spot;905784 wrote: You're being perverse now. Go and find examples. It's actually irrelevant to my question, you're merely avoiding answering it. ASSUME that blind people DON'T kill and decide whether - in that specific circumstance - it would allow killers to be left in society instead of in jail. I'm sure you think it wouldn't, I just want you to explain why.
If it was divine(Keep in mind this is completely illogical as defined by our lack of proof in a "God") proof that if what you say prevented the two murderers in question from reoffending then I would have to say I see no problem in their release...I don't agree with punishment I agree with crime prevention...But in the same instance you have your scenario exist today only the realization lays in the fact that these two murderers would be blind behind bars for the rest of their life because they would not have seen potential victims...Their desire to murder would be non existent in the form of scarcity of victims...Hence why I feel they should be locked up for the rest of their lives...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
How would it prevent any original murders? I'm talking about an alternative sentence to jail time. You're found guilty and sentenced to be immediately blinded for the rest of your life instead of sentenced to jail for the rest of your life. I'm trying to be very simple and you seem not to be getting it at all. ASSUMING that it prevented further killings, would you be content with that sentence?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
Hence why I feel no psychiatrist has the right to suggest that these two proven murderers will never murder again or even be less likely to murder again based on their compared assessment of others(Which I find completely irrelevant as I've said everyone has their own motives and these two murderers' motives were sheer spite) because no one knows the motives of other human beings...
Just because "God" is written in the bible doesn't mean that this proves there is a "God" no more than just because a psychiatrist has written diologues of past experiences of other psychiatrists doesn't mean these two murderers will never reoffend...
Just because "God" is written in the bible doesn't mean that this proves there is a "God" no more than just because a psychiatrist has written diologues of past experiences of other psychiatrists doesn't mean these two murderers will never reoffend...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905786 wrote: How would it prevent any original murders? I'm talking about an alternative sentence to jail time. You're found guilty and sentenced to be immediately blinded for the rest of your life instead of sentenced to jail for the rest of your life. I'm trying to be very simple and you seem not to be getting it at all. ASSUMING that it prevented further killings, would you be content with that sentence?
I'm against the immediate blinding of convicted murderers as an alternative to jail time yes.
I'm against the immediate blinding of convicted murderers as an alternative to jail time yes.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
You're obsessed with a killer murdering again... look, it's more likely - I suggest this, I don't guarantee it - that a killer will kill again in prison than he would if he were released on parole back into the community. If you were truly interested in a killer not killing again you'd release him on parole, not hold him in jail for life where he's more likely to kill again.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
K.Snyder;905790 wrote: I'm against the immediate blinding of convicted murderers as an alternative to jail time yes.
Go on, we're getting there... why?
Go on, we're getting there... why?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905792 wrote: Go on, we're getting there... why?
Because it doesn't prove that they will never murder again.
Because it doesn't prove that they will never murder again.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
K.Snyder;905794 wrote: Because it doesn't prove that they will never murder again.
You keep ignoring my ASSUMING. If it were true that blinding would guarantee they'd not kill again - and I still can't find any instance of a blind person committing a murder - would it be an acceptable alternative to you and if not why not.
(Being in jail, as I pointed out, doesn't guarantee a killer won't kill again either.)
You keep ignoring my ASSUMING. If it were true that blinding would guarantee they'd not kill again - and I still can't find any instance of a blind person committing a murder - would it be an acceptable alternative to you and if not why not.
(Being in jail, as I pointed out, doesn't guarantee a killer won't kill again either.)
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905795 wrote: You keep ignoring my ASSUMING. If it were true that blinding would guarantee they'd not kill again - and I still can't find any instance of a blind person committing a murder - would it be an acceptable alternative to you and if not why not.
(Being in jail, as I pointed out, doesn't guarantee a killer won't kill again either.)
No, I don't feel the immediate blindness of a convicted murderer is an ulterior solution to an adequetly secure prison life sentence...On the grounds of pure coincidence...
Out of all these prisons, who seem to make money off of criminals, I find it hard to believe there's no research on the potential competence of prison security...
(Being in jail, as I pointed out, doesn't guarantee a killer won't kill again either.)
No, I don't feel the immediate blindness of a convicted murderer is an ulterior solution to an adequetly secure prison life sentence...On the grounds of pure coincidence...
Out of all these prisons, who seem to make money off of criminals, I find it hard to believe there's no research on the potential competence of prison security...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905695 wrote: Hallelujah.
Just out of interest, did the initial "And you are?" qualify as a neat but predictable put down? Am I not allowed to respond informatively?
I think the first bit was a very understandable response to the way you expressed your opinion.
Actually, Spot, I agree with a lot of the things you say in a lot of threads you enter. It's just that the way you state your views is so off putting that those of us who would otherwise probably be happy to enter into intelligent debate, back off from doing so - as I am going to now.
