Prisoners human rights

[Kellfire]

Once you have acted on them, you have to be considered in a different light.

Ever broken the law?

Just want to make sure you aren't being hypocritical...

 

[CrapHacker]

Their age is / was irrelevant to their actions.

Not according to the law of the land and I'd bet that those who made the law have a slightly better grasp of it than you or I.

The tough question is ; what is more important, saving many innocent children's lives, or causing the death of one innocent man ?

Wow. Quite simply, any civilised society would NEVER sacrifice the innocent man. That is truly barbaric.

I used to be in the camp of saving the innocent accused, but I now believe that the numbers of these evil crimes is growing so much that we have to put as many safeguards against killing an innocent accused, as possible. But then, when we are absolutely sure we have the right man, and he is irredeemable, we have to purge him from this earth.

Making us no better than the criminal...

I understand your thoughts.

I used to agree with them.

Barbarism depends on it's definition.

Civilisation depends on it's definition.

Are you comfortable those the definitions we use today are the best available to protect the majority from the transgresions of the few.

Which is all that civilised society comes down to, isn't it?

We EXPECT people to behave within the rules ( both written, and unwritten ) that 'normal' people subscribe to.

That is the basis of civilised society.

At the moment we experience barbarism by our governments ( the people who we expect to represent us ) in the invasion of other counties. Also in the way they allow corporate bodies to damage the earth in the name of profit.

If we think that one form of barbarism is ok, maybe we should look to redefine some other of our views.

I'm not saying my view is right.

But I believe it is less wrong than yours.

PS I like your assumption that those who make the laws have a better understanding than I. TBH I'm beginning to believe that many of those decisions are based on money and power, not right and wrong. BTW I have no proof but that of my eyes and ears.

 

[Kellfire]

I can totally understand your views. I'm less inclined to pay much credence to the fella who's calling those who won't kill criminals in a flash morons.

 

[drawboy]

Let's get back to basics here, right or wrong. All of us even the ones with less than perfect parents and families are subjected to the belief of right and wrong through schools and other people we meet at an early age.The path we take is the path we choose to take. I know that I cannot help myself to anything I want in a shop, some people choose to ignore this and they know it is wrong but still do it. The same goes for murderers. I can totally understand the red mist but we still know it is inherently wrong to take someones life. Civilised society needs laws to prevent those that will seek to disrupt what is basically a peacefull society. As we hold ourselves up against the laws of other societies that believe in a life for a life then the only path available is incarceration. Huntley murdered two innocent children. Many other societies would recognise that even after rehabilitation the only course of action would be to permanently remove him from society (the death penalty).

He knows what he did was wrong and he should be able to be adult enough to suffer the consequences. Personally I would have had no qualms in terminating his life for the good of the rest of society.
Here endeth the first lesson.

 

[CannyFifer]

Lawyers make a fortune out of these type of cases so we are unlikely to see it change. Give them the tools to kill themselves and dont try to save them when they "do try" in the knowing they will get help and a bit of sympathy. Sick bast@rds who deserve nothing.

 

[madandra]

I am just fed up with the tail wagging the dog. These people didn't care about their victims rights or the rights of their victims friends and families so I dont see why this beast should get cotton wool treatment in the jail.


If I was walking down the street and someone attacked me could I sue the Police for not protecting me? No chance.

I am not baying for blood but wont cry if the animals do get the odd slap.

 

[Ethan]

But the fact of the matter is that it IS the liberal do-gooders who cause a lot of the trouble in this country.

Look at the huge number of paedophiles and rapists who go on to re-offend. The liberal nutters are all for therapising them and the like which does not work. There is no "curing" of these sick minds so either bang them up in a p***-hole nick until they die or preferably, cull them.

Its not just on the legal system that the liberals are wrong, they are morons on every subject matter they tackle.

Complete and utter prejudiced and uneducated bollox.

Could you state your qualifications for that little expulsion of flatus?

How do you think we should deal with reoffending rapists?

And what would you say to the families of the victims ?

And before you ask, my qualifications are reading the press, watching tv, thinking ( allbeit, sometimes ) and having a family. Oh and getting older.

What are yours ?

Well, for a start, I wasn't asking you, but the other idiot cited his opinion that these people reoffend and couldn't be cured, so it is reasonable to ask if he has any clue what the hell he is talking about. It subsequently appears he does not. I didn't offer an opinion on the question, just reiterated that we have a law in this land and it should be followed.

But since you ask, I have worked in psychiatry during my medical career, have a postgraduate qualification in psychiatry and have worked with forensic cases (i.e. criminals and other people who have come to the attention of the law).

Reading the press, having a family and getting older are not qualifications. If you have an opinion on something, fine, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, however nutty it is, but if you assert knowledge on a technical matter, then you need to know what you are talking about. As stated above by others, medwayjon doesn't.

 

[Kellfire]

I've done an teeny weeny bit of law at the Open Uni, if that counts for anything. Heh.

 

[Pants]

"
Well, for a start, I wasn't asking you, but the other idiot cited his opinion that these people reoffend and couldn't be cured..."

Thanks for clearing that up Ethan. For a while I was confused. Not knowing anything about the subject, I can only form my own opinion based on what I see, hear, read, taking on board the views of experts, listening to debates by politicians, etc.

