Where's the deterrent for shіthead scumbags in society?

Hal3000 wrote: »

Yes, by wanting to lock up repeat violent offenders means I now have no interest in other people's saftey... Christ allfu*kin mighty..... That maybe the most ridiculous I think I've ever read here...

Lol. Your posts in this thread are the reason for the above opinion. You repeatedly favour locking up drug addicts who committed crimes to get money or drugs. Losing them in prison surrounded by drugs. You favour this approach even when they are are actually off drugs and engaging in drug rehabilitation. Locking them in prison now would almost certainly result in them coming out of prison as a drug addict who will offend again to get money for drugs.

You love the idea of punishment and ridicule the idea of actually tackling the root cause of these crimes - drug addiction and the factors that lead to drug addiction in the first place.

The line you trotted out repeatedly is that locking them up will keep people safe. The will be safe from this one guy for a short while, then he will be back on the street as a drug addict committing crimes until he's caught again. Dealing with the drug problem would keep lots of people safe in the long run.

Don't worry, i don't expect you to understand the argument i've made. You've failed to understand it every other time I've made it.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They're discussing this topic on LBC radio right now. Taking calls from people like prison officers. Just tubed in but sounds interesting.

Actually forget it. They have people who know nothing about crime and punishment and victims saying the best way to protect the public is to reduce the number of criminals where possible, through rehabilitation. The know-nothings like the former police commissioner of Durham City in County Durham, North East England. And a former prison officer and a former criminal.

They probably don't know as much as an angry bloke on Boards who thinks the solution is harsher sentences.

mynamejeff wrote: »

your concerned about keeping people safe , the addicts and the familys of addicts

what about these shopkeepers and bookies and other victims of addicts crimes ? do they not deserved to be safe from criminals , ya know cos they arent criminals and are taxpayers and contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the life styles of addicts.

fair enough your focused of the causes of such criminality but you dont seem to understand anything about the consequences for the victims

I blocked this guy ages ago, he's either a wind up merchant or completely divorced from reality.

mynamejeff wrote: »

your concerned about keeping people safe , the addicts and the familys of addicts

what about these shopkeepers and bookies and other victims of addicts crimes ? do they not deserved to be safe from criminals , ya know cos they arent criminals and are taxpayers and contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the life styles of addicts.

fair enough your focused of the causes of such criminality but you dont seem to understand anything about the consequences for the victims

Maybe you should tell this to the police chief, prison officer and former criminal who works with offenders. They seem to think that rehab is the single most Important thing. It just happens I said the same thing.

If you want to make bookies and shop keepers safe from junkies and criminals? reduce the number of junkies and criminals. Harsher sentences are almost completely beside the point. The main thing they do is make people who like the idea of harsh sentences happy. Nothing matters to a junkie who needs money because there sick and need more drugs. The nuances of sentencing practice are irrelevant to them. The only thing that might make a difference is to get those people off drugs. That would keep people safe.

Hal3000 wrote: »

It's El dude that's on the wind up...

The people on the radio who work in the industry must be on the wind up too. You must think you're very important to have so many people go out of their way just to wind you up.

Or maybe the opinion held by these people who worked in the area are actually valid.

mynamejeff wrote: »

about the nonsense response i expected

you either woefully misunderstand the topic being discussed or are as many others here have already asserted are trolling

addicts have a chemical dependency true but a lot are greedy childish and selfish too. most criminals dont care about the fear o injury to their victims in spite what their solicitor will tell a judge.

we should be protected from people like that and confining them is the only way to do this in the short term without massive social change that would remove drug addictions as a problem

You say my post Is nonsense and then simply rephrase what I said.

I agree drug addicts have a chemical dependency. I agree they don't give a shyte when they commit their crimes. Im pretty sure I made that point in the post you called nonsense.

Unless you think you can lock up all the junkies and keep them locked up for ever, then you're only papering over the problem.

There is no quick fix because it's a big problem. Expecting a quick fix is childish.

Drug addiction alone is. Problem that's been a long time in the making. Previous generations have ignored the problem sand it has grown. You can choose to pass a bigger problem to the next generation or you can choose to address it. If you care about shop workers and bookies, you'll want to reduce the number of junkies.

El_Bee wrote: »

That's who I blocked lol, complete wind up merchant, or lives in fantasy land of rainbows & unicorns.

Lol. This character doesn't have a clue. Block ideas that he doesn't already agree with. And if they blocked me they have no idea about the characters who called I to the radio from all sides of justice, who had the same opinion as me. #ignoranceisbliss lol.