The writing is on the wall

Lefticus Loonaticus

The Irish times today -

-A EUROPEAN committee against torture has strongly criticised “degrading, inhumane and unsafe” conditions in the Republic’s prisons and has questioned plans for a new super-prison to address chronic overcrowding.

The group’s report has also outlined allegations of serious assaults by prison officers on inmates, including kicks to the face, some of which allegedly occurred while inmates were handcuffed.

Stabbings and attacks with implements were “an almost daily occurrence in Mountjoy”. The jail was unsafe for inmates and staff and was characterised by violence, gangs and drugs.

The report outlines a haphazard system of healthcare, where inmates are continuously prescribed drugs, including heroin withdrawal medication methadone, sometimes in the absence of any apparent meaningful medical supervision. One prisoner who failed 21 drug tests, 15 of them for heroin and cannabis, had his methadone continued; his illegal drug taking apparently not considered a factor for altering or discontinuing his medication.

“For a number of prisoners in receipt of a methadone detoxification prescription it could be stated that this was simply ‘free petrol’, ” the report notes.

The committee was also concerned at the extent to which mood altering, including anti-depressant, medication was given to inmates at the Midlands Prison, with no clear rationale for this.

The report was compiled by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The committee, part of the Council of Europe, visited the Republic for 12 days last January and February. Its remit is to visit jails, police stations and psychiatric hospitals and raise any issues of concern. Its last visit here was in 2006.

Its new report notes the Republic’s prison population had increased by 30 per cent in three years. People being sent to jail for periods of six months or less had jumped from 3,000 in 2005 to 5,000 in 2008. This needed to be addressed by following the example of other EU states that had replaced short prison terms with community-based sanctions.

While acknowledging that Thornton Hall was planned to deal with overcrowding, the committee had “serious misgivings” about a jail for more than 2,000 inmates. Such jails had proved “difficult to manage”.
Special observation cells, or padded cells, were still being used for solitary confinement rather than to observe vulnerable or agitated inmates. One mentally ill inmate was placed in a such a cell alone for more than six weeks, during which time his mental health deteriorated. -

---

Its shocking, but theres nothing we didnt already know. This is only the latest in a string of reports, all of which are only the tip of the iceberg. Its really awful to think that Dermot Ahern was poncing around with his blasfamy law bullsh1t while this is going on inside our prisons and now hes off with his nice pension leaving behind him a human rights disaster which indicts our society as being negligent bordering on evil.

Theres so many things that could relieve this situation but since theres no votes in it and everyone is focused on the economy, nobody really gives a sh1t. If somthing major is not done about this soon we are all going to pay dearly for it and ill explain why.

Heres a comparison between the industrial school saga of the past with the current crisis in the prison system. The similarities are frightening.

1) Awareness of the problem but zero action taken. Even though there were the gallant few who spoke out and even though there were reports highlighting the problem, nobody cared and nobody wanted to upset the system. It eventually goes on like a snowball until it becomes a monster that explodes in a national scandal when the horror stories go public. Then all of a sudden everyone cares.

2) Political irrisponsibility. Challenging the system in the past ment political suicide since the church could easily influence the overwhelming catholic vote. Just like today, politicians, especially those on the centre right / right would stand to lose votes if they took a stand on the issue. In fact it appears that no one(at all) wants to touch this even with a barge poll for fear of a public which apparently is content with the situation. Child prisoners had no vote in the industrial schools, prisoners today have no vote either. They are both completely worthless in the eyes of the system and thus their conditions will be worse than any other part of the population, and remaining so for the foreseeable future.

3) Public acceptance of violence / no sympathy / they get what they deserve / terrible conditions etc etc. Again, just like the past it becomes normalised, when it clearly shouldnt be. The idea that they are all scum, they are in there for a reason and they deserve to suffer is a severe misconception that should be smashed. Many of our laws are past their sell by date yet they are the reason so many people are getting banged up. A large part of the prison population are in for non violent offences, minor/medium drug offences and financial offences which are often minor. Lets make no mistake about it guys, these people should not be detained and should most certainly not be placed in a situation where their human rights are at risk, doing this is a bigger injustice than whatever their crime was in the first place. Obiviously it is very subjective and you would have to take each person on their merits / demerits, but the fact still remains; just like the industrial schools, many people are being unnecessarily horded into terrible conditions and the public is apathetic.
(Side note: but what about the murderers, rapists and otherwise evil people? Of course there are people who deserve to suffer and will get what they get, but it is very important to distingush these people from the majority of prisoners who will ultimately suffer the same conditions even though they are not on the same level of offence.)

4) Unaccountable Judges / improper legislation for laws / off the wall sentencing. The industrial schools were filled with kids that had gotten crazy sentences for things that were hardly crimes at all. Illigitimacy, stealing food, skipping school or maybe they were just thrown in because the judge had a bad day. Some got up to 18 years, their entire childhood. Similarly today, there are outlandish sentences being given on both ends of the spectrum. An extreme example would that of Larry Murphy compared to a guy who got somthing like 45 years for a van full of heroin(last year somtime i think). Now, dont get me wrong, heroin is very serious, causes real damage to society and should definately have a sentence attached, particularly if it is a large amount. However, the likes of Larry only got a decade for one of the worst crimes commited in the state, yet a guy who was merely a driver for a drugs gang, who could otherwise have been a nice enough guy(apart from his dubious job) goes down for life. I ask, should it not be the other way round? How many people would I have to kill in a bloody massacre to get 45 years if one can do 5 - 10 years for a single murder? The guy that killed that kid Robert Honihan(I think is the name) in cork a few years back was out in a flash, yet somone who was growing a load of weed in there gaff could get as many if not even more years than that of a murderer. I know a guy who got caught with canabis plants above the boarder, he got 2 months in an open jail(hardly a jail at all) and a criminal record. Down here he would still be in prison, would be living in appauling circumstances and would be scarred for live as a result, no doubt. Wasnt he lucky he lived above the boarder eh? I dont know whether its conservatism or just lack of education / reality, but some judges look like they have no idea what they are doing or even worse, they have no idea what conditions they are throwing people into, or maybe they do. We need judges for the judges, and they need a pay cut aswell.

5) Socio economic circumstances / discrimination against the working classes. As we all know very well, industrial schools were for working class kids. Very rarely were middle class kids put in, but when they were, they were treated a whole lot better. Similarities with today? Absolutely. The overwhelming majority of prisoners are from working class backrounds, which points towards our failing as a society with regards to social justice, inclusion and issues related to poverty. Adding to this even more is the deference to the middle and upper classes when it comes to sentencing. The Robert Honahan case I mentioned above is a good example. Another example would be the 3 guys who kicked that dude to death outside a nightclub. I cant remember what happened to them but I think they just about managed to get away without serving any real time, perhaps one of them got manslaughter and did like 1 or 2. Maybe its just the system thinking that posher people have a harder time in prison so they deserve less? Or could it be the other way round where working class people are given harsher sentences cause they are better able to handle it? Either way, its an issue that hopefully wont rear its ugly head anymore as we move forward. Aint no bankers in mountjoy yet either .

Hmm, was very long post sorry, got carried away, heres the final point.