Just out of interest, did the initial "And you are?" qualify as a neat but predictable put down? Am I not allowed to respond informatively?
I think the first bit was a very understandable response to the way you expressed your opinion.
Actually, Spot, I agree with a lot of the things you say in a lot of threads you enter. It's just that the way you state your views is so off putting that those of us who would otherwise probably be happy to enter into intelligent debate, back off from doing so - as I am going to now.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot pats AussiePam on the back as she goes, leaving a sticker on her shirt reading "pinch my bum if you want a kiss".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905791 wrote: You're obsessed with a killer murdering again... look, it's more likely - I suggest this, I don't guarantee it - that a killer will kill again in prison than he would if he were released on parole back into the community. If you were truly interested in a killer not killing again you'd release him on parole, not hold him in jail for life where he's more likely to kill again.
Murderers who kill out of spite I would have to agree...Otherwise what you have are a group of convicted felons who are looking to be paroled in the same way the two murderers in question were...Surely the blame isn't biased...Even if it is inside a prison...
I personally don't see people looking to be paroled more likely to kill in prison...On that same note to me it's inappropriate and dangerous to society to release a known murderer on the knowing that a particular atmosphere could influence that murderer from murdering again...That's just foolish...
Murderers who kill out of spite I would have to agree...Otherwise what you have are a group of convicted felons who are looking to be paroled in the same way the two murderers in question were...Surely the blame isn't biased...Even if it is inside a prison...
I personally don't see people looking to be paroled more likely to kill in prison...On that same note to me it's inappropriate and dangerous to society to release a known murderer on the knowing that a particular atmosphere could influence that murderer from murdering again...That's just foolish...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
K.Snyder;905800 wrote: No, I don't feel the immediate blindness of a convicted murderer is an ulterior solution to an adequetly secure prison life sentence...On the grounds of pure coincidence...Why?
Out of all these prisons, who seem to make money off of criminals, I find it hard to believe there's no research on the potential competence of prison security...
And yet it's still true that killers kill again inside prisons. Don't any prison guards die in the US?
Out of all these prisons, who seem to make money off of criminals, I find it hard to believe there's no research on the potential competence of prison security...
And yet it's still true that killers kill again inside prisons. Don't any prison guards die in the US?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
K.Snyder;905809 wrote: Murderers who kill out of spite I would have to agree...Otherwise what you have are a group of convicted felons who are looking to be paroled in the same way the two murderers in question were...Surely the blame isn't biased...Even if it is inside a prison...
I personally don't see people looking to be paroled more likely to kill in prison...On that same note to me it's inappropriate and dangerous to society to release a known murderer on the knowing that a particular atmosphere could influence that murderer from murdering again...That's just foolish...
Ah well. I did try to bring us into a discussion that would end with agreement, you simply won't follow to see where it leads. How am I meant to find common ground with you if you simply ignore every avenue I offer? I "don't see people looking to be paroled more likely to kill in prison" either. What has that to do with my statement or my question? I said "not hold him in jail for life where he's more likely to kill again", nothing about people looking to be paroled.
I personally don't see people looking to be paroled more likely to kill in prison...On that same note to me it's inappropriate and dangerous to society to release a known murderer on the knowing that a particular atmosphere could influence that murderer from murdering again...That's just foolish...
Ah well. I did try to bring us into a discussion that would end with agreement, you simply won't follow to see where it leads. How am I meant to find common ground with you if you simply ignore every avenue I offer? I "don't see people looking to be paroled more likely to kill in prison" either. What has that to do with my statement or my question? I said "not hold him in jail for life where he's more likely to kill again", nothing about people looking to be paroled.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905816 wrote: Ah well. I did try to bring us into a discussion that would end with agreement, you simply won't follow to see where it leads. How am I meant to find common ground with you if you simply ignore every avenue I offer? I "don't see people looking to be paroled more likely to kill in prison" either. What has that to do with my statement or my question? I said "not hold him in jail for life where he's more likely to kill again", nothing about people looking to be paroled.
Well after the murderer in question is incarcerated it's up to the prison system to remain competent enough to ensure what's intended in the first place doesn't happen...
Just like the legislature doesn't do the judicial systems job...
Well after the murderer in question is incarcerated it's up to the prison system to remain competent enough to ensure what's intended in the first place doesn't happen...
Just like the legislature doesn't do the judicial systems job...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905814 wrote: Why?
And yet it's still true that killers kill again inside prisons. Don't any prison guards die in the US?
Why in the same way someone asks "why let a proven murderer free?"...Speculative...Which then leads to what I've always said in this thread which is that speculation isn't worth the risk...
