Home Politics & Debate
We're aware of several bugs/changes to the discussion boards. We're looking into them and will give an update as soon as we can. Thank you for bearing with us. :)

If you could add/change three laws

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where did you get that info?

    Governments need to be as sure as possible before issuing someone with the death sentence, therefore much more is spent on pre-trial preparation, witnesses, longer trials, jury sequestration and security (due to high profile cases), death row incarceration, and many more reasons that I haven't even begun to touch on, another also being that money spent (or rather, wasted) on excecution isn't going towards rehabilitation or policing - things that can benefit society.

    Oh, and there are holes to pick in every single law that's proposed and put forward - I'm simply giving my opinion on one that I felt strongly about. I have nothing against you picking at my argument (since that's all you have to pick at from me right now) - call me not very bright if you so wish, but back it up. Tis your opinion, dude.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1) I reckon we could do away with the law allowing Jocks to be shot with a bow and arrow in York

    Woah, hang on. Let's not be too hasty here.

    Laws to go:
    1. Road Taxation, increase fuel taxation instead
    2. Obscene Publications Act (or whatever it's called now)
    3. Misuse of Drugs Act (or whatever it's called these days)

    New laws:
    1. Tax exemption for armed services personnel
    2. Free Uni education for anyone working five years in public sector role after degree achievement
    3. Maximum terms of office for all MPs (20 years/four parliaments) and PMs (10 years/2 parliaments) whichever is the longer
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only 3 laws?
    I'd get rid of most of the 4000+ pointless laws Labour invented whilst last in power... only 3 will have to think on that...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TintedLens wrote: »
    Where did you get that info?

    Governments need to be as sure as possible before issuing someone with the death sentence, therefore much more is spent on pre-trial preparation, witnesses, longer trials, jury sequestration and security (due to high profile cases), death row incarceration, and many more reasons that I haven't even begun to touch on, another also being that money spent (or rather, wasted) on excecution isn't going towards rehabilitation or policing - things that can benefit society.

    Well the US does all that, but you don't have too. When the UK had the death penalty you'd be lucky to have to wait a year between been found guilty and the long drop.

    China has a very cheap system - bullet in the back of the head. No appeals or anything like that

    Nazi Germany, North Korea and the USSR had even cheaper systems where the condemned had to dig their own graves and all three were renowned for very cost-effective ways of getting rid of large numbers of people.

    Now I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but the argument it automatically costs more is a complete non-starter
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well the US does all that, but you don't have too. When the UK had the death penalty you'd be lucky to have to wait a year between been found guilty and the long drop.

    China has a very cheap system - bullet in the back of the head. No appeals or anything like that

    Nazi Germany, North Korea and the USSR had even cheaper systems where the condemned had to dig their own graves and all three were renowned for very cost-effective ways of getting rid of large numbers of people.

    Now I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but the argument it automatically costs more is a complete non-starter

    Eh, I naively argued that point on the assumption that we were simply changing laws here, not the whole structure of our society. Oops.

    If by the death penalty, you simply mean shooting all thieves in the back of their head, then yes, of course it's cheaper. Fabulous idea. I'm completely won over. :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TintedLens wrote: »
    Eh, I naively argued that point on the assumption that we were simply changing laws here, not the whole structure of our society. Oops.

    If by the death penalty, you simply mean shooting all thieves in the back of their head, then yes, of course it's cheaper. Fabulous idea. I'm completely won over. :thumb:

    So you don't think that moving to a system where we execute minor criminals is changing the structure of our society? :eek2:

    Or at least moving it back to the extremely cheap 17th Century system...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Or at least moving it back to the extremely cheap 17th Century system...

    That's more along the lines of what I meant by that statement. :lol:

    To execute minor criminals and commit such immoral acts of punishment in those such ways (ie, no trials!) would be to fall back hundreds of years as a society. To issue such a law in this day and age, have it passed, and then structured like it'd need to be in order to fit into our modern society, would cost us a shit load in taxes. Oh, yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TintedLens wrote: »
    That's more along the lines of what I meant by that statement. :lol:

    To execute minor criminals and commit such immoral acts of punishment in those such ways (ie, no trials!) would be to fall back hundreds of years as a society. To issue such a law in this day and age, have it passed, and then structured like it'd need to be in order to fit into our modern society, would cost us a shit load in taxes. Oh, yes.

    Well it might help if you bothered to tell us your assumptions as I think most people assume in the unlikely event we did decide to execute shoplifters our society is probably at a point where we're not worried about the full panoply of the law
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was arguing against such a ridiculous law change, and stating many obvious negative reasons why it would be so ridiculous. I'd think it was pretty obvious that I was talking about this law existing in our current society and not one where 'no one gave a shit'. My apologies for trying to put in place an argument on the negative impacts on other aspects of society other than simply saying "people don't deserve to die!".

    The arguments I made (financial ones) were against general execution laws, and the costs of such a thing. I was basing the financial consequences on that of the US, a country similar to ours in the way of culture and running of government, that's all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TintedLens wrote: »
    You're really not very bright, are you? Besides the obvious reasons not to execute someone for SHOPLIFTING, do you have any idea how much it would cost us all in taxes to have an execution trial every time someone stole something? We'd all be paying an absolute fortune.

    Not to mention that jurys would be reluctant to convict someone for their crimes if the conviction was DEATH, so it'd be pretty counter-active in most cases, seeing as the vast majority of people would think your idea was absolutely ridiculous.

    Oh, and I see you didn't even touch upon my argument about those being wrongfully accused. How would you justify their deaths? Yeah, didn't think you could.