6) Irelands inability to see the writing on the wall. Thats right folks, the writing is on the wall for all to see and our ship of fools is going to crash again. Just like the ryan report was a long time coming, and just like nobody realised the truth until all the pieces were put togather, the reports coming down the line about our prison system are going to be the stuff of nightmares, the ryan report mach 2 anyone? This report by the european committee against torture has to be the final straw for speedy reform by the incoming government, whatever combinations of parties it may contain. If it isnt done now then we may well pass the point of no return and many lives, even if convicted criminals, will be ruined forever, adding yet another unpalitable chapter to the so far sad story of the Irish Republic.

When they come canvassing to your door, ask them would they consider slopping out in the dail in solidarity with the practice in mountjoy, because they are all absolutely full of sh1t.

Freddie59

It never ceases to amaze me how people want us to be 'compassionate of the needs of those in prison' or BS to that effect.

Have you stopped to wonder why these people are in there in the first place?

Whose rights did they violate?

Have you ever been a victim of a criminal act?

Have you seen the trauma caused by impact of aforementioned crimes?

Me?

I'm all for draconian conditions - whatever they may be. Maybe we should take a leaf out of Sheriff Joe's book.

Your comparison between the industrial schools and prisons defies belief. The people placed in Industrial schools were, in the main, guilty of very minor offences, which incuded petty theft (and I mean PETTY).

The thugs that prowl, and in some cases control, our streets do likewise in jail. Prison was supposed to be a deterrent. It no longer is. As one who has seen the action of one thug (who should have been jailed but wasn't) I find it incredible to find that the PC brigade will go to any lengths to defend the actions of, and treatment of, these people.

Regardless of the crime, and what strata of society the perpetrator comes from, it must deter them from trying it again.

Fremen

What evidence do you have that harsher prison sentences or worse conditions work as a more effective deterrent?

About 15% of prison sentences in 2006 were for murder, sexual assault or violence. The rest were for non-violent damage to property, traffic offences and drugs.

Do these people really deserve to live in inhumane conditions in fear of beatings every day?

Freddie59

Fremen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that harsher prison sentences or worse conditions work as a more effective deterrent?

About 15% of prison sentences in 2006 were for murder, sexual assault or violence. The rest were for non-violent damage to property, traffic offences and drugs.

Do these people really deserve to live in inhumane conditions in fear of beatings every day?

Yes. 100%. If that's what it takes. Do you think mollycoddling them is a better idea? Recent experience: a local 91 year-old lady has two thugs enter her house demanding money, forcing her to write checks, etc.

They've been caught. Now, personally, I'd tie them to a fence and flog them to within an inch of their lives if it was allowed. What's your solution?

I presume that these two toerags are covered under property or drugs offences.

Scum.

Kosseegan

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes. 100%. If that's what it takes. Do you think mollycoddling them is a better idea? Recent experience: a local 91 year-old lady has two thugs enter her house demanding money, forcing her to write checks, etc.

They've been caught. Now, personally, I'd tie them to a fence and flog them to within an inch of their lives if it was allowed. What's your solution?

I presume that these two toerags are covered under property or drugs offences.

Scum.

Where did they learn how to do it? Probably in jail or in a home where family members were regularly in jail.
Most people who go to jail come out sometime and when they do tend to continue with their previous behavior only worse.

Freddie59

Kosseegan wrote: »

Where did they learn how to do it? Probably in jail or in a home where family members were regularly in jail.
Most people who go to jail come out sometime and when they do tend to continue with their previous behavior only worse.

'Probably' doesn't cut it. Many criminals come from perfectly respectable families. But I suppose then we'll get the 'oh they fell into bad company' line. Fact is, people are continually excusing the behaviour of scum like those who robbed the old lady.

Nowhere do I see anyone stepping up for the victims - or the wider law-abiding population. It's always the 'poorly treated prisoners'. As I said already - it's ludicrous.

Fremen

Freddie59 wrote: »

Fact is, people are continually excusing the behaviour of scum like those who robbed the old lady.

Are they? I don't think they are.

Nowhere do I see anyone stepping up for the victims - or the wider law-abiding population.

How about the gardai? The justice system? How do you suggest people "step up" for the victims of crime? I don't think vigilantism is the way forward.

You can cut the hands off thieves if you want - you'll still get more thieves. I don't have an easy answer, but I don't think there's compelling evidence that draconian punishments reduce the rate of crime, and I don't think an enlightened society should be so focused on revenge.

Fremen

Fremen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that harsher prison sentences or worse conditions work as a more effective deterrent?

I'm curious about the opposite position... i.e that better conditions/facilities in prisons acts as an effective deterrent or even makes a difference against prisoners repeat offending after release.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not approving of draconian measures (although I have a feeling draconian depends on who's talking about it), but neither am I approving of the provision of "comforts" (tv/internet access, higher quality facilities, etc) to prisoners.

About 15% of prison sentences in 2006 were for murder, sexual assault or violence. The rest were for non-violent damage to property, traffic offences and drugs.

Do these people really deserve to live in inhumane conditions in fear of beatings every day?

Well, I always figured that was the risk of being in prison regardless of the quality of the conditions.. Is there anything to really suggest that better facilities would diminish those risks? Personally, I would think that it would take better observation of the prisoners and more effective disciplinary measures against those that do the beatings.

Freddie59

Fremen wrote: »

Are they? I don't think they are.

When do you see a TV news item or newspaper article proposing sorting scum like this out once and for all? Every time you pick up a paper or look at TV/Internet all you read about is prisoner's 'rights' (a contradiction in terms) or how 'badly' they're treated.

Fremen wrote: »

How about the gardai? The justice system? How do you suggest people "step up" for the victims of crime? I don't think vigilantism is the way forward.

You can cut the hands off thieves if you want - you'll still get more thieves. I don't have an easy answer, but I don't think there's compelling evidence that draconian punishments reduce the rate of crime, and I don't think an enlightened society should be so focused on revenge.

The Gardai are merely arbiters in most instances. Have you ever suffered at the hands of an abusive neighbour (I and my family have)? It's an eye opener. Everything is weighed in favour of the scum offender - and more so if they are very aware of the law. 'Not focus on revenge'. Hmm. I take it you've never been a victim of serious crime ?

Fremen

Freddie59 wrote: »

all you read about is prisoner's 'rights' (a contradiction in terms) or how 'badly' they're treated.

Do you not believe in human rights? Do you realise how extreme the position you're taking is?

My personal experiences with regard to crime are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. I have been mugged and beaten up, but should the experiences of one guy dictate how we treat thousands of prisoners?

Well, I always figured that was the risk of being in prison regardless of the quality of the conditions.. Is there anything to really suggest that better facilities would diminish those risks? Personally, I would think that it would take better observation of the prisoners and more effective disciplinary measures against those that do the beatings.

Well, if the prisons weren't overcrowded, it would probably be easier to supervise the inmates and make sure that kind of thing didn't happen. It'd probably be safer for the prison guards too.

Freddie59

Fremen wrote: »

Do you not believe in human rights? Do you realise how extreme the position you're taking is

Absolutely. And unreservedly. Do YOU not stop to think about the acts perpetrated by these scum (the 91 year-old again)? For even one minute. Why are you, and people like you, so obsessed with treating these people "fairly".