And yet it's still true that killers kill again inside prisons. Don't any prison guards die in the US?
Why in the same way someone asks "why let a proven murderer free?"...Speculative...Which then leads to what I've always said in this thread which is that speculation isn't worth the risk...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
The plain truth is that you want to keep killers in prison for life for retribution, it has nothing to do with keeping the outside world safe from them.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905831 wrote: The plain truth is that you want to keep killers in prison for life for retribution, it has nothing to do with keeping the outside world safe from them.
And what is wrong with that?
And what is wrong with that?
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905831 wrote: The plain truth is that you want to keep killers in prison for life for retribution, it has nothing to do with keeping the outside world safe from them.
Well I don't know about anyone else who's responded in this thread but as for me that couldn't be further from the truth...
Well I don't know about anyone else who's responded in this thread but as for me that couldn't be further from the truth...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
I would not let a murderer walk free in society and if anyone sees that as retribution that's fine with me...If all I have to answer to are the cries of those who say it's unjust then I can live with that...
I have no sympathy for a murderer...
I have no sympathy for a murderer...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
K.Snyder;905833 wrote: Well I don't know about anyone else who's responded in this thread but as for me that couldn't be further from the truth...
And yet I offer you a "let's pretend for the sake of argument that this is a guaranteed treatment" and you refuse to even talk about it. Assuming that blinding a killer guarantees he won't kill again, would that be an acceptable alternative to life in jail for you? I've only picked on blindness as a reasonable method, by all means invent your own way of guaranteeing a physical inability to kill. From my viewpoint, and from the real world evidence, blindness works perfectly.
And yet I offer you a "let's pretend for the sake of argument that this is a guaranteed treatment" and you refuse to even talk about it. Assuming that blinding a killer guarantees he won't kill again, would that be an acceptable alternative to life in jail for you? I've only picked on blindness as a reasonable method, by all means invent your own way of guaranteeing a physical inability to kill. From my viewpoint, and from the real world evidence, blindness works perfectly.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905835 wrote: And yet I offer you a "let's pretend for the sake of argument that this is a guaranteed treatment" and you refuse to even talk about it. Assuming that blinding a killer guarantees he won't kill again, would that be an acceptable alternative to life in jail for you? I've only picked on blindness as a reasonable method, by all means invent your own way of guaranteeing a physical inability to kill. From my viewpoint, and from the real world evidence, blindness works perfectly.
I've already answered this...I'm thinking you missed it...
K.Snyder;905785 wrote: If it was divine(Keep in mind this is completely illogical as defined by our lack of proof in a "God") proof that if what you say prevented the two murderers in question from reoffending then I would have to say I see no problem in their release...I don't agree with punishment I agree with crime prevention...But in the same instance you have your scenario exist today only the realization lays in the fact that these two murderers would be blind behind bars for the rest of their life because they would not have seen potential victims...Their desire to murder would be non existent in the form of scarcity of victims...Hence why I feel they should be locked up for the rest of their lives...
I've already answered this...I'm thinking you missed it...
K.Snyder;905785 wrote: If it was divine(Keep in mind this is completely illogical as defined by our lack of proof in a "God") proof that if what you say prevented the two murderers in question from reoffending then I would have to say I see no problem in their release...I don't agree with punishment I agree with crime prevention...But in the same instance you have your scenario exist today only the realization lays in the fact that these two murderers would be blind behind bars for the rest of their life because they would not have seen potential victims...Their desire to murder would be non existent in the form of scarcity of victims...Hence why I feel they should be locked up for the rest of their lives...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
So why this discussion about a killer released into society being a continuing greater danger to the public? Whether it's true or not - and I gave evidence that it's not, compared to the background risk from any existing member of the public - it's irrelevant to you. Your sole demand is for retribution.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905847 wrote: So why this discussion about a killer released into society being a continuing greater danger to the public? Whether it's true or not - and I gave evidence that it's not, compared to the background risk from any existing member of the public - it's irrelevant to you. Your sole demand is for retribution.
That's your opinion...
I've explained as to why I don't wish for a murderer to be released...
And your continuing to compare murderers with other murderers is irrelevant...If all of the murderers of the world had the option of being released the statistics wouldn't be the same...And that speculation is just as relevant as the speculation as to whether or not a convicted murderer will ever commit another heinous crime again, let alone murder...
That's your opinion...
I've explained as to why I don't wish for a murderer to be released...
And your continuing to compare murderers with other murderers is irrelevant...If all of the murderers of the world had the option of being released the statistics wouldn't be the same...And that speculation is just as relevant as the speculation as to whether or not a convicted murderer will ever commit another heinous crime again, let alone murder...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
spot;905847 wrote: So why this discussion about a killer released into society being a continuing greater danger to the public? Whether it's true or not - and I gave evidence that it's not, compared to the background risk from any existing member of the public - it's irrelevant to you. Your sole demand is for retribution.
