|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 29, 2024 21:00:09 GMT
Yes, but letting off the Yorkshire ripper is sillier. Well I never suggested such did I Not exactly, you used it as an exaggeration to undermine Dappy's point. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 29, 2024 21:02:59 GMT
I was applying exactly the principles he was proposing and taking a well known case to show how ridiculous they were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 29, 2024 21:04:10 GMT
I was applying exactly the principles he was proposing and taking a well known case to show how ridiculous they were. Argument absurdium. Always a winner.  |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 29, 2024 21:17:34 GMT
I was applying exactly the principles he was proposing and taking a well known case to show how ridiculous they were. Argument absurdium. Always a winner. The term is actually Reductio ad absurdum and is well established in science as a way of disproving an asserted position. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 29, 2024 21:23:59 GMT
I don’t think it is about the sex of the offender. Before we send anyone to prison we should ask ourselves “does society benefit from doing this?”. Sometimes of course the answer to that question will be yes but I would argue far less often than we currently do - as of course happens on the rest of Europe. No one is suggesting of course that no action is taken in respect of this case but we need to get away from the notion that any punishment apart from prison is soft or insulting the victim or letting the offender off. You have repeated the notion that somehow automatically sending people to prison for this sort of incident somehow deters others. It patently doesn’t. Perhaps if you included an alternative for me to consider. Something you consider appropriate Well it would be decided on a case by case basis learning from how other countries deal with these sorts of issues. What is the record of the offender, does the offender appear to have learnt from the incident, is it likely that the offender will reoffend. If the outcome of that consideration is negative, a custodial sentence may be appropriate. In this case however it is hard to see any benefit in imprisonment. So unpaid work on behalf of the community - if appropriate benefiting the victim , fines - if appropriate paid to the victim - compulsory education etc etc. All the things other countries already do getting better results than us. We sadly are addicted to sending people to prison at vast expense getting worse reoffending rates and believing that non custodial sentencing is somehow a soft option. We need to adjust our thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 29, 2024 21:32:01 GMT
Argument absurdium. Always a winner. The term is actually Reductio ad absurdum and is well established in science as a way of disproving an asserted position. My version involves inventing something the poster never claimed to undermine it. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 29, 2024 21:36:57 GMT
Perhaps if you included an alternative for me to consider. Something you consider appropriate Well it would be decided on a case by case basis learning from how other countries deal with these sorts of issues. What is the record of the offender, does the offender appear to have learnt from the incident, is it likely that the offender will reoffend. If the outcome of that consideration is negative, a custodial sentence may be appropriate. In this case however it is hard to see any benefit in imprisonment. So unpaid work on behalf of the community - if appropriate benefiting the victim , fines - if appropriate paid to the victim - compulsory education etc etc. All the things other countries already do getting better results than us. We sadly are addicted to sending people to prison at vast expense getting worse reoffending rates and believing that non custodial sentencing is somehow a soft option. We need to adjust our thinking. Surely all these things are considered already. So all your suggesting is a lighter sentence? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 29, 2024 21:41:39 GMT
I’m suggesting a sentence that benefits society as a whole rather than a knee jerk custodial sentence that costs vast amounts and has negative impacts for society. As I say we need to get away from thinking of non custodial sentences as “lighter” - they are not.
Afraid I am going to have to leave it here for the night. Can pick up the topic tomorrow if you wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 29, 2024 21:48:07 GMT
I’m suggesting a sentence that benefits society as a whole rather than a knee jerk custodial sentence that costs vast amounts and has negative impacts for society. As I say we need to get away from thinking of non custodial sentences as “lighter” - they are not. Afraid I am going to have to leave it here for the night. Can pick up the topic tomorrow if you wish. Okies Dappy, sleep well. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 29, 2024 21:50:57 GMT
We've kicked this issue around enough
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 30, 2024 6:36:16 GMT
We've kicked this issue around enough The bit we didn't discuss is the tiny number 0.1% of the country that are considered prisonable criminals. A number much lower than most imagine I think. Only one in Ten Thousand people is a serious criminal. so a City like Cambridge would have only15 serious criminals. If its true crime is much less likely than we fear. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Aug 30, 2024 7:22:00 GMT
Probably but the fear of crime is a very real problem to many.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 30, 2024 9:32:39 GMT
Probably but the fear of crime is a very real problem to many. For me a more obvious explanation is that far less criminals go to prison for far fewer crimes than we imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 30, 2024 10:13:52 GMT
See second post on page 1 Zany.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 30, 2024 14:03:30 GMT
See second post on page 1 Zany. Yeah I get your point Dappy, but mine was different. Allow me to clarify. Mine is that the definition of serious crime for most folks obviously includes a lot of crime the authorities do not consider serious. We have had our various premises ram raided twice , broken into 4 times, robbed with violence (A staff member punched in the face several times), plus half a dozen internal thefts by staff over a 12 year period. Of these I would consider the ram raiding and the robbery with violence to be serious crimes, but the police didn't even investigate the ram raids and the violent theft received cursory attention. Because of this I am of the opinion that myself and the authorities disagree on what's acceptable and does not require a person being removed from society. |
|