Do they treat those that they have terrorised, robbed, and traumatised fairly? Well?

irishh_bob

Freddie59 wrote: »

'Probably' doesn't cut it. Many criminals come from perfectly respectable families. But I suppose then we'll get the 'oh they fell into bad company' line. Fact is, people are continually excusing the behaviour of scum like those who robbed the old lady.

Nowhere do I see anyone stepping up for the victims - or the wider law-abiding population. It's always the 'poorly treated prisoners'. As I said already - it's ludicrous.

i seriously doubt most criminal come from perfectly respectable familys but that said , im a big believer in the mantra , you pay for the sins of your forefathers

Freddie59

irishh_bob wrote: »

i seriously doubt most criminal come from perfectly respectable familys but that said , im a big believer in the mantra , you pay for the sins of your forefathers

TBH it's irrelevant to me.
Just make jail the deterrent it's supposed to be, and remove their rights - and privileges. Make them DREAD going back there. And if they do go back increase the sentence exponentially every time.

Fittle

Freddie59 wrote: »

TBH it's irrelevant to me.
Just make jail the deterrent it's supposed to be, and remove their rights - and privileges. Make them DREAD going back there. And if they do go back increase the sentence exponentially every time.

Their rights ARE removed when they go into prison. They don't have the same right to freedom that you and I have. They get to shower once a week and over 500 of them get to use a mayonnaise bucket for a toilet, in a cell built to fit one bed, but which sleeps 4/6 with mattresses on the floor. They get one, 6 minute phone call a day (that is also listened to by a prison officer). They get to see their families once a week for 40 minutes, if they are still in touch with their families.

They have the right to vote in prison, but that's one of the few 'rights' they have that joe public also has.

What privileges are you referring to exactly?

Lefticus Loonaticus

Freddie59 wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how people want us to be 'compassionate of the needs of those in prison' or BS to that effect.

Have you stopped to wonder why these people are in there in the first place?

Whose rights did they violate?

Have you ever been a victim of a criminal act?

Have you seen the trauma caused by impact of aforementioned crimes?

Me?

I'm all for draconian conditions - whatever they may be. Maybe we should take a leaf out of Sheriff Joe's book.

Your comparison between the industrial schools and prisons defies belief. The people placed in Industrial schools were, in the main, guilty of very minor offences, which incuded petty theft (and I mean PETTY).

The thugs that prowl, and in some cases control, our streets do likewise in jail. Prison was supposed to be a deterrent. It no longer is. As one who has seen the action of one thug (who should have been jailed but wasn't) I find it incredible to find that the PC brigade will go to any lengths to defend the actions of, and treatment of, these people.

Regardless of the crime, and what strata of society the perpetrator comes from, it must deter them from trying it again.

Prisons are supposed to be depressing places. Its not about being compassionate, its about our country being in violation of human rights and its being pointed out to us by this report and probably many more to come.

I dealt in detail with your assumption that all those in prison are scum. Murderers, rapists and people of a violent variety in general deserve what they get, the problem is there are alot of other people who are not within this catagory who are getting thrown into the same conditions. This is what should be worrying people.

Yes, I have been a victim of crime. Got assaulted twice and got my wallet robbed during one of them. Do I want them to suffer for f**king me over? Yes. Do I want them to pay a price equal or slightly worse than happened to me? Yes. Do I want them to be locked into a place where human rights violations are occurring, where they have to crap in a bucket in an overcrowded cell and where they are at serious threat of violence 24/7? No, I dont, I personally wouldnt wish that on my worst enemy, unless they did somthing extreme and deserved it.

Joe Arpio is a scumbag of the highest possible order. He runs chaingangs where prisoners have to wear pink uniforms. The last time I heard about him he had a pregnant mexican woman chained to a trolley in a hospital when she was giving birth. Her crime? She was working illegally.

Your sir, should be ashamed of yourself for promoting such an example. You seem proud that europe is producing these reports about us, must be good reading for you.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Fremen wrote: »

What evidence do you have that harsher prison sentences or worse conditions work as a more effective deterrent?

About 15% of prison sentences in 2006 were for murder, sexual assault or violence. The rest were for non-violent damage to property, traffic offences and drugs.

Do these people really deserve to live in inhumane conditions in fear of beatings every day?

Well said. Important to point out also, the % has changed hugely in the past few years. Theres way more people being crammed in currently. This is what people dont seem to understand, that it could be you, me or a friend or family that has this happen to them over somthing that is relatively minor.

In my own opinion, the prison system is becoming more of a threat to society than crime itself since the majority of people in prison are at a serious risk of crime way more so that the rest of society. I have never broken the law, but if I did ever have a day in court, even if only over somthing stupid like a fine, I would get a flight out of this country and never, ever come back. Who would ever wanna risk getting put in one of these places? Even if just for a day.

liah

Freddie59, what is your solution to those later found to be wrongfully convicted? Issue a written apology after cutting their hands off or what?

I'd actually kind of like to know a genuine response from someone who takes this kind of all-or-nothing attitude.

Freddie59

liah wrote: »

Freddie59, what is your solution to those later found to be wrongfully convicted? Issue a written apology after cutting their hands off or what?

I'd actually kind of like to know a genuine response from someone who takes this kind of all-or-nothing attitude.

Genuine response - here it is.

No. 1. 'Europe' is not producing these reports. In the OP it states that a 'European Committee Against Torture' (a vested interest group) has commissioned the report. So 'slopping out' is now torture?

No.2. Where did i say all prisoners were scum? I produced the example of the scum who robbed the 91 year-old lady and the example of the toe-rag neighbour we had to deal with. Interesting, no-one on this thread has condemned the treatment of the 91 year-old, instead defending prisoner's 'rights' and attacking anyone with the opposite viewpoint. An indictment of the PC brigade at large in our society today.

No. 3. 'Violation of human rights'. Amazing how that them is applied to the treatment of those who have violated the rights of others, with scant regard for them.

No. 4. interesting to see that the pro-prisoner/'human rights' lobby here present prisoners as some kind of defiled, sinned-against innocents. You'd think they were all in jail for evading their TV licence or parking fines, not for murder, rape, theft, drugs, and intimidation.

No. 5. Sheriff Joe has it just right. More's the pity we can't have some of that over here.

I really don't care about prisoners TBH. I care about my family and the law-abiding people in society. Others would do well to do the same.

liah

Freddie59 wrote: »

Genuine response - here it is.

No. 1. 'Europe' is not producing these reports. In the OP it states that a 'European Committee Against Torture' (a vested interest group) has commissioned the report. So 'slopping out' is now torture?

No.2. Where did i say all prisoners were scum? I produced the example of the scum who robbed the 91 year-old lady and the example of the toe-rag neighbour we had to deal with. Interesting, no-one on this thread has condemned the treatment of the 91 year-old, instead defending prisoner's 'rights' and attacking anyone with the opposite viewpoint. An indictment of the PC brigade at large in our society today.

No. 3. 'Violation of human rights'. Amazing how that them is applied to the treatment of those who have violated the rights of others, with scant regard for them.