The only way I would ever see myself conforming to the concept at hand would be if I were the one making the assessments on whether or not I felt these two murderers were rehabilitated and I would have to be 100% non mistakingly convinced as to their "lack of threat" to society...
As far as retribution is concerned no one with any bit of empathy can say they don't feel that there should be some sort of retribution...But as I've just stated,..if I were unmistakingly convinced of the two murderers' "rehabilitation" then I myself personally would not see the significance in having them spend the rest of their lives in prison...Note however that I personally cannot see myself coming to that assessment but still quite clearly illustrates my position on this specific case and this specific case alone...
On that not I would have to kindly ask that my motives not be misconstrued as retribution...
The only way I would ever see myself conforming to the concept at hand would be if I were the one making the assessments on whether or not I felt these two murderers were rehabilitated and I would have to be 100% non mistakingly convinced as to their "lack of threat" to society...
As far as retribution is concerned no one with any bit of empathy can say they don't feel that there should be some sort of retribution...But as I've just stated,..if I were unmistakingly convinced of the two murderers' "rehabilitation" then I myself personally would not see the significance in having them spend the rest of their lives in prison...Note however that I personally cannot see myself coming to that assessment but still quite clearly illustrates my position on this specific case and this specific case alone...
On that not I would have to kindly ask that my motives not be misconstrued as retribution...
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
My next question would be aimed towards you Spot and if anyone would like to answer please feel free...
But do you feel that the two murderers in question are being continuously "rehabilitated" while being free seeing as how it's been quoted • They are both now 18 years of age. Being 18 they would be due to be transferred to young offenders' institutions. The reports make clear that the transfer would be likely to undo much of the good work to which I have referred. Having been living in an unnaturally protected environment, they are unprepared for the very different circumstances in which they would be detained in a young offenders' institution. They are unlikely to be able to cope, at least at first, with the corrosive atmosphere with which they could be faced if transferred. There is also the danger of their being exposed to drugs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/27/bulger? And if so in what way?...
But do you feel that the two murderers in question are being continuously "rehabilitated" while being free seeing as how it's been quoted • They are both now 18 years of age. Being 18 they would be due to be transferred to young offenders' institutions. The reports make clear that the transfer would be likely to undo much of the good work to which I have referred. Having been living in an unnaturally protected environment, they are unprepared for the very different circumstances in which they would be detained in a young offenders' institution. They are unlikely to be able to cope, at least at first, with the corrosive atmosphere with which they could be faced if transferred. There is also the danger of their being exposed to drugs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/27/bulger? And if so in what way?...
-
TheBlackWhisper
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:55 pm
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
Personally I don't believe that they are being rehabilitated. They have been released into the free world and are finally out of prison. Can you imagine what that must feel like after been locked up from ten years of age? They'd swear on their mother's lives they were reformed just to get out and I'm sure nothing is happening now. I'd be surprised if anyone was even keeping a watch on them!
Spot, sorry, everytime I get on here it must sound like I'm attacking you and I don't want to get personal, but for God's sake man! Let people have their opinions and calm down. The way you talk to some people and lead them is disgusting. You've already scared off one member, who by her own emission has had enough of you.
Stop asking people to go find evidence to support their views and knock off the attitude. You might think your high and mighty but the rest of us don't and it's beginning to spoil a good argument. So don't respond by in turn by attacking but instead learn a lesson. A good debate doesn't contain bullying. (I know you're gonna have to respond to this rather than move on but one would have thought you could have risen above it.)
As for the blind argument a few pages back of cause a blind person could commit murder. They are just as prone to the same impulses as the rest of us. Why shouldn't somebody who is blind have a desire to kill? How they go about it and if they get away with it would obviously require a stonger mind than most and more planning than say a normal sighted person but there are cases of blind people killing. (I suppose you want examples don't you? Well I haven't got the time to surf the net looking to be honest but to say they can't is insulting to blind people.)
Spot, sorry, everytime I get on here it must sound like I'm attacking you and I don't want to get personal, but for God's sake man! Let people have their opinions and calm down. The way you talk to some people and lead them is disgusting. You've already scared off one member, who by her own emission has had enough of you.
Stop asking people to go find evidence to support their views and knock off the attitude. You might think your high and mighty but the rest of us don't and it's beginning to spoil a good argument. So don't respond by in turn by attacking but instead learn a lesson. A good debate doesn't contain bullying. (I know you're gonna have to respond to this rather than move on but one would have thought you could have risen above it.)