    There would not be an execution trial everytime someone stole something, the trial would be no differant to a current trial so no extra cost there, but if it happend five times you get executed.

    The jury would have no prior knowledge whether the accused has a criminal history so they wouldt know whether the decision would result in death before they make it.

    About the wrongfully accused, how does the current goverment justify the wrongfully accused who have spent years inside?

    A small percentage may slip through the net, but bear in mind its highly unlikely to get wrongfully convicted five times.

    You cant speak for the vast majority of people either, only yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You could probably hold them in existing prisons. The turnover of inmates would by the nature of the proposal be that much higher. It may also act as an incentive not to rob. Not that I'm advocating it.

    Thats the main aim of the law in mention, to stop people robbing, raping, murdering, mugging, beating, stealing from other people, if you do these things then you can only blame yourself.

    Hopefully everybody will behave, but if they dont they need putting down like a dog that bites somebody in the park.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sepumseeme wrote: »
    Thats the main aim of the law in mention, to stop people robbing, raping, murdering, mugging, beating, stealing from other people, if you do these things then you can only blame yourself.

    Hopefully everybody will behave, but if they dont they need putting down like a dog that bites somebody in the park.
    I put it to you that there isn't a single adult in the entire world who hasn't at some point misbehaved.

    Thus, according to your (rather bizarre) beliefs, everybody should be put to death.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How about scrapping child benefit for really high earning families.

    Free Uni places for all who get results of a set level so that people who actually deserve to go onto Uni can and not just the ones who can afford it. This could be funded in part by big recruiters paying a fee to the uni their new graduate employee has just left.

    Free sanitry protection for all women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My 2 penneth:

    1. Life imprisonment = 50 years minimum.

    2. Child benefit and associated housing benefits only payable for first two children (excluding multiple births)

    3. Annual non-EU immigration cap of 10,000 subject to annual review and re-approval
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess there are probably bigger issues if I thought hard enough, but here are a few that are floating around my head atm:

    1) Lower the voting age to 16
    2) Some sort of law on preventing children being treated on adult mental health wards. (I think there is something in place atm, but it is not working)
    3) Make sex education compulsory in all schools
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I put it to you that there isn't a single adult in the entire world who hasn't at some point misbehaved.

    Thus, according to your (rather bizarre) beliefs, everybody should be put to death.


    You have a point, in fact i think the execution law would need to only be applicable if all five offences were of a serious (assault, cruelty, endangering, threathening, wounding e.t.c) nature.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My 2 penneth:

    1. Life imprisonment = 50 years minimum.

    2. Child benefit and associated housing benefits only payable for first two children (excluding multiple births)

    3. Annual non-EU immigration cap of 10,000 subject to annual review and re-approval

    You get my vote...

    I completely agree with all three :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Louisek wrote: »
    How about scrapping child benefit for really high earning families.

    I agree. I know some high earners who say they deserve it because "of the amount I pay into the system. I see it as a tax rebate".:yeees:
    Free Uni places for all who get results of a set level so that people who actually deserve to go onto Uni can and not just the ones who can afford it. This could be funded in part by big recruiters paying a fee to the uni their new graduate employee has just left.

    What about those doing BTECs and Access courses?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Results of a set level can include BTEC's surely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    3 laws I would have added would be.
    - No parent/carer can abuuse there children physically/emotionally or is that alredy a law :chin:
    - Kids should get more say on how the country is run.
    - And everyone must take part in at least 1 sports activity everyday. :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it is a law allready, and I think you know it is.

    Kids having more of a say in how the country is run, quite a good idea in theory, need to make sure the age level gets looked at carefully as to avoid the lack of knowledge and maturity affecting things. In principle a good idea, but things like the british youth parliament seem not to be cared about by a lot of british youth.

    If more children started voicing their want for what you have suggested, then somewhere down the line it may occur. Though would the kids just be having the same ideas as adults do anyway, or if more child specific things are suggested, by the time they come in a lot of the children may well be adults and the measures wouldnt benefit them, and they may become disenfranchised with the political system.

    All in all its a good thought though.

    I also really like the sports per day idea, nothing wrong with keeping active and would be a good way for people to make friends and the such, just a shame I on occasion find it difficult to do even gym work each day, having to make it up on other days.

    You have made some good suggestions there troubled youngster.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Maybe being able to vote shouldn't rely on age, but a certificate that you get by taking a test to determine how mature your thought process is and whether you're thinking for yourself of are simply copying completely your parents' views? It would also expire after a few years and you'd have to retake the test.

    I'm not in the UK, but I think something like that might be better internationally, rather than relying on age which in the end isn't really an indication of maturity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People can equally as they learn their parents views, learn a test. Sounds like a good idea but one of those if only money wasnt an issue kind of things.

    I reckon if I had enough money, and brought in the schemes I wanted, I could stay in power for ever more, and wouldnt have to end up like Mugabe or even bribe people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't really matter anyway. When I'm in charge and have established my Reich, it'll be off to the salt mines with the lot of you. With the exception of G who will by my Head of the Military as he knows about guns and shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    since the id card policy is slowly being ditched, yay

    1. Full time minumum wage should attract no income tax
    2. Overhaul the benefits system so there's only one application, so circumstances changes can be done with 1 phonecall, reduces overheads on admin
    3. Non violent, non repeat offenders get a chance to do a monster amount of community service instead of prison, and improve funding for courts so people awaiting trial without bail get time in prison for time to prepare cases only
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't really matter anyway. When I'm in charge and have established my Reich, it'll be off to the salt mines with the lot of you. With the exception of G who will by my Head of the Military as he knows about guns and shit.

    Never mind cats in wheelie bins................

    2myxopj.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.