Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Interesting logic EM. A family loses its rights for the crimes of another. I cannot frame a logical argument against your proposal but I find it distasteful. Even after death, society continues its revenge.

Aug 18, 2018 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Supertroll

At the Crumlin Road Jail in Belfast the bodies of those hanged were buried in the priison yard.

They regarded the familiy's right to bury the body as forfeited by the crime.

When you efficiently harvest a body for parts there is not a whole lot left.

Perhaps the remains could be cremated and the ashes returned to the family.

Disposal of the remains would have to be defined as part of whatever legislation Parliament passed to restore the death penalty

Aug 18, 2018 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic.Man do the close relatives of a criminal killed by the state lose their rights to the body?

Aug 18, 2018 at 7:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Golf charlie

I am perfectly serious.

I personally oppose capital punishment. It is immoral to say "Thou shall do no murder" and then make it state policy.

But if the more barbaric among you are set upon capital punishment it should bring maximum benefit to society.

Organ harvesting is, as you say, already technically feasible and beneficial, yet you all seem too squeamish to accept it.

I find it amusing that among all you bloodthirsty right-wingers the centrist is the most hard-boiled of all.

Aug 18, 2018 at 7:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Golf charlie

I am perfectly serious.

I personally oppose capital punishment. It is immoral to say "Thou shall do no murder" and then make it state policy.

But if the more barbaric among you are set upon capital punishment it should bring maximum benefit to society.

Organ harvesting is, as you say, already technically feasible and beneficial, yet you all seem too squeamish to accept it.

I find it amusing that among all you bloodthirsty right-wingers the centrist is the most hard-boiled of all.

Aug 18, 2018 at 6:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

TinyCO2 A large proportion of the prison population consists of people with metal heath issues and drug additiion in either case the cannot be seen as rational people. Unless we treat them they will continue to rob and murder. Yes the worst need locking up for ever to protect society.

Aug 18, 2018 at 6:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

"why do we take such loving care of the criminals?" Already explained - if society removes a person's ability to protect themselves or represent their own interests (and for good reason) then it is societie's duty to step in. Otherwise you might just kill them for the most trivial of crimes. But watch out for criminality in the justice and other supervisory systems. At the present time there are checks and balances in the system (commonly falsely criticized as pandering to criminals at the expense of victims).
We have staked out our positions and are unlikely to persuade the other. You have characterized mine as Liberal, as if that were anathema or a bad smell. I can appreciate the appeal of your position but hope it is never adopted.

Aug 18, 2018 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

'Crime wasn't less when penalties were more draconian', not true. If you actually read the things that people were punished for they were relatively mild crimes. We no longer lock people up for debt, even when those debts are massive and deliberate. Theft has almost been legalised along with drug taking and new crimes like internet fraud. Sure there were murderers but they were very much the exception and most were crimes of passion and booze. A lot of crime stemmed from pure necessity like starvation or fear of disease. Religious crimes were rife and I'm sure we both agree that they should not be included in a comparison. There are also crimes now that were perfectly legal in the past but as I pointed out to gc our civilisation started a lot earlier than you'd think so don't assume that there were loads of crimes going unreported.

AK 'We can do better than that', 'only it is not particularly relevant to the treatment of the criminal (not unless you wish to hitch yourself to the 'eye for an eye' bandwagon).' 'If this is indeed so, then the abused can blame society at large.'

That is the language of the liberal elite. You are more worried about whether we are perceived to be humane that we stop crime. The problem with the system is not that society doesn't somehow compensate the victim for the crime but that it doesn't prevent it in the first place. If we let victims down because we can't afford to make them feel safe or happy after the crime (and we can't), why do we take such loving care of the criminals? It's insult to injury to the victims. You talk of rehabilitation why shouldn't they rehabilitate themselves? Punishment should be a message to try harder. It should convince them that crime doesn't pay. At the moment it most clearly does.

Aug 18, 2018 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Mark
golfCharlie raises a question that I have often asked myself without finding any reasonable answer - something that you I hope might be able to provide. What is the explanation for, what seems to me to be the inanities of sentencing for a specific time period, with everybody having the expectation that the period served will be half that? It seems to be like a game, which I for one, don't know the rules. Someone suggested that this was to ensure good behaviour while in prison but this doesn't make much sense. If a prisoner commits crimes while in prison, lock them up for longer. To ensure good behaviour upon release?, then just keep them locked up that will definitely ensure good behaviour. It seems senseless, unless it's to encourage a bit of mental arithmetic in the public at large. Or is it, that oldie but goodie a government cost-cutting venture?

Aug 18, 2018 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

tiny, golfCharlie et al. In a debate about what should happen to a convicted felon the matter of the victim should already have been dealt with by the courts (or other branches of society). This is not to say that the treatment of a victim is irrelevant, only it is not particularly relevant to the treatment of the criminal (not unless you wish to hitch yourself to the 'eye for an eye' bandwagon). The reason the treatment of incarcerated criminals is important and is debated seemingly ad nauseam is because society has taken upon itself to remove that person's rights, not just their liberty. As such their treatment must be seen to be just, humane and reasonable. These are highly debatable issues and as such it could appear that we are more concerned with the abuser's rights than those of the abused. If this is indeed so, then the abused can blame society at large.

Aug 18, 2018 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>