I didn't realise that "these people", as you put it, come out of prison and don't re-offend. I always thought that a significant number did re-offend. I also didn't realise that rapists, paedophiles, and the like actually had an illness that could be cured by spending time inside and getting rehab.

Silly me.

 

[Ethan]

"
Well, for a start, I wasn't asking you, but the other idiot cited his opinion that these people reoffend and couldn't be cured..."

Thanks for clearing that up Ethan. For a while I was confused. Not knowing anything about the subject, I can only form my own opinion based on what I see, hear, read, taking on board the views of experts, listening to debates by politicians, etc.

I didn't realise that "these people", as you put it, come out of prison and don't re-offend. I always thought that a significant number did re-offend. I also didn't realise that rapists, paedophiles, and the like actually had an illness that could be cured by spending time inside and getting rehab.

Silly me.

You are indeed silly, or worse. You need to get your facts right and quote accurately. I didn't say any of that which you suggest I did, just asked the other expert for his qualifications to support his (false) assertion that huge numbers (not specified) reoffend and that therapy "and the like" does not work. He was wrong with those statements, and if you agree with him, then so are you.

You said "significant numbers" reoffend. Depending what you mean, that may be true. Is it the same as "huge numbers"?

I never said that all rapists, paedophiles "and the like (whatever that means)" had an illness. Some do, although that doesn't mean they are not responsible for their actions or shouldn't be put in prison. Many rapists have sociopathic personality disorder, which indicates a high risk of dangerousness. Most paedophiles are not sociopaths, but some have a mental illness, but so too do some other prisoners.

If you read the Daily Mail, you might well believe that there are gangs of paedophiles hanging around every stret corner. Doesn't make it true.

You really shouldn't listen to politicians.

 

[medwayjon]

Ethan, I look forward to you calling me an idiot to my face at some point.

And by the way, 19% of sex-offenders are subsequently convicted of further offences.

 

[medwayjon]

Oh and as for information sources. When one of the most senior probabtion service bods in Kent tells of certain things, thats enough to qualify the re-offending thing for me.

 

[Ethan]

Ethan, I look forward to you calling me an idiot to my face at some point.

And by the way, 19% of sex-offenders are subsequently convicted of further offences.

Oh, I see you are a vigilante. Is that a threat? Sounds technically like assault, so I guess you do know something about criminal behaviour. Now, if you confess to some sex crimes, I will admit that you are a (self taught) expert in this area.

19% is not huge numbers, by the way.

 

[Ethan]

Oh and as for information sources. When one of the most senior probabtion service bods in Kent tells of certain things, thats enough to qualify the re-offending thing for me.

Certain things? Oooh, sounds authoritative, although very vague and devoid of any actual content.

Was he your probation officer?

 

[medwayjon]

Not a threat in anyway, what good would whacking someone over something like this achieve???

Just wondered whether people who are so pompous and self-righteous behind a keyboard act the same way without that security.

 

[CannyFifer]

19% is not huge numbers, by the way.

1 in 5 is a big enough number for me Ethan. If you had a kid who was abused or a family/friend member who had one I think you would soon change your opinion. These scum have destroyed families and ripped them apart, countless families who have suffered. What we read about is the tip of a massive iceberg. They maybe do need help but to defend them is shocking.
ps - appologies for my rant but why is this subject on a golf forum.

 

[Ethan]

Not a threat in anyway, what good would whacking someone over something like this achieve???

Just wondered whether people who are so pompous and self-righteous behind a keyboard act the same way without that security.

You started the knee jerk right wing pontification from behind your keyboard, so ask yourself the same question, pal.

 

[medwayjon]

Yes I am very to the right in terms of my side of this, thats the way I am.

But to sterotype me as an uneducated cretin (not your words) is wrong, as I am not.

Also to resort to insults is wrong. My wifes best friend is one of the most liberal people you could meet. We have fierce debates on many things but we remain good friends also and dont resort to personal sniping.

Oh, and I have never had a probabtion officer.

 

[Ethan]

19% is not huge numbers, by the way.

1 in 5 is a big enough number for me Ethan. If you had a kid who was abused or a family/friend member who had one I think you would soon change your opinion. These scum have destroyed families and ripped them apart, countless families who have suffered. What we read about is the tip of a massive iceberg. They maybe do need help but to defend them is shocking.
ps - appologies for my rant but why is this subject on a golf forum.

19% is a lot lower than general reoffending rates for prisoners.

I am not defending them, sex offenders. Please quote one sentence where I have done so. I am just asking the knee jerks to cite some evidence for their rants.

1. It is a fact that we have a law of the land. I think it should be followed. That means prison warders should not act as vigilantes and those that do should be prosecuted.

2. It is a fact that some of these have personality disorder or mental illness.

3. It is a fact that some mental health interventions can manage the problem for some sex offenders. That is not the same as saying they should not be in prison. They invariably should be.

I stand by those statements and I challenge anyone to cite credible evidence to the contrary.

 

[Kellfire]

medwayjon, that was quite clearly a threat and not even a vaguely veiled one. Wise up, it's an emotive topic and we're all entitled to our views.