As for the blind argument a few pages back of cause a blind person could commit murder. They are just as prone to the same impulses as the rest of us. Why shouldn't somebody who is blind have a desire to kill? How they go about it and if they get away with it would obviously require a stonger mind than most and more planning than say a normal sighted person but there are cases of blind people killing. (I suppose you want examples don't you? Well I haven't got the time to surf the net looking to be honest but to say they can't is insulting to blind people.)
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
It depends on whether they still live in England. If they do then they'll be reporting regularly to the police like everyone else on parole, that's how it works. Part of that contact is the availability of parolee support services which will include, I'm quite sure, professional psychiatric evaluation and treatment.
None of that has anything to do with being continuously rehabilitated - I have problems commenting on "continuous rehabilitation" because it's apparent that the definition of rehabilitation being used doesn't match what anyone would find in a reputable dictionary.
I took blinding as a simple example of a treatment which would obviously make someone practically incapable of murder. I'm quite sure that the proportion of killers who are blind is lower than the proportion of - think of an example yourself. Priests? Nuns? Popes since 1874, if we exclude the current chap? The point of asking was to isolate the degree to which being left in prison was a matter of punishment rather than one of protection. I think I've made my point. I believe protecting the public is a secondary factor in several people's desires on this thread and that "protecting the public" is being used as a fig-leaf to avoid talking about punishment or retribution.
This isn't a "good debate", it isn't a debate at all, it's a discussion. ForumGarden does have a proposed mechanism for holding a debate but it never managed to get off the ground. What we do in this free-for-all round the houses is discuss, with a large dose of ignore inconvenient points thrown in.
Obviously people have and hold opinions. I have no doubt they'll continue to. I rarely get anyone I'm sharing a thread with to change their view out loud, mainly because they're attracted to the thread in the first place through holding a strong entrenched position of their own. By way of contrast, people here do change my own opinions. I hold very few now that I held when I joined, My mind has been changed on a whole host of matters as a result of discussing topics in threads like these. The views of those I discuss things with here have a considerable effect on my opinions.
I only really have a couple of quirks. One is that if I claim something's a fact I back it with evidence. The other is that I regard the third element of the exchange "this exists", "no it doesn't", "prove it" as meaningless, at that point existence is assumed false, it's up to the person asserting an existence to show it's true if asked. Asking for a negative to be demonstrated is, to my mind, an admission that one's wrong. I can't prove there are no blind killers, it's searching for a negative. It's also unnecessary in this case since I was making a point in which merely assuming there were none was sufficient to continue the discussion. The example was driven by this 100% guarantee demand the thread brought up, the offer to temporarily assume a truth is quite reasonable when it's a what-if like this.
I "scared off one member, who by her own emission has had enough of you"? Never mind, I attracted you onto the site in exchange, I'm sure we got a good bargain out of the transaction. By all means tell me if you'd like to try the debate area on a minimum setting of two posts each, one statement and one response and summary, just to see if we can put this opposing material into a coherent order.
None of that has anything to do with being continuously rehabilitated - I have problems commenting on "continuous rehabilitation" because it's apparent that the definition of rehabilitation being used doesn't match what anyone would find in a reputable dictionary.
I took blinding as a simple example of a treatment which would obviously make someone practically incapable of murder. I'm quite sure that the proportion of killers who are blind is lower than the proportion of - think of an example yourself. Priests? Nuns? Popes since 1874, if we exclude the current chap? The point of asking was to isolate the degree to which being left in prison was a matter of punishment rather than one of protection. I think I've made my point. I believe protecting the public is a secondary factor in several people's desires on this thread and that "protecting the public" is being used as a fig-leaf to avoid talking about punishment or retribution.
This isn't a "good debate", it isn't a debate at all, it's a discussion. ForumGarden does have a proposed mechanism for holding a debate but it never managed to get off the ground. What we do in this free-for-all round the houses is discuss, with a large dose of ignore inconvenient points thrown in.
Obviously people have and hold opinions. I have no doubt they'll continue to. I rarely get anyone I'm sharing a thread with to change their view out loud, mainly because they're attracted to the thread in the first place through holding a strong entrenched position of their own. By way of contrast, people here do change my own opinions. I hold very few now that I held when I joined, My mind has been changed on a whole host of matters as a result of discussing topics in threads like these. The views of those I discuss things with here have a considerable effect on my opinions.
I only really have a couple of quirks. One is that if I claim something's a fact I back it with evidence. The other is that I regard the third element of the exchange "this exists", "no it doesn't", "prove it" as meaningless, at that point existence is assumed false, it's up to the person asserting an existence to show it's true if asked. Asking for a negative to be demonstrated is, to my mind, an admission that one's wrong. I can't prove there are no blind killers, it's searching for a negative. It's also unnecessary in this case since I was making a point in which merely assuming there were none was sufficient to continue the discussion. The example was driven by this 100% guarantee demand the thread brought up, the offer to temporarily assume a truth is quite reasonable when it's a what-if like this.
