on the principle that if you throw 3 yobs into prison for a few years and 1 stops his/her evil ways then that is better than not throwing them into prison, and none of them stopping. We all learnt as children that there was a line not to cross, or else. Removing that does not improve the child, merely creates a monster. When I was at school (many many years ago) I had a Latin teacher who was in her 60's and all of 4 foot nothing tall. Yet she scared the hell out of teenage me and all m classmates, especially if i had not dome my homework. The shame of having a ruler rapped across the knuckles was something we did not wish to happen. We were not hurt but we learnt the rules of courtesy and discipline. If a little yobbo wants to run around with a handgun then he/she needs to know that they will be shot on sight and no questions asked.If they wish to live then don't do it. Very simple.

 

[empee]

This is the 3rd time I've come back to this post and found myself getting angry at talk of whether sentences act as a deterrent and stop the low lifes from offending and whether or not they consider the penalty before committing their offences.

What happended to punishment? The prison term should serve as PUNISHMENT - if it also discourages people from offending or re-offending all well and good but the first action must be to PUNISH. If that's called vengeance so be it.

By all means continue trying to find the 'deterrent' that will discourage offenders but that must not take precedent over PUNISHMENT! If there's not enough prison spaces let them share as many as needed to a cell and to hell with their 'human rights' The 'human rights' of offenders must be made subservient to the 'human rights' of the victims with immediate effect. If we need more prisons - start building!

First party that has the balls to stand up to the 'pc' brigade has my vote every day of the week!

 

[Lutz]

True, but what you have to be clear about is what is the purpose of punishment and what does it attempt to achieve. Surely, the aim should be to get the criminal to regret his actions so that the crime is not going to be repeated. If it does not achieve this goal, maybe because the criminal is unwilling, unrepentant or just plain incapable, then any increase in the level of punishment is not going to have any positive effect. So, what do you do in cases like that? I'm saying that any increase in the level of punishment in the knowledge that it won't have any educating effect is vengeance borne out of despair. Therefore, other solutions need to be found, if only for the future, to ensure that young people don't develop such attitudes.

 

[empee]

I'm very clear on the purpose of punishment - it is to PUNISH!

Anyone deliberately causing suffering to others should be made to suffer also. If the criminal does not come to regret his actions and commit to not repeating them then obviously the punishment was not sufficiently severe. Should the criminal exist for whom there is no punishment sufficient to make hime mend his ways then you lock him away for life. (till he is dead)

Isn't this what we teach our children every day - there is right and wrong - knowingly do wrong and there will be consequences.

As I said by all means continue to search for a way to prevent crime - but not in place of punishment. Yes we need to look at our society and figure out how to prevent people drifting into crime - but the ones already there need to know the punishment will bring upon them suffering equal to or worse than that they inflicted on others.

Are you suggesting that if the punishment did not work and the criminal is not repentant and goes on to re-ofend he is just turmed loose? I'm sure not - the only recourse available today is more severe / longer punishment.