Further legalisation of crime in Britain

[The Ultimate DooMer]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-1823391,00.html

If you didn't need any further proof of how much our government cares about fighting crime, here's a little bit more.

[Bloodshedder]

I find your thread title misleading.

[Jonathan]

Well hang on, according to the article this is happening because prisons are full to bursting, because more and more people are being convicted. If the government was weak on crime then surely less people would be being sent to prison?

[DooMAD]

Jonathan said:

If the government was weak on crime then surely less people would be being sent to prison?

Yes, that's what they now want to do. Because the prisons are full after being tough on crime, they will just send less people there in future.

*grabs a large bat in preparation for the first burglar

[Janderson]

While we're talking about crime and Britain's justice systems, human rights in prisons is a f'ing stupid idea damnit!

/boards up house
/Studies Home Alone movies

[Rotting Corpse]

Wow. Britain is starting to do what the us has been doing for years!?
A mass killing of inmates would salve the problem quicker then letting them out.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Jonathan said:

Well hang on, according to the article this is happening because prisons are full to bursting, because more and more people are being convicted. If the government was weak on crime then surely less people would be being sent to prison?

Well, the reason there's more convictions is because there's more crimes, and they've hardly lifted a finger to try and stop rising crime. (instead they seem to be encouraging it by lessening sentences, thus decreasing the deterrents)

Bloodshedder said:

I find your thread title misleading.

Not really, as that is the message being sent out to criminals across the country (extra rights for criminals, laws are soft, conviction chances low, laughable sentences even if convicted, hence they know that they can get away with a lot more). This latest thing enhances it a bit more.

[Janderson]

Rotting Corpse said:

A mass killing of inmates would salve the problem quicker then letting them out.

Hear, hear.

Seriously prisons should be medievalised.

[fodders]

They're just making room for all the ones they are going to lock up for 3 months without trial.

[Quast]

fodders said:

They're just making room for all the ones they are going to lock up for 3 months without trial.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why not just keep those in there the way it is and stuff the no-trial guys in too? Not like they'd care about overpopulation in there anyway, right?

[pritch]

Yes, the country's being ruined, but no change there.

My solution: shoot everyone. Leave only me. Hoorah!

[Rotting Corpse]

pritch said:

Yes, the country's being ruined, but no change there.

My solution: shoot everyone. Leave only me. Hoorah!

As bad as your country got it. Norway has it worse.

[Ninja_of_DooM]

Bring back hanging for murder convicts.

[TheDarkArchon]

One of the guys in my year thinks all criminals should be crucified.

[Janderson]

Rotting Corpse said:

As bad as your country got it. Norway has it worse.

Please share, we could be heading the same way.

[Nightmare Doom]

I would go back to the days where Vlad Tepes Dracula used to impail his victims

[Rotting Corpse]

Janderson said:

Please share, we could be heading the same way.

There has been more then 45 church burning in Norway since 1991. That should give you some what of an idea how crazy it is in Norway.

I cant wait to move back to Norway.

[myk]

The Ultimate DooMer said:
extra rights for criminals,

Jail overpopulation is quite an issue socially and economically. Both expensive and liable to cause a worse environment in jails (and the population in jails eventually walks out.)

laws are soft, conviction chances low, laughable sentences even if convicted, hence they know that they can get away with a lot more). This latest thing enhances it a bit more.

Where does that come from, though, a subjective opinion? Criminal law has to be administered according to social circumstances, not idealist conceptions. The issue is economical and the answer is by administration, according to the situation and possible goals.

Putting people in jail or being "harsh" on crime is just an attitude, and usually of denial, since crime isn't misbehavior, but a nasty arrangement of social forces. The management of crime has to do more with focus (it's negotiation, like what strategy to take) than about how much pressure to apply. Basically because society is dealing with itself; the responsible rearrange what doesn't work, instead of slapping themselves a few times per day.

Being more or less harsh on crime isn't really the point, because crime works either way, which isn't surprising since crime is in constant dialogue with the law. The criminal and legal elements learn from their game and each other.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

fodders said:

They're just making room for all the ones they are going to lock up for 3 months without trial.

Your custom title wins again. :p

Quast said:

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why not just keep those in there the way it is and stuff the no-trial guys in too? Not like they'd care about overpopulation in there anyway, right?

Because this government doesn't make sense :p

[Nightmare Doom]

Some words of wisdom relating to Government.....

All forms of Government fail at life and they are destined to fall at anytime no matter how strong or powerful they are...After all, their arrogance will dispell their demise at anyhow and their weaknesses are to be AND will be exploited at any costs.(Since Everything has a weakness to exploit and including Government).

Things will never last forever and thats how our world works.

Back on Topic: I would rather see the return of the days where the common people were more moralistic and took the law on their own hands.

[The Ultimate DooMer]

The only trouble with people who do that is they get treated like real criminals and banged up (despite the fact that they're infinitely more effective at crime-fighting than the police ever will be), while the actual criminals are allowed to continue destroying communities.

You're not allowed to put the courts out of business, a lot of rich powerful people will get pissed off if you do.

[myk]

Eh, if "common people" could personally dole out justice, what would stop the rich or poweful from doing the same in an even more blatant way, and in a way that would pretty much overpower "lesser" people?

Justice, like politics, is a place of discourse and interaction. Naturally, if there's inequity, it won't be altogether fair, but removing that "system" of judicial relations would not alter that inequity. That is, judicial systems are a compromise and a concession from all involved parties in order to interact, and only an imposition as far as determined by the conditions of economical disparity, by no means absolute nor even static.

Most of our relations are pretty naturally simply the result of our interactions; you can't alter social behavior unless economical (i.e., technological) changes don't gear society in another direction, and our social institutions are not an artificial thing over a pure base. They are what we get because we are as we are.