I "scared off one member, who by her own emission has had enough of you"? Never mind, I attracted you onto the site in exchange, I'm sure we got a good bargain out of the transaction. By all means tell me if you'd like to try the debate area on a minimum setting of two posts each, one statement and one response and summary, just to see if we can put this opposing material into a coherent order.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
Well hopefully the people to whom released the two murderers are confident enough they'll never murder again...Which obviously they were but the end result has yet to be seen seeing as how the two murderers in question haven't lived their lives...
On that note hopefully no one ever ends another human beings life again by a reason other than self defense...
On that note hopefully no one ever ends another human beings life again by a reason other than self defense...
-
TheBlackWhisper
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:55 pm
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
Well I'd have to disagree and state that a debate is in all but a name a discussion. It's a formal method of discussing different view points and as this thread contains a lot of emotional aspects from different angles the two are different in all but a name.
Thank you for the invite to the private debate but I think this thread is where it's at. It's good to see so many people getting involved in a subject that has been out of the public's mind for a long time.
Regarding the comment on whether criminals should spend the rest of their lives in prison, what about the fact this would have a great influence as an example to others?
Would you commit murder if you knew that without question if and when you were found guilty "life" would mean just that? The rest of your life behind bars without the chance of parole. Let's just think about that. If you knew other murderers before you were now spending the rest of their lives behind bars would this not act as a great example not to murder?
Obviously this will be considered extreme and at first will be a terrible strain on the prison service but as the message filters through the minds of would be killers, would it not make them think twice?
Thank you for the invite to the private debate but I think this thread is where it's at. It's good to see so many people getting involved in a subject that has been out of the public's mind for a long time.
Regarding the comment on whether criminals should spend the rest of their lives in prison, what about the fact this would have a great influence as an example to others?
Would you commit murder if you knew that without question if and when you were found guilty "life" would mean just that? The rest of your life behind bars without the chance of parole. Let's just think about that. If you knew other murderers before you were now spending the rest of their lives behind bars would this not act as a great example not to murder?
Obviously this will be considered extreme and at first will be a terrible strain on the prison service but as the message filters through the minds of would be killers, would it not make them think twice?
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
TheBlackWhisper;906298 wrote: Well I'd have to disagree and state that a debate is in all but a name a discussion. It's a formal method of discussing different view points... and a discussion isn't. Which is why we have two words for those related but different areas of communication as opposed to two names for the same thing.
I can't stand "research" either as a synonym for looking things up, which it isn't.
I shall look up deterrence, how's that? I have no idea how effective full-lifetime prison sentencing policies are for deterring murder. I'm not sure any country has it, which might make finding out rather difficult. I note two things - that it would have had no effect whatever on the two lads under discussion, and that in a wider context deterrence of murder through longer sentencing or through the death penalty seems never to have been demonstrated, so extrapolating sentencing to "life means life" seems unlikely as a useful tool.
The point of the two-posts-each "debate" is the limit on how long one can drone on for pointlessly. It gets everything said and done with. The chance would be refreshing.
The key to genuine deterrence is in your phrase "if you knew that without question if and when you were found guilty". "When you were found guilty" is a different kettle of fish to "if you were found guilty". Effective policing - by which I mean prosecuting within days the people responsible for every criminal act - is deterrent. If the dozy ineffective thugs who constitute our police forces solved crimes instead of blowing holes in innocent passers-by on tube trains then crimes committed would drop by orders of magnitude.
I can't stand "research" either as a synonym for looking things up, which it isn't.
I shall look up deterrence, how's that? I have no idea how effective full-lifetime prison sentencing policies are for deterring murder. I'm not sure any country has it, which might make finding out rather difficult. I note two things - that it would have had no effect whatever on the two lads under discussion, and that in a wider context deterrence of murder through longer sentencing or through the death penalty seems never to have been demonstrated, so extrapolating sentencing to "life means life" seems unlikely as a useful tool.
The point of the two-posts-each "debate" is the limit on how long one can drone on for pointlessly. It gets everything said and done with. The chance would be refreshing.
The key to genuine deterrence is in your phrase "if you knew that without question if and when you were found guilty". "When you were found guilty" is a different kettle of fish to "if you were found guilty". Effective policing - by which I mean prosecuting within days the people responsible for every criminal act - is deterrent. If the dozy ineffective thugs who constitute our police forces solved crimes instead of blowing holes in innocent passers-by on tube trains then crimes committed would drop by orders of magnitude.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
TheBlackWhisper
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:55 pm
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
So you don't agree that if we had more severe punishments for crimes it would put would-be criminals off? Say for example: if you steal, your hands are cut off. If you kill, you are killed. (These punishments are all of course based on if the criminals in question did the crimes and were subsequently found guilty).
