Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Jailed taggers bleat about "stress" of prison

12346»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They should be required to clean/fix what they damaged and/or pay the damages.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    You are posting some awful SHITE in this thread Mok. :(

    :confused:

    You said that prison doesn't work - yet also state that people who view images of child abuse should be locked up.

    You said that someone who has committed a criminal act has the potential to commit another. That "potential" is enough to keep them locked up.

    Even though, in the UK, we have this whole pesky system where someone has to have actually committed a offence to even face the possibility of being locked up for it. We tend not to send people to prison for what they might do.

    And of course [apparently] prison doesn't work anyway, so locking them up achieve nothing.

    Now, which one of us is talking shite?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You said that prison doesn't work.

    Erm...no I didn't. I said in this particular case it won't work, then I gave reasons what I think they should do. Quite simple really, try reading what I actually wrote first.
    You said that someone who has committed a criminal act has the potential to commit another. That "potential" is enough to keep them locked up.

    No, not potential alone, their crime shows their potential. You get off on pictures of children, you're a threat to children. A heafty fine or suspended sentence won't keep you away from children. A stint inside will and maybe give you enough time to think and re-consider your actions.
    Even though, in the UK, we have this whole pesky system where someone has to have actually committed a offence to even face the possibility of being locked up for it. We tend not to send people to prison for what they might do.

    Yes and Mr Langham commited a crime. Want me to draw a picture for you?
    Now, which one of us is talking shite?

    In this thread, you mate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Erm...no I didn't. I said in this particular case it won't work, then I gave reasons what I think they should do. Quite simple really, try reading what I actually wrote first.

    Your actual words were:
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    What's prison going to do? It costs money to the tax payer as well to keep them in there.

    So I asked, why we lock anyone up then, if prison doesn't work.
    No, not potential alone, their crime shows their potential.

    Not for other crimes, just for the one they have been convicted of. Unless, as I said, you think that anyone serving time has the potential to commit that same crime on release and should therefore be locked up indefinately.

    In which case you include these vandals because not only have they committed a crime, but they have the "potential" to repeat offend - purely on the basis of previous actions.
    You get off on pictures of children, you're a threat to children. A heafty fine or suspended sentence won't keep you away from children. A stint inside will and maybe give you enough time to think and re-consider your actions.

    Crap. You are talking about one of the most basic urges known to men. Sexual sdesire. A stint inside will not change that desire.

    You should also consider that looking at images of abuse is not, in itself, abuse nor a threat to children.

    In the specific case mentioned the person involved was acquitted of abusing a child - yet you want to lock him up permanently because he might do that. What kind of screwy justice system do you want to see?
    Yes and Mr Langham commited a crime. Want me to draw a picture for you?

    One for which he was convicted and is serving time for. But that isn;t what you just argued, is it?

    You argued for imprisoning him for a crime he might commit in the future.

    Seriously, you really need to learn to follow your own argument Scrote.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    blah blah blah this is getin borin as fuck
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    z- wrote: »
    blah blah blah this is getin borin as fuck

    You didn't have to read it :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i'm trying my best not to but running out of other semi-less boring threads to read ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nah, you love it really. Can't keep away.

    There are more boring threads than me and the Scrote arguing?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So I asked, why we lock anyone up then, if prison doesn't work.

    I said "them," not "everyone in the world who commits a crime".
    Not for other crimes, just for the one they have been convicted of. Unless, as I said, you think that anyone serving time has the potential to commit that same crime on release and should therefore be locked up indefinately.

    Who said anything about when they got released?
    In which case you include these vandals because not only have they committed a crime, but they have the "potential" to repeat offend - purely on the basis of previous actions.

    Of course, but this is where the punishment will help encourage them not to do it. It's finding out the proper punishment that's the key.
    Crap. You are talking about one of the most basic urges known to men. Sexual sdesire. A stint inside will not change that desire.

    It will make them reconsider their actions, I'm sure there are also rehabillitation programs for paedophiles in prison to help them change. Rather them inside than out.
    You should also consider that looking at images of abuse is not, in itself, abuse nor a threat to children.