No. 4. interesting to see that the pro-prisoner/'human rights' lobby here present prisoners as some kind of defiled, sinned-against innocents. You'd think they were all in jail for evading their TV licence or parking fines, not for murder, rape, theft, drugs, and intimidation.

No. 5. Sheriff Joe has it just right. More's the pity we can't have some of that over here.

I really don't care about prisoners TBH. I care about my family and the law-abiding people in society. Others would do well to do the same.

I don't think any of that had anything to do at all with the question I asked of you, or even a single thing I said.

What do you think we should do upon, after already doling out corporal punishment, finding out they (the now punished) were wrongfully convicted of their crime and are, in fact, innocent?

What would be your solution?

Kosseegan

Freddie59 wrote: »

'Probably' doesn't cut it. Many criminals come from perfectly respectable families. .

The statistics are there to be found. The majority of inmates in Mountjoy come from a small number of areas of Dublin. Three or four postal districts in fact. Ex prisoners who come out of jail are going to be worse than they were going. They will commit even more horrific crimes than the first ones that got them in. There is no need for wider society to descend to the level of criminals. Inhumanely treating someone because of their gross behaviour brings you down to their level. Enjoy it down there!

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote: »

The thugs that prowl, and in some cases control, our streets do likewise in jail. Prison was supposed to be a deterrent. It no longer is.

Of course it is a deterrent, the vast majority of people never commit a criminal offense.

The issue is that prison isn't, and never was, a deterrent for someone people, for various reasons.

So society has to deal with the fact that there will always be some people who have to come through the prison system.

We can choose to completely destroy these people as they do pass through the prison system. It might make people feel better, but it also seems to vastly increases the risk of escalation of re-offense when they come out the other side (ie a non-violent mugger will "graduate" to be a violent bank robber when they emerge from prison)

So it seems a rather pointless exercise.

Its all very well talking about improving the standards of our prisons but where does the money come from? Seriously.

Freddie59

Deleted User wrote: »

Its all very well talking about improving the standards of our prisons but where does the money come from? Seriously.

Yes there is that to consider also. Spend it on prisoner's 'rights' or the wider law-abiding population? A no-brainer.

@liah: you have also completely ignored the plight of the 91 year-old in your defence of criminals. What is YOUR solution? Treat them all as if they're innocent? No thanks. I prefer the current option.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Freddie59 wrote: »

Genuine response - here it is.

No. 1. 'Europe' is not producing these reports. In the OP it states that a 'European Committee Against Torture' (a vested interest group) has commissioned the report. So 'slopping out' is now torture?

No.2. Where did i say all prisoners were scum? I produced the example of the scum who robbed the 91 year-old lady and the example of the toe-rag neighbour we had to deal with. Interesting, no-one on this thread has condemned the treatment of the 91 year-old, instead defending prisoner's 'rights' and attacking anyone with the opposite viewpoint. An indictment of the PC brigade at large in our society today.

No. 3. 'Violation of human rights'. Amazing how that them is applied to the treatment of those who have violated the rights of others, with scant regard for them.

No. 4. interesting to see that the pro-prisoner/'human rights' lobby here present prisoners as some kind of defiled, sinned-against innocents. You'd think they were all in jail for evading their TV licence or parking fines, not for murder, rape, theft, drugs, and intimidation.

No. 5. Sheriff Joe has it just right. More's the pity we can't have some of that over here.

I really don't care about prisoners TBH. I care about my family and the law-abiding people in society. Others would do well to do the same.

Freddie, your tactic of trying to tar me or anyone else with the same brush as some scumbag who robbed a granny is not going to work and is childish. Your a good example of the lame arguments being used to justify this system. In fact, your the best ammo I could have ever dreamed of getting, so keep going please.

As I and many others have pointed out in detail, time and time again, the vast majority of people in prison have not attacked a 91 year old granny. People who attack grannies or who commit other awful crimes can and should go down for a long time. This debate however, is centered mainly around most of the other prisoners, particularly those of minor non violent offences and financial offences.

If you think people are not going to prison because they didnt pay their TV license, you are living on the moon.

If you really cared about the elderly, you would be kicking up a fuss about a caller to liveline around 6 or so months ago. An elderly man who didnt pay his dog license, missed his court appearance because of a hospital appointment. Because he was in contempt of court, he was sent to prison. The only thing that saved him in the end was the decency of prison officers who noticed somthing was very wrong while they were processing him and he was let out. This is the kind of crap that is going on with the justice system and it needs to be cut out.

Coming on here with arguements like yours really does not aid the situation at all. And yes, having to sleep in a room with a bucket of sh1t is torture, if you think it isnt why dont you try it somtime.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Deleted User wrote: »

Its all very well talking about improving the standards of our prisons but where does the money come from? Seriously.

Its not about money at all, its about reform.

Freddie59

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Freddie, your tactic of trying to tar me or anyone else with the same brush as some scumbag who robbed a granny is not going to work and is childish. Your a good example of the lame arguments being used to justify this system. In fact, your the best ammo I could have ever dreamed of getting, so keep going please.

As I and many others have pointed out in detail, time and time again, the vast majority of people in prison have not attacked a 91 year old granny. People who attack grannies or who commit other awful crimes can and should go down for a long time. This debate however, is centered mainly around most of the other prisoners, particularly those of minor non violent offences and financial offences.

If you think people are not going to prison because they didnt pay their TV license, you are living on the moon.

If you really cared about the elderly, you would be kicking up a fuss about a caller to liveline around 6 or so months ago. An elderly man who didnt pay his dog license, missed his court appearance because of a hospital appointment. Because he was in contempt of court, he was sent to prison. The only thing that saved him in the end was the decency of prison officers who noticed somthing was very wrong while they were processing him and he was let out. This is the kind of crap that is going on with the justice system and it needs to be cut out.

Coming on here with arguements like yours really does not aid the situation at all. And yes, having to sleep in a room with a bucket of sh1t is torture, if you think it isnt why dont you try it somtime.

I won't have to. I'm law-abiding. Unlike the people you seek to defend and beatify. 'Centred around most of the other prisoners'. So you would seek for one to be less hardshly treated than the other? How very magnanimous of you.:rolleyes:

Regarding 'justifying the system' I have said already I don't care about prisoners. I only care for those they have robbed, beaten, raped, and those they have turned into drug addicts, destroying families in the process. But hey - you just keep on defending those fine upstanding criminals citizens.

I'm sure it makes you feel all nice and warm inside. It might surprise you, but the majority of hard-working, law-abiding people like me hold my viewpoint. Now THERE'S a shock.

Freddie59

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Its not about money at all, its about reform.

Or making criminals more comfortable? Same difference. As I said, spend it on prisoners, or the wider, law-abiding population. A no-brainer.

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote: »

@liah: you have also completely ignored the plight of the 91 year-old in your defence of criminals. What is YOUR solution? Treat them all as if they're innocent? No thanks. I prefer the current option.

You are completely ignoring the plight of the 91 year old as well.

Locking up the people who robbed her does little for her, her crime has already been committed. It isn't going to be uncommitted because you lock up those who did it. What she needs is social and counselling services, which is significantly different to making prisons harsher.