If you knew that if you were caught stealing something you could have your hands cut off would you still steal? The same goes for killing. It would put me off. I would think twice about loosing my own life.
Look at the times we live in. Now we've outlawed corporal and capital punishment the country is going downhill fast. Back in the days of the last generations (I'm talking 1970's going back) there were less crimes committed and that's a fact (I'm not naive and I know a lot of crime nowadays is a result of many modern influences such as the ever-expanding media and the glamourisation of crime in movies). Sure every era had their bad eggs (Jack the Ripper!) but my point is there were less. People could leave their doors unlocked and didn't have to worry about knives and drugs.
Could the mess we find oursleves in now in this modern world not be attributed to our lack of proper punishment?
If you knew that if you were caught stealing something you could have your hands cut off would you still steal? The same goes for killing. It would put me off. I would think twice about loosing my own life.
Look at the times we live in. Now we've outlawed corporal and capital punishment the country is going downhill fast. Back in the days of the last generations (I'm talking 1970's going back) there were less crimes committed and that's a fact (I'm not naive and I know a lot of crime nowadays is a result of many modern influences such as the ever-expanding media and the glamourisation of crime in movies). Sure every era had their bad eggs (Jack the Ripper!) but my point is there were less. People could leave their doors unlocked and didn't have to worry about knives and drugs.
Could the mess we find oursleves in now in this modern world not be attributed to our lack of proper punishment?
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
I wouldn't dream of trying to guess. I'd look at the result of pilot projects. I'd compare different jurisdictions which have otherwise similar populations. I can show you successful rehabilitation pilot projects, for example, if I can define successful as bringing subsequent offending rates below the national average.
The point of the two-posts-each "debate" is the limit on how long one can drone on for pointlessly. It gets everything said and done with. The chance would be refreshing.
The key to genuine deterrence is in your phrase "if you knew that without question if and when you were found guilty". "When you were found guilty" is a different kettle of fish to "if you were found guilty". Effective policing - by which I mean prosecuting within days the people responsible for every criminal act - is deterrent. If the dozy ineffective thugs who constitute our police forces solved crimes instead of blowing holes in innocent passers-by on tube trains then crimes committed would drop by orders of magnitude.
eta: I leave at least one house door permanently unlocked except when I'm on holiday, and I live pretty much in the centre of town. You say "there were less crimes committed" but there were fewer crimes to commit, if you'd like to take a single specific crime I'll look up the comparative rates. In a very few specific instances like rape there are sociological reasons why a higher proportion are reported now than would have been in the 70s or before. Murder, though, which is central to this topic, would be an interesting one to compare back, given that the abolition of the death penalty happened in the middle of it. Do you think there's no period in the last 200 years when the murder rate hasn't been higher than it is now?
The point of the two-posts-each "debate" is the limit on how long one can drone on for pointlessly. It gets everything said and done with. The chance would be refreshing.
The key to genuine deterrence is in your phrase "if you knew that without question if and when you were found guilty". "When you were found guilty" is a different kettle of fish to "if you were found guilty". Effective policing - by which I mean prosecuting within days the people responsible for every criminal act - is deterrent. If the dozy ineffective thugs who constitute our police forces solved crimes instead of blowing holes in innocent passers-by on tube trains then crimes committed would drop by orders of magnitude.
eta: I leave at least one house door permanently unlocked except when I'm on holiday, and I live pretty much in the centre of town. You say "there were less crimes committed" but there were fewer crimes to commit, if you'd like to take a single specific crime I'll look up the comparative rates. In a very few specific instances like rape there are sociological reasons why a higher proportion are reported now than would have been in the 70s or before. Murder, though, which is central to this topic, would be an interesting one to compare back, given that the abolition of the death penalty happened in the middle of it. Do you think there's no period in the last 200 years when the murder rate hasn't been higher than it is now?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
TheBlackWhisper
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:55 pm
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
At first hearing you left your door unlocked I was astounded but the more I think about it, it's a numbers game. I'm sure even people in the worst neighbourhoods in the world could leave their doors unlocked and take the risk that it might not be them that gets paid a visit from the local burglers. Having said that, my meaning for using the saying was that back in the day - from the stories I've heard - it seemed to be a more peaceful time. As I believe this is attributed to the fact that today our world is getting smaller with technology's help, they didn't have the bad influences we have today that corrupt our youth.
Out of interest do you know the worst year for murders (willful, not accidental) over the last 200 years? I'd hazard a guess it would be a more recent year.
I still maintain my belief that if our laws brought in more serious and tailored punishments, over a matter of time we would see a decline in criminal activity. However I agree with you that no matter how terrible the threat of punishment is (say, execution) it will not have an effect on a younger member of society and would not have stopped the two killers we're talking about.
