Prisoners human rights

[USER1999]

If it costs £1000 per week to keep someone banged up, can we afford it?

I don't condone capital punishment. However, I do feel that 23 hour confinement in a bare cell with a bucket for a toilet is fine. That has got to be cheaper. And more of a deterent.

Prison should be nasty. So people don't want to go back.

 

[mansell]

Albert Pierrepoint, Job Done

 

[Iaing]

If it costs £1000 per week to keep someone banged up, can we afford it?

I don't condone capital punishment. However, I do feel that 23 hour confinement in a bare cell with a bucket for a toilet is fine. That has got to be cheaper. And more of a deterent.

Prison should be nasty. So people don't want to go back.

Well said that man!

I've a friend who supplies electrical goods to the local prison.
Take a guess how many new, top of the range colour tv's he supplied last year ( and on average every year since the nick opened)........



250 ....

The prisoners have a riot, break the tellies and they're replaced within a couple of days.

Totally nuts.

 

[brendy]

The man killed two innocent little girls, lied and was eventually jailed, he tried to kill himself 3 times while in prison, but now because someone else tries to finish the job he thinks he is entitled to compensation?
Lost for words.

 

[SS2]

Huntley was accused, tried and convicted of utterly heinous crimes against 2 young innocent girls, whose lives he took.

That, in my opinion, removes any human rights that he may claim to have. He has none and he certainly has no right to sue the State for a lack of care/protection or whatever basis he is using.

He should rot in prison in squalid conditions without a 42" plasma, attempts at rehabilitation and regular trips to the gym. The Liberal-minded can argue his case all he likes but my $0.02 says that he is evil scum who deserves to rot in squalor for his crimes.

Kellfire: you say that "Everyone deserves legal representation, guilty or not." Huntly had that representation and his defence failed. I agree that Capital Punishment is not something that a civilised society wants but at the same time he has sacrificed his right to nbe treated as a normal numand being.

Just like John Venables, one of Jamie Bulger's murderers.

 

[Kellfire]

Kellfire, can you honestly say that the world would not have been a better place if Huntley and his like had never existed ?

And would they be missed if they were gone ?

Your first point is irrelevant and does not need to be answered for one simple reason; they do exist.

As for your second point, yes, they probably would by some people such as their family and friends.

 

[Kellfire]

If it costs £1000 per week to keep someone banged up, can we afford it?

I don't condone capital punishment. However, I do feel that 23 hour confinement in a bare cell with a bucket for a toilet is fine. That has got to be cheaper. And more of a deterent.

Prison should be nasty. So people don't want to go back.

Of course prison should be nasty, in theory, but if you make it too nasty all you do is breed a tougher, more hate filled criminal who has no chance of integrating into society on their release.

And no, this issue isn't justification for the "well then, yeehaw, let's get blood thirsty and kill 'em" out there.

 

[Kellfire]

The man killed two innocent little girls, lied and was eventually jailed, he tried to kill himself 3 times while in prison, but now because someone else tries to finish the job he thinks he is entitled to compensation?
Lost for words.

The law says that he is entitled to his own safety inside therefore he should receive compensation.

The legal system isn't there to serve those who the general public deem worthy, it's there for everyone and that IS something to be proud of.

 

[Kellfire]

Kellfire: you say that "Everyone deserves legal representation, guilty or not." Huntly had that representation and his defence failed. I agree that Capital Punishment is not something that a civilised society wants but at the same time he has sacrificed his right to nbe treated as a normal human being.

Just like John Venables, one of Jamie Bulger's murderers.

No, they haven't. They are still human beings. I disagree completely with the notion that criminals are in someway less of a human than you or I.

 

[Pants]

They are still human beings. I disagree completely with the notion that criminals are in someway less of a human than you or I.

You are absolutely right. A human being is a human being. Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and the like were all human beings - just like you.

The laws of this country are, in the main, made by people who have been elected to represent our views as a society (in theory anyway - and I would like to be disassociated from any political bias here) and a code of conduct with individual's rights laid out has been produced that the majority live by.

Should you decide to live outside this code then, as far as I'm concerned, you are on your own buddy. You should lose the rights that the rest of us enjoy by following the "code of conduct".

 

[Kellfire]

You lose your right to freedom but you don't lose your right to life.

 

[Iaing]

Didn't the wee girls have the right to life too?

While I respect your right to have your own views, they sicken me.

 

[Kellfire]

Much better to be bay for blood at every opportunity, eh?

That'll make us a much more civilised society.

 

[Iaing]

Much better to be bay for blood at every opportunity, eh?