MrPudding

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. 1. 'Europe' is not producing these reports. In the OP it states that a 'European Committee Against Torture' (a vested interest group) has commissioned the report. So 'slopping out' is now torture?

It is not just about torture, it is also about cruel and degrading treatment. Irrespective of what a person has done, they should be entitled to be treated like a human being. This should be the case even when they chose not to afford such concessions to their victims. Society should set the example. For me the treatment given to people like prisoner, who have chosen to not abide by the standards set out by society is the sign of a good and fair society, when that treatment is good obviously.

Freddie59 wrote: »

No.2. Where did i say all prisoners were scum? I produced the example of the scum who robbed the 91 year-old lady and the example of the toe-rag neighbour we had to deal with. Interesting, no-one on this thread has condemned the treatment of the 91 year-old, instead defending prisoner's 'rights' and attacking anyone with the opposite viewpoint. An indictment of the PC brigade at large in our society today.

Hard cases make bad law. Everyone can think of a really horrific case and use it as a reason to remove right from prisoners. It is pretty easy to do and intellectually lazy. I would take it as a given that everyone in this thread is not supportive of how this woman was treated. We are not idiots. I would expect that most people have not specifically mentioned it, despite your repeated use of the example, as it is fairly obvious that it is behaviour that should be condemned and hardly needs mentioning.

It is possible to try to protect the rights of victims and those of prisoners. The two are not mutually exclusive. What is mutually exclusive is human rights and the idea that someone that commits a crime should have all rights removed. Saying that a prisoner should not have to sh1t in a bucket in front of 6 people or be victim to regular physical or mental abuse is not a derogation of the human rights of the victim.

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. 3. 'Violation of human rights'. Amazing how that them is applied to the treatment of those who have violated the rights of others, with scant regard for them.

Prisoner do not cease being humans. They are still human and should still be treated as such. As I said earlier, I think it is the mark of a developed and fair society that it respects the right of all its citizens, particularly those that chose to not treat others in the same way.

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. 4. interesting to see that the pro-prisoner/'human rights' lobby here present prisoners as some kind of defiled, sinned-against innocents. You'd think they were all in jail for evading their TV licence or parking fines, not for murder, rape, theft, drugs, and intimidation.

I don’t think this is the case. They present them as human beings. As has been pointed out already, many of those in prison are there for fairly minor crimes. As far as I am concerned the crime is pretty much irrelevant. No matter how bad the crime the person is still a human being.

Freddie59 wrote: »

No. 5. Sheriff Joe has it just right. More's the pity we can't have some of that over here.

I am aware of Sheriff Joe, but I don’t have any figures for his effectiveness. Even if it was effective, I am not sure I would necessarily support a similar scheme.

Freddie59 wrote: »

I really don't care about prisoners TBH. I care about my family and the law-abiding people in society. Others would do well to do the same.

It is perfectly possible to do both. I have family and I care very deeply for them. I also care about the wider society that I live in, and for me that includes law abiding people and non law abiding people. Just because I think that prisoners should be afforded basic human rights does not mean I don’t care about my family or law abiding people.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its all very well talking about improving the standards of our prisons but where does the money come from? Seriously.

Perhaps it needs to be part of a bigger look a prison in general. Personally I think that too many people are being sent to prison. I think they should reduce the numbers ebing sent to prison, particularly for short periods, and look at more innovative way of punishing and rehabilitating wrongdoers. Scotland has now done away with sentences of less than 6 months. England and Wales are doing away with sentences of less than 3 months. On balance this is probably a good thing.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes there is that to consider also. Spend it on prisoner's 'rights' or the wider law-abiding population? A no-brainer.

It is a no brainer. Spend it on the prisoner’s rights, well spotted! Ireland is in breach of its obligations and needs to fix it. It would be incredibly silly of them to ignore this.

Freddie59 wrote: »

@liah: you have also completely ignored the plight of the 91 year-old in your defence of criminals. What is YOUR solution? Treat them all as if they're innocent? No thanks. I prefer the current option.

No one is ignoring your poor 91 year old. This kind of crime is shameful, disgusting and should be punished. Should it be punished by removing basic human rights? No.

MrP

prinz

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Joe Arpio is a scumbag of the highest possible order. He runs chaingangs where prisoners have to wear pink uniforms..

Prisoners doing something constructive.......and pink uniforms.....the horror :eek:

Fittle

Freddie59 wrote: »

I have said already I don't care about prisoners. I only care for those they have robbed, beaten, raped, and those they have turned into drug addicts, destroying families in the process.

How do you 'care' about the victims exactly?

To treat people like animals does nothing to rehabilitate them - it does nothing to ensure that they aren't released from prison only to commit the same crimes time and time again.

Some facts below (source www.iprt.ie);

6,681 imprisoned for non-payment of fines in 2010
There are 1,003 prisoners 'slopping out' in Irish prisons. (17th Dec 2010.)
There are 38 children imprisoned in St Patrick's Institution, which is in breach of human rights law. (10th Dec 2010.)
90.3% of sentenced committals in 2009 were for non-violent offences.
There were 3,601 sentenced committals for road traffic offences in 2009, representing 33.1% of the total.

Zombrex

Fittle wrote: »

How do you 'care' about the victims exactly?

+1

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote: »

You are completely ignoring the plight of the 91 year old as well.

Locking up the people who robbed her does little for her, her crime has already been committed. It isn't going to be uncommitted because you lock up those who did it. What she needs is social and counselling services, which is significantly different to making prisons harsher.

So make the prisons softer....and provide 'counselling' the a 91 year-old victim? great plan. Again the emphasis is on protecting the scum who did this in the first instance.

Freddie59

MrPudding wrote: »

It is not just about torture, it is also about cruel and degrading treatment. Irrespective of what a person has done, they should be entitled to be treated like a human being.

Absolutely not. The same way they treat their victims as human beings?

MrPudding wrote: »

Hard cases make bad law. Everyone can think of a really horrific case and use it as a reason to remove right from prisoners. It is pretty easy to do and intellectually lazy. I would take it as a given that everyone in this thread is not supportive of how this woman was treated. We are not idiots. I would expect that most people have not specifically mentioned it, despite your repeated use of the example, as it is fairly obvious that it is behaviour that should be condemned and hardly needs mentioning.

You are the first to do so......while at the same time fighting the corner for the toerags who terrorised her. What was the term you used: 'intellectually lazy'?

MrPudding wrote: »

It is possible to try to protect the rights of victims and those of prisoners. The two are not mutually exclusive. What is mutually exclusive is human rights and the idea that someone that commits a crime should have all rights removed. Saying that a prisoner should not have to sh1t in a bucket in front of 6 people or be victim to regular physical or mental abuse is not a derogation of the human rights of the victim.

How very Utopian. The real world is a far different place.

MrPudding wrote: »

Prisoner do not cease being humans. They are still human and should still be treated as such. As I said earlier, I think it is the mark of a developed and fair society that it respects the right of all its citizens, particularly those that chose to not treat others in the same way.

Paedophiles and rapists ceased being human the minute they committed the crime. End of story.

MrPudding wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the crime is pretty much irrelevant. No matter how bad the crime the person is still a human being.