As a kid I cared not for the consequences of my actions, but I did know right from wrong and that was installed in me from a young age by the odd whack or telling off from my parents. We're back to the parent's role in all this.
"Parents should me made to pass a test before they give birth" and you can quote me on that.
Out of interest do you know the worst year for murders (willful, not accidental) over the last 200 years? I'd hazard a guess it would be a more recent year.
I still maintain my belief that if our laws brought in more serious and tailored punishments, over a matter of time we would see a decline in criminal activity. However I agree with you that no matter how terrible the threat of punishment is (say, execution) it will not have an effect on a younger member of society and would not have stopped the two killers we're talking about.
As a kid I cared not for the consequences of my actions, but I did know right from wrong and that was installed in me from a young age by the odd whack or telling off from my parents. We're back to the parent's role in all this.
"Parents should me made to pass a test before they give birth" and you can quote me on that.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
TheBlackWhisper;908059 wrote: Out of interest do you know the worst year for murders (willful, not accidental) over the last 200 years? I'd hazard a guess it would be a more recent year.Who would keep such statistics? Half the problem with the modern world is that information is so rarely free and accessible. I hope htat's changing.
This is an abstract from an article discussing long-term criminal trends in, among other places, London:Contemporary Crime in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study of London, Stockholm, and Sydney, by Ted Robert Gurr © 1977 American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Abstract
The question is whether historical evidence from other Western societies helps us understand the apparent increase in contemporary crime. Official records of offenses against persons and property in London, Stockholm, and Sydney show remarkably similar trends during the past 150 years. From around 1840 to 1930, indicators of common crime fell by an average ratio of 8:1. Since then, especially since 1950, they have increased by similar ratios. Changes in criminal law, police systems, and judicial policies in these societies are examined to see whether they explain the trends. One conclusion is that the trends are a roughly accurate tracing of real changes in the magnitude of socially-threatening behavior. Another is that the policies and institutions, credited for a century of improving public order, have little impact on the contemporary increase. It is suggested that those who blame increasing crime on "repressive" or "inefficient" officials are missing the real social and intellectual issues.
The murder + manslaughter figure's currently around 14 per million in England and Wales. For comparison, it was 10 per million in 1900. I suspect that at some time in the mid-1800s it was above the current rate, if I see a source I'll bring it here. It was, of course, lowest between the wars as was prosecuted crime in general.
This is an abstract from an article discussing long-term criminal trends in, among other places, London:Contemporary Crime in Historical Perspective: A Comparative Study of London, Stockholm, and Sydney, by Ted Robert Gurr © 1977 American Academy of Political and Social Science.
Abstract
The question is whether historical evidence from other Western societies helps us understand the apparent increase in contemporary crime. Official records of offenses against persons and property in London, Stockholm, and Sydney show remarkably similar trends during the past 150 years. From around 1840 to 1930, indicators of common crime fell by an average ratio of 8:1. Since then, especially since 1950, they have increased by similar ratios. Changes in criminal law, police systems, and judicial policies in these societies are examined to see whether they explain the trends. One conclusion is that the trends are a roughly accurate tracing of real changes in the magnitude of socially-threatening behavior. Another is that the policies and institutions, credited for a century of improving public order, have little impact on the contemporary increase. It is suggested that those who blame increasing crime on "repressive" or "inefficient" officials are missing the real social and intellectual issues.
The murder + manslaughter figure's currently around 14 per million in England and Wales. For comparison, it was 10 per million in 1900. I suspect that at some time in the mid-1800s it was above the current rate, if I see a source I'll bring it here. It was, of course, lowest between the wars as was prosecuted crime in general.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
UK - James Bulger's Mother Tracks down Killer
TheBlackWhisper;908059 wrote: Out of interest do you know the worst year for murders (willful, not accidental) over the last 200 years? I'd hazard a guess it would be a more recent year.I checked one decade, 1860-69, from the 19th Century Parliamentary Papers series: Return of Number of Murders committed in England and Wales, and Number of Prisoners convicted of Murder, 1860-69 and the highest annual figure there was 13.5 per million, very close to this decade's maximum of 14 per million. I could, if a spare ten minutes shows itself, see what other decades they cover.
(based on 1861 Census of England and Wales, Population Tables. Number and Distribution of the People. Index to Names of Places, Table 1: " Population enumerated in England and Wales and in the Islands in the British Seas on April 8th, 1861". - 20,061,725)
Attached files
(based on 1861 Census of England and Wales, Population Tables. Number and Distribution of the People. Index to Names of Places, Table 1: " Population enumerated in England and Wales and in the Islands in the British Seas on April 8th, 1861". - 20,061,725)
Attached files
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.