That'll make us a much more civilised society.

So your definition of a civilised society is one which affords the criminal more rights than the victim?

The lunatics have well and truly taken over the asylum.

 

[CrapHacker]

Much better to be bay for blood at every opportunity, eh?

That'll make us a much more civilised society.

The only problem with your argument is that these people step outside civilised society, so they will do their evil deeds NO MATTER WHAT our rules are.

People die everyday.

Maybe it is our job, as the civilised ones, to ensure that as many as possible of the innocent people survive to see tomorrow.

If that means we sacrifice uncurable murderers and peadophiles, maybe it's a decision we should be forced to make, no matter how unpalatable that seems.

How many times have uncurables been released from prison, only to kill, or rape again?

'Normal' people are repulsed by the though of taking another's life. We claim that we are descending to their level, that we are uncivilised. That it doesn't solve the problem.

Maybe, just maybe, these are platitudes that we say because we cannot face the alternative. If we pass the buck are we condemning future generations to losing innocent loved ones?

If by killing one guilty murderer today we can ensure even one innocent child doesn't die tomorrow, is that a decision we can afford NOT to take, even if it leaves a bad taste in the mouth?

A thought about another case recently in the headlines :

From a forum posted in 2001

Were you the same person at 10 as you were at 19?

I sure as hell wasn't. I wasn't the same person at 19 as I'd been at 12, 14 or 16. My values and view of the world had changed; my thought patterns had shifted radically. I'd grown up more.

It's a tough case. They're not the same boys that killed James Bulger eight years ago any more. I'm not sure what they're like now, and I'm not sure that their punishment for their crime was right... But can you really judge a 19 year old on the actions of the 10 year old he once was?


From BBC news last month :

One of the killers of James Bulger has been jailed for two years after admitting downloading and distributing indecent images of children.

Jon Venables, now 27, was 10 when he and friend Robert Thompson murdered the toddler in Bootle, Merseyside, in 1993.

Venables was living in Cheshire when the images were found on his computer by a probation officer he had invited to his home, it has emerged.


This man has grown up. His views are definitely ingrained in his soul.

He gets off on child pornography.

His beliefs are outside those of civilised society.

HE WILL NEVER BE CURED.

Why will he ever be released back into society, because there will always be a danger that he will reoffend ?

Who are we to put an innocent child, who might not even be born today, at risk of rape and murder at the hands of this man?

Would not the more civilised action be to remove the risk now? Remove the evil, now?

Tough choice, because we can never know it will be the right choice. But the only way it will ever be proved is in the negative.

If we let this man live. If we release him into society. If he murders another child, we will have our proof

It will also be one dead child too late.

Tough choice.

 

[Ethan]

The simple fact is that we have a set of laws in this country. Those require a fair trial and reasonable treatment of prisoners. They also make vigilatism by prison warders illegal.

According rights to these people may be one of the unpalatable aspects of being a law-abiding democratic society. If anyone prefers summary justice and retribution, perhaps they should relocate to Saudi or Iran.

Amazing how so many trained forensic psychiatrists appear to frequent this forum.

 

[medwayjon]

Kellfire, It is liberal do-gooder types who spout the same words as you that will bring this country down.

Some people are evil, it is permanently in them, like Venables as mentioned above. Why waste the money on prison? People like him should be culled, end of.

What sickens me most about the venables situation is that when he gets out, he will be given another new identity, a nice place to live, set up in a job and able to hide once more. This is wrong. Release him under his new identity and let the scum live every minute of his life in sheer terror of when the next good hiding will be coming his way.

If any of these loopy-liberals actually knew the full details of what those 2 bastards did to James Bulger perhaps they would change their tune.

 

[sawtooth]

My 2 pennies worth......

Capital punishment where there is absolutely 100%, undisputable, irrefutable, undeniable evidence.

Other criminals should be incarcerated for the whole duration of the sentence (none of this sentenced for 10 out in 3 stuff) and the prison cells should be as already been suggested. Just a bed and a pot to p*** in.

No playstations, personal TV's, holidays, etc.

Rant over.

 

[Smiffy]

Of course prison should be nasty, in theory, but if you make it too nasty all you do is breed a tougher, more hate filled criminal who has no chance of integrating into society on their release.

So you shoot the feckers on their way out
Job done

 

[medwayjon]

Of course prison should be nasty, in theory, but if you make it too nasty all you do is breed a tougher, more hate filled criminal who has no chance of integrating into society on their release.

So you shoot the feckers on their way out
Job done

Nice work