Even a paedophile? Your logic defies belief. Is you judgement REALLY this clouded?

MrPudding wrote: »

I am aware of Sheriff Joe, but I don’t have any figures for his effectiveness. Even if it was effective, I am not sure I would necessarily support a similar scheme.

I - and many citizens - would support such a scheme. 100%.

MrPudding wrote: »

It is perfectly possible to do both. I have family and I care very deeply for them. I also care about the wider society that I live in, and for me that includes law abiding people and non law abiding people. Just because I think that prisoners should be afforded basic human rights does not mean I don’t care about my family or law abiding people.

Indirectly it does. You are endeavouring to protect - in a lot of instances - people who would not think twice about attacking you and your (or my) family.

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps it needs to be part of a bigger look a prison in general. Personally I think that too many people are being sent to prison. I think they should reduce the numbers ebing sent to prison, particularly for short periods, and look at more innovative way of punishing and rehabilitating wrongdoers. Scotland has now done away with sentences of less than 6 months. England and Wales are doing away with sentences of less than 3 months. On balance this is probably a good thing.

Definitely not. Define 'innovative ways'. Someone commits a crime.....and they're sent to pick up rubbish? Nuts.

MrPudding wrote: »

It is a no brainer. Spend it on the prisoner’s rights, well spotted! Ireland is in breach of its obligations and needs to fix it. It would be incredibly silly of them to ignore this.

Its obligation to what, precisely? The protection of its citizens, or the placating of the PC lobby?

MrPudding wrote: »

No one is ignoring your poor 91 year old. This kind of crime is shameful, disgusting and should be punished. Should it be punished by removing basic human rights? No.
MrP

It MUST be. No two ways about it.

Freddie59

Fittle wrote: »

How do you 'care' about the victims exactly?

OK, if you want to be pedantic about it. My main concern is for the victims, not the scum who turn them into victims in the first place.

Fittle wrote: »

To treat people like animals does nothing to rehabilitate them - it does nothing to ensure that they aren't released from prison only to commit the same crimes time and time again.

OK. Let's not send them to jail. Let them be 'counselled' and 'rehabilitated'.

Wonderful.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote: »

So make the prisons softer....and provide 'counselling' the a 91 year-old victim? great plan. Again the emphasis is on protecting the scum who did this in the first instance.

What?

a) How is providing counselling services for victims of crime "protecting the scum who did this"

b) How is harsh punishment for criminals anything to do with helping victims of crime.

You seem more interested in revenge fantasies than any genuine concern for victims of crime.

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote: »

What?

a) How is providing counselling services for victims of crime "protecting the scum who did this"

b) How is harsh punishment for criminals anything to do with helping victims of crime.

You seem more interested in revenge fantasies than any genuine concern for victims of crime.

And you seem oblivious to the world around you. No comment on the paedophiles and rapists, I see (and I didn't even mention drug peddlers and thieves).

a) Can you please point out where exactly this statement is in my post?

b) How is mollycoddling them and telling them not be naughty boys/girls precisely going to work?

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote: »

And you seem oblivious to the world around you.

If you say so.

Freddie59 wrote: »

No comment on the paedophiles and rapists, I see (and I didn't even mention drug peddlers and thieves).

Did you ask me for a comment on them?

Freddie59 wrote: »

a) Can you please point out where exactly this statement is in my post?

"provide 'counselling' the a 91 year-old victim? great plan. Again the emphasis is on protecting the scum who did this in the first instance."

Again I ask you, how are you getting from counselling for victims of crime to protecting the criminal who did the crime?

Freddie59 wrote: »

b) How is mollycoddling them and telling them not be naughty boys/girls precisely going to work?

"Work" with regard to what exactly?

I'm focusing on helping the victims of crime and all you can talk about is increasing the harshness of sentences for criminals, which has nothing to do with helping the victims of crime even if we agree that harsher sentences are in order which most people don't as it simply leads to greater instances of re-offence.

Again your faux concern for victims of crime rings hollow. You just want to indulge in torture fantasies to make yourself feel better.

Fittle

Freddie59 wrote: »

OK, if you want to be pedantic about it. My main concern is for the victims, not the scum who turn them into victims in the first place.



OK. Let's not send them to jail. Let them be 'counselled' and 'rehabilitated'.

Wonderful.:rolleyes:

Now it's your concern (underlined)?

No one has said 'let's not send them to jail - let's rehabilate them'.

You said that.

With respect, your constant reference to the 91yr old victim is nothing more than you using this ladies horrendous attack on her, trying desperately to senasationalise your point of 'lock them up and throw away the key'. And it's not working.

Daegerty

Is it maybe time to introduce caning over here?

Freddie59

Fittle wrote: »

Now it's your concern (underlined)?

No one has said 'let's not send them to jail - let's rehabilate them'.

You said that.

With respect, your constant reference to the 91yr old victim is nothing more than you using this ladies horrendous attack on her, trying desperately to senasationalise your point of 'lock them up and throw away the key'. And it's not working.

I refer you to your reply in post No. 31 regarding 'rehabilitation'. I don't have to sensationalise. This is a matter of fact. And you are trying to rationalise - and excuse - the behaviour of the perpetrators.

You are WAY out of kilter with your views. Society views these scum, along with paedophiles and rapists with the contempt which they deserve.

And no amount of bleeding heart liberal posturing can change that. Ever.

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote: »

"Work" with regard to what exactly?

Making them behave like normal human beings - which you seem to think they already are.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm focusing on helping the victims of crime and all you can talk about is increasing the harshness of sentences for criminals, which has nothing to do with helping the victims of crime even if we agree that harsher sentences are in order which most people don't as it simply leads to greater instances of re-offence.

'Which most people don't'. And you base this on what? Helping the victims of crime. Don't make me laugh!

Wicknight wrote: »

Again your faux concern for victims of crime rings hollow. You just want to indulge in torture fantasies to make yourself feel better.

Hmm. So because I want rapists, murderers, and paedophiles punshed (which you apparently don't - preferring the kid gloves option) you think I indulge in torture fantasies? That's a stretch - even for you! The only one with faux concern for victims is you my friend. And you've proven that with your comments.

Fittle

Freddie59 wrote: »

Making them behave like normal human beings - which you seem to think they already are.



'

So the 6,681 people committed in 2010 for fine defaulting AREN'T normal human beings?


'Society views these scum, along with paedophiles and rapists with the contempt which they deserve.'

According to you, every single person in every single prison is scum and to be put into the same category as paedophiles and rapists - is that what you're saying here?

Slightly delusional?

MrPudding

Freddie59 wrote: »

Absolutely not. The same way they treat their victims as human beings?

being in prison is the punishment of prison. It is losing the freedom to do what you want to do and go where you want to go. That is the punishment that society has decided on. There were harsher punishments in the past but as society has become more civilised, so has the punishments. Clearly you don’t see this, but luckily for us you are in a position to do anything about it except whine.

Freddie59 wrote: »

You are the first to do so......while at the same time fighting the corner for the toerags who terrorised her. What was the term you used: 'intellectually lazy'?

