Wall of Mouths

Also, I’m not trying to step on toes here and start an argument so can we just keep this “friendly”? ‘cause I happen to like you lot :P

Mrs H - “If you don’t agree then Sam, Kill Hill and myself will lock you up indefinitely until without any support or re-education you spontaneously change your views…”

Mr Self Destruct - “Not being funny but you seem to need some education yourself if you..”

Isn’t that kinda ironic, locking me up or re-educating me until I agree with you?

No, you weren’t being ironic because you then just said again that I need re-education. Basically according to you I need reeducation until I think just like you do.

Death penalty obviously doesn’t help the person but how many times do you rehab someone before you finally give up? 5? 100?

I’m not saying you shouldn’t rehab and educate people but what do you do when it simply doesn’t work? Throw in the towell and kill them then?

This treaty moves us once step closer to the new world order.

The taxpayer also has to pay to keep them in jail.

The world isnt about ‘giving back to society’ thats just the crock of shit they feed everyone to keep the cogs of the wheel moving.

I think in the states it costs more to execute a prisoner than it would to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

The legal process is very expensive and there are a set number of appeals a death row inmate is allowed to call for.

So pro-death penalty arguments can’t be cost based - unless you want to short cut peoples legal rights.

Why should a second person suffer because a murder or rapist is released?

If there was a better way to analyse people and put them into categories of murderer and non-murderer it would simplify it hugely but we can’t, so why release them when we can lock them away. Yes it seems mad (akin to carrying a knife and stabbing everyone incase they have a knife and stab you). If a family or friend of mine was raped/murdered by a person who had been released from commiting that previously i’d be seriously pissed off and I’d probably say “Why was that fucker ever released? He did it before so why would he NOT do it again, why the hell was he released..”

So how many times should a burglar be released/reeducated/rehabilitated until something happens? Or do we do it forever until they die of old age?

It depends on the severity of their crime.

Like I said, it’s a bit of a gray area and it would have to be all written out so I could see it before I agreed to anything but generally; repeat serious offence = Life inprisonment or death penalty.

Less serious offences - rehabilitation. Repeat offences you build up “points” (or, whatever kind of system you want to call it) escalating to be worth a more serious offence. Say you commited 100 robberies and showed no signs of being re-educated (100 re-offending is far too much anyway.. but as an example) then the person is past rehabilitation and is of no worse to society; they are a burden.

Of course this is only a brief outline.

It’s not as black and white as minor offence and then 50 points on you get a serious; it would all be tiered and each time you’d serve a greater sentence / punishment before breaking a threshold for a higher tier of punishments or sentences.

How many times should a burglar be released/reeducated/rehabilitated with no effect before you’d want something to happen? And then what would that be?

I think the current system is too lenient on criminals. If someone repeat offends commiting burglaries 10 times (with rehab) why would they ever change, and, they’ve already had their chance. (Having a “chance” is unfair? How unfair is it for the people they rob/mug/whatever)

Viirkokka wrote:

Mrs H - “If you don’t agree then Sam, Kill Hill and myself will lock you up indefinitely until without any support or re-education you spontaneously change your views…”

Isn’t that kinda ironic, locking me up or re-educating me until I agree with you?

Of course it’s ironic - what I meant was that you cannot guarantee that rehabilitation will work, but it does have a pretty good track record on the whole. If you lock someone up and don’t attempt to rehabilitate them then you can be absolutely 100% certain that they won’t change (and there is a good chance they will come out worse!)

Also I think you are confused about rehabilitation / reeducation - these are things that happen whilst the prisoner is locked up, not instead of. It means that when they come out they are much less likely to re-offend.

My biggest problems with the death penalty is the hypocrisy. “You can’t kill people but Big Brother can”, kind of thing. That and the hideous injustice. Imagine a child that has been brought up surrounded by violence, raped, degraded, beaten, emotionally sexually and physically abused and neglected for the first 6 or 7 years of his life. Chances are that that child is going to grow up to do exactly the same thing, because he really genuinely cannot conceive of any other way of being - he has no experience of it. Then when he is older he commits a terrible act that he doesn’t recognise as particularly terrible because he’s so maladjusted by his own formative years. Would you kill him the first time or the second time he committed an offence? Do you not think doing something to help break the cycle might be better for him, his children and society - whatever the cost?

I agree with Sam that if someone hurt someone in my family I would probably hunt them down and kill them myself, but it would be a crime of passion not an execution - and I would fully expect to spend the rest of my life in prison for it, because it would have been the wrong thing to do.

Ill take the left, but not this phoney bullshit pretensious left created by the guardian and all their ilk.

the good old death penalty might be a deterrent…

why did I vote no?

So, when do you draw the line and deem them a “lost cause”?

I think our society just has to keep trying its best - giving up on people is always the easy option.

Anyways, as this is about the Lisbon Treaty - I can not believe that they want to carry on with this tripe despite our nation voting “no”.

I thought it was made clear before the vote that a “no” decision would mean the end of this bullshit.

This is the Europe we are supposed to want to be a part of? I like the way the likes of the French and Germans are referencing “fear tactics” by the “no” campaigners as a reason for failure. Wasn’t it them who were claiming that a “no” vote would spell the “end for Ireland in Europe”, an Ireland that “owes so much” to Europe? What a bunch of fucking wankers.

If this deception spells out Europe, then I would rather be out and poor no matter how much money the shoved up Bertie’s arsehole.

Sorry, rant over :-)

Also, the Lisbon Treaty; Greece and Italy (i think it was these two I could be wrong) who rejected it last time with a public vote have this time had it done when the public don’t vote and the government (or whoever; higher powers) make the final decision and suddenly the public of concerned countries are “welcoming it with open arms” or “overjoyed that the treaty has been passed” - It was on the Lisbon Treaty official website.

Have to say i’m not too bothered if the other countries want to pass the Lisbon Treaty in their own country, if they try to push it thru fully after that then i’ll be angry as hell. Grrrr.