    :banghead:
    In the specific case mentioned the person involved was acquitted of abusing a child - yet you want to lock him up permanently because he might do that. What kind of screwy justice system do you want to see?

    Lock him up permanently? WHAT THE FUCK! :confused: Where did I say that? I'm saying his punishment should also reflect his potential threat to children as well as the crime he committed, therefore a fine or a suspended sentence would not suffice.
    You argued for imprisoning him for a crime he might commit in the future.

    No I didn't, I said his potential threat to children. You can't lock up someone who hasn't done something, you can keep someone away from society if you see them as threat and where a thing like a suspended sentence, community service or a fine won't suffice. It's a preventative measure. It's the same with murderers, rapists and other people who commit crimes.
    Seriously, you really need to learn to follow your own argument Scrote.

    Oh the irony.

    So, I ask you this Mok. If looking at child pornography isn't actually abuse, or makes you a threat to children then it's ok, should be legal and people like Chris Langham should be walking the streets right now? I mean, what's the harm? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    ...

    Thank god, finally some clarity :p
    So, I ask you this Mok. If looking at child pornography isn't actually abuse, or makes you a threat to children then it's ok, should be legal and people like Chris Langham should be walking the streets right now? I mean, what's the harm? :rolleyes:

    Jeez, that's a whole different debate. Do you really want to get into that one?

    NB Nowhere have I said that Langham shouldn't be inside. I;ve been very careful about that. My comments about him was to question your assertion about prison not working and therefore I was asking what the benefit of any prison sentence should be.

    I think that it's wrong to argue that someone who looks a child porn is, themselves, a danger to children. It also means that we focus on the viewer and not on the person who takes the photso or the one who abuses the child. The only thing I can think of to liken it to is going after the drug users but not the dealer, importer and growers...

    I also don't believe that locking Lagham up actually achieves anything more than punishing him for his actions. It offers no real rehabilitation and once out there is nothing to stop him looking at porn again.

    The difference with the vandals is the motivation behind the crimes. Their was wanton. You cannot rehabilitate that, you can only punish it harshly. IMHO. Make the fear of implications greater than the fun of the wanton act.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think that it's wrong to argue that someone who looks a child porn is, themselves, a danger to children. It also means that we focus on the viewer and not on the person who takes the photso or the one who abuses the child.

    i say we give them all a bullet in the head ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From the Beeb

    Update: The two people in question have had their sentences overturned.

    In my opinion the comments of the overturning judge reflect a degree of proportionality that was missing in the original sentence. Putting them to work in the Community would, in this case, have been a much more productive sanction.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In my opinion the comments of the overturning judge reflect a degree of proportionality that was missing in the original sentence. Putting them to work in the Community would, in this case, have been a much more productive sanction.
    This may be the first time I've ever said this - I agree with you. Putting them in prison is just expensive and a waste of time. Making them work their arses off in the community would be far more effective.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should've given them a couple of months working for Arriva Trains complaint department answering phonecalls. That would've sorted them out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should've given them a couple of months working for Arriva Trains complaint department answering phonecalls. That would've sorted them out.
    Ah yes, the one workplace in the country which workers are probably given a daily supply of morphine to make it through the day. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should've given them a couple of months working for Arriva Trains complaint department answering phonecalls. That would've sorted them out.
    Reply With Quote

    The UK forbids capital punishment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If they aren't going to stay in prison then they should be put to work cleaning up approximately £23k's worth of damage that other people have done.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    If they aren't going to stay in prison then they should be put to work cleaning up approximately £23k's worth of damage that other people have done.

    And I'm sure a two-year suspended sentence will do that fully :rolleyes:

    Fucking joke, letting them out.

    The law should be changed for criminal damage- one hour's work for every £1 of damage you commit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    And I'm sure a two-year suspended sentence will do that fully :rolleyes:

    Fucking joke, letting them out.

    The law should be changed for criminal damage- one hour's work for every £1 of damage you commit.

    I agree completely, they shouldn't have been released in the first place. It's all well and good bleating on about rehabilitation and whatever, prison is there as a punishment. Causing £23,000 worth of damage that will ultimately be footed by the public is a crime worth of a prison stay.
Sign In or Register to comment.