I think intellectually last is a very apt term. It is very easy to pick example from the extremes and use them to try to dictate what the baseline for punishment should be. To decide that prison, and it conditions, should be bases on the behaviour of the perpetrators of one particular crime is intellectually lazy. You are ignoring so many other factors which should be taken into account.

Freddie59 wrote: »

How very Utopian. The real world is a far different place.

Utopia? I think not. Like everyone I actually do live in he real world. And everyday in many countries around the world the rights of victims and the rights of prisoners are protected. You seem to think that there is a human right which says that if someone does you a wrong then they should be punished in a cruel, unusual and degrading way. No such right exists. Victims need support and help, but that is completely separate to the treatment of the person that did the wrong.

Of course, there is an argument that the victim needs to see the perpetrator being horrifically punished. I don’t see that as a valid need, and I most certainly don’t believe it is a right, and neither do I think it should be.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Paedophiles and rapists ceased being human the minute they committed the crime. End of story.

No. They didn’t. They are still humans. Horrible and foul humans, but still humans none the less. I am no fan of murderers, rapists or paedophiles, I simply think that however little respect they show to their victim’s rights, society should show them how society should operate.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Even a paedophile? Your logic defies belief. Is you judgement REALLY this clouded?

Yes. Even a paedophile is still a human. Do I like them? No. Do I think they should be allowed to roam our streets? No. Do I think they should go to prison if convicted? Yes. Do I think they should be treated like animals or sub-humans while they are there? No. My judgment is not clouded, far from it.

Freddie59 wrote: »

I - and many citizens - would support such a scheme. 100%.

Well, we shall see if it happens. I think it is unlikely. And since when did a lot of people thinking something was a good idea make it a good idea?

Freddie59 wrote: »

Indirectly it does. You are endeavouring to protect - in a lot of instances - people who would not think twice about attacking you and your (or my) family.

Utter rubbish. How does treating prisoners as human beings increase the risk to my family? They are in fcuking prison. I know some of there people would not think twice about attacking me or my family, but I am not talking about letting them out early, or not sending them to prison at all. I am simply talking about improving the conditions in which they are kept. This is part of a wider problem in the criminal justice system. You seem to be focusing on a very small segment of it, people that attack 91 year old women, for example, and not looking at the wider problem.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Definitely not. Define 'innovative ways'. Someone commits a crime.....and they're sent to pick up rubbish? Nuts.

Definitely not what? Definitely not too many people being sent to prison? Of course there are. Did you even look at the figures Fittle posted? I presume you ignored them as they do not fit with your prisoner = non-human outlook. It is widely believe that in a lot of cases sending people to prison is not necessarily the best way to deal with it. This is why Scotland and Engalnd & Wales are doing away with short sentences.

For certain crimes, those of a non-violent nature for example, prison is probably not the best answer. Sending a person somewhere where he is forced to hang around with more criminals is likely not the best way to turn someone from a life of crime. Particularly when they are young and there is still a chance to “save” them. When you also consider that once this person gets out of prison he is unlikely to be able to secure gainful employment, you really have to think that it might not be the best course of action at all.

Dangerous people should be locked up. But they should still have basic human rights.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Its obligation to what, precisely? The protection of its citizens, or the placating of the PC lobby?

A state has an obligation to protect its citizens. That obligation exists where the citizen is in prison or not. Fortunately the people that matter don’t seem to hold to your idea that people in prison are not human. You might call it placating the PC lobby, I prefer to think of it as fulfilling the obligations the country has under treaties it voluntarily signed up to. We live in a civilised society. Some of the members are far from civilised, btu the rest of us do not have to sink to their level.

Freddie59 wrote: »

It MUST be. No two ways about it.

Simply put, you are wrong. You may think it “MUST be” but it won’t. And that is right.

MrP

Freddie59

Fittle wrote: »

So the 6,681 people committed in 2010 for fine defaulting AREN'T normal human beings?


'Society views these scum, along with paedophiles and rapists with the contempt which they deserve.'

According to you, every single person in every single prison is scum and to be put into the same category as paedophiles and rapists - is that what you're saying here?

Slightly delusional?

Is there any chance you would actually read the post before commenting?:rolleyes:
You have taken a sentence out of context (nothing new there, given your views). The scum mentioned here are the ones who terrorised the old lady.

Freddie59

MrPudding wrote: »

being in prison is the punishment of prison. It is losing the freedom to do what you want to do and go where you want to go. That is the punishment that society has decided on. There were harsher punishments in the past but as society has become more civilised, so has the punishments. Clearly you don’t see this, but luckily for us you are in a position to do anything about it except whine.

Whine? because I voice a (wdiely-held) viewpoint, contrary to the politcally correct one that you do? I think not.

MrPudding wrote: »

I think intellectually last is a very apt term. It is very easy to pick example from the extremes and use them to try to dictate what the baseline for punishment should be. To decide that prison, and it conditions, should be bases on the behaviour of the perpetrators of one particular crime is intellectually lazy. You are ignoring so many other factors which should be taken into account.

It is not intellectually lazy. It is the best to protect the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves, such as abused babies and young children.

MrPudding wrote: »

Utopia? I think not. Like everyone I actually do live in he real world. And everyday in many countries around the world the rights of victims and the rights of prisoners are protected. You seem to think that there is a human right which says that if someone does you a wrong then they should be punished in a cruel, unusual and degrading way. No such right exists. Victims need support and help, but that is completely separate to the treatment of the person that did the wrong.

As I asked earlier, what's YOUR solution. Mollcoddle them. Ask the not to be naughty boys/girls? When they reoffend what is your solution then.

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course, there is an argument that the victim needs to see the perpetrator being horrifically punished. I don’t see that as a valid need, and I most certainly don’t believe it is a right, and neither do I think it should be.

You'd be singing from a different hymnsheet if your daughter was brutally raped in the morning.

MrPudding wrote: »

No. They didn’t. They are still humans. Horrible and foul humans, but still humans none the less. I am no fan of murderers, rapists or paedophiles, I simply think that however little respect they show to their victim’s rights, society should show them how society should operate.

Yes. Even a paedophile is still a human. Do I like them? No. Do I think they should be allowed to roam our streets? No. Do I think they should go to prison if convicted? Yes. Do I think they should be treated like animals or sub-humans while they are there? No. My judgment is not clouded, far from it..

It is so clouded it is unbelieveable. These ARE the scum of the Earth. No two ways about it. I cannot understand how any person could entertain defending them for even one instant.

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, we shall see if it happens. I think it is unlikely. And since when did a lot of people thinking something was a good idea make it a good idea?.

And your proposals are to mollycoddle brutal criminals and protect their "human" (what a contradiction in terms) rights?

MrPudding wrote: »

Utter rubbish. How does treating prisoners as human beings increase the risk to my family? They are in fcuking prison. I know some of there people would not think twice about attacking me or my family, but I am not talking about letting them out early, or not sending them to prison at all. I am simply talking about improving the conditions in which they are kept. This is part of a wider problem in the criminal justice system. You seem to be focusing on a very small segment of it, people that attack 91 year old women, for example, and not looking at the wider problem.?

a) Because your family has not been affected does not give you the right to belittle the impact of these beasts on someone who HAS been affected. How dare you.

b) I am fosucing on a widespread problem, which is very rarely publicised. The most marginal and vulnerable in our society (the elderly) being preyed upon by scum - scum which you seek to defend and protect, no matter what their crime.

MrPudding wrote: »

Definitely not what? Definitely not too many people being sent to prison? Of course there are. Did you even look at the figures Fittle posted? I presume you ignored them as they do not fit with your prisoner = non-human outlook. It is widely believe that in a lot of cases sending people to prison is not necessarily the best way to deal with it. This is why Scotland and Engalnd & Wales are doing away with short sentences.

So because England and Scotland (those paragons of justice) do it, it makes it a good idea?;)

MrPudding wrote: »

For certain crimes, those of a non-violent nature for example, prison is probably not the best answer. Sending a person somewhere where he is forced to hang around with more criminals is likely not the best way to turn someone from a life of crime. Particularly when they are young and there is still a chance to “save” them. When you also consider that once this person gets out of prison he is unlikely to be able to secure gainful employment, you really have to think that it might not be the best course of action at all..

And just what would these "certain crimes" be? Rape? Aggravated Robbery? Child abuse? Drug dealing and intimidation?

MrPudding wrote: »

Dangerous people should be locked up. But they should still have basic human rights.

First sentence definitely. Second sentence absolutely not.

MrPudding wrote: »

A state has an obligation to protect its citizens. That obligation exists where the citizen is in prison or not. Fortunately the people that matter don’t seem to hold to your idea that people in prison are not human. You might call it placating the PC lobby, I prefer to think of it as fulfilling the obligations the country has under treaties it voluntarily signed up to. We live in a civilised society. Some of the members are far from civilised, btu the rest of us do not have to sink to their level.

A state has a DUTY; not an obligation, to protect its citizens. Unforunately, the people that matter, as you put it, are beholden to a very vocal minority, most of who are never affected by the scum they seek to protect. A sad reflection on our society

MrPudding wrote: »

Simply put, you are wrong. You may think it “MUST be” but it won’t. And that is right.MrP

From YOUR clouded perspective. The harsher things are made for violent criminals the better.

twinQuins

Let's deconstruct your post, shall we?

Freddie59 wrote: »

Whine? because I voice a (wdiely-held) viewpoint, contrary to the politcally correct one that you do? I think not.

Argumentum ad populum.

It is not intellectually lazy. It is the best to protect the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves, such as abused babies and young children.

Hard cases make bad laws. There's a reason why laws are drafted to deal with the most likely scenarios rather than the worst.

As I asked earlier, what's YOUR solution. Mollcoddle them. Ask the not to be naughty boys/girls? When they reoffend what is your solution then.

Poisoning the well and/or false dichotomy.

You'd be singing from a different hymnsheet if your daughter was brutally raped in the morning.

Appeal to fear.

It is so clouded it is unbelieveable. These ARE the scum of the Earth. No two ways about it.

So you say.

I cannot understand how any person could entertain defending them for even one instant.

Neither can I. Thankfully no one in this thread is doing that.

And your proposals are to mollycoddle brutal criminals and protect their "human" (what a contradiction in terms) rights?

Again, poisoning the well/false dichotomy.

a) Because your family has not been affected does not give you the right to belittle the impact of these beasts on someone who HAS been affected. How dare you.

Circumstancial ad hominem.

b) I am fosucing on a widespread problem, which is very rarely publicised. The most marginal and vulnerable in our society (the elderly) being preyed upon by scum - scum which you seek to defend and protect, no matter what their crime.

Straw man.

So because England and Scotland (those paragons of justice) do it, it makes it a good idea?;)

Tu quoque.

And just what would these "certain crimes" be? Rape? Aggravated Robbery? Child abuse? Drug dealing and intimidation?

Did you purposefully ignore the "non-violent" part of the very paragraph you quoted?

First sentence definitely. Second sentence absolutely not.

For what purpose?

A state has a DUTY; not an obligation, to protect its citizens. Unforunately, the people that matter, as you put it, are beholden to a very vocal minority, most of who are never affected by the scum they seek to protect. A sad reflection on our society

Circumstancial ad hominem.

The harsher things are made for violent criminals the better.

Bare assertion.

So, quite a few logical fallacies and very little substance.

Lefticus Loonaticus

Lefticus Loonaticus wrote: »

Its not about money at all, its about reform.

All very idealistic.. but still doesn't answer my question. A reform of the prison system would cost a fortune. Where does the money come from? Should it be taken from the money allocated to improve the hospitals, or the schools, or funding for suicide awareness, etc etc etc???

We don't have enough money to run the country along with urgent demands to improve vital areas and..

You might talk about reform.. but i'd like to see some realism instead of high minded ideas.

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote: »

Making them behave like normal human beings - which you seem to think they already are.

a) How does harming criminals make them behave like normal human beings?

b) Even if it did, what does that have to do with helping victims of crime?

Freddie59 wrote: »

'Which most people don't'. And you base this on what?

Study after study has shown that harsher prison conditions increases re-offense. But then you don't really strike me as someone who really cares about things like that.

You seem purely interested in making criminals suffer, who cares if they proceed to do more crime afterwards.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Hmm. So because I want rapists, murderers, and paedophiles punshed (which you apparently don't - preferring the kid gloves option) you think I indulge in torture fantasies?

You want criminals punished in increasingly harsh manner, at the expense of society or future victims of crime.

So yes. I think you just like the idea of them suffering. You seem to have no genuine interest in lowering crime rates or helping victims of crime or heaven forbid stopping criminals re-offending.

Freddie59

twinQuins wrote: »

Let's deconstruct your post, shall we?



Argumentum ad populum.

Hard cases make bad laws. There's a reason why laws are drafted to deal with the most likely scenarios rather than the worst.

Poisoning the well and/or false dichotomy.

Appeal to fear.



So you say.



Neither can I. Thankfully no one in this thread is doing that.

Again, poisoning the well/false dichotomy.

Circumstancial ad hominem.

Straw man.

Tu quoque.

Did you purposefully ignore the "non-violent" part of the very paragraph you quoted?

For what purpose?



Circumstancial ad hominem.

Bare assertion.

So, quite a few logical fallacies and very little substance.

What complete and utter BS.

After all the pontificating on your part (and the latin quotations:rolleyes:) it still boils down to the fact that you - and others - are prepared to defend the rights of paedophiles, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. The very ones who drag our socity into the gutter. You can dress it up any way you like, but that is the truly shocking - and sickening - substance of YOUR belief.

Freddie59

Wicknight wrote: »

a) How does harming criminals make them behave like normal human beings?

b) Even if it did, what does that have to do with helping victims of crime?



Study after study has shown that harsher prison conditions increases re-offense. But then you don't really strike me as someone who really cares about things like that.

You seem purely interested in making criminals suffer, who cares if they proceed to do more crime afterwards.



You want criminals punished in increasingly harsh manner, at the expense of society or future victims of crime.

So yes. I think you just like the idea of them suffering. You seem to have no genuine interest in lowering crime rates or helping victims of crime or heaven forbid stopping criminals re-offending.

I ask you - AGAIN - what is YOUR solution? To mollycoddle them/plead with them? It used to be called appeasement.