Titan prison meeting tonight

[observer]

Of course your right Eggs: to be precise, I should have said "the majority of those that do vote", keep voting for them.

[vic]

I've been looking at the Lib Dem website for their policy on prisons. They seem coy. "We need prison for serious offenders and for serial offences. But we need reformed prisons that educate, occupy and prepare prisoners for life outside."

 

They plan to reduce the prison population by ensuring that those guilty of relatively minor offences did "tough" community work. So, under the Lib Dems, they wouldn't need Titan prisons (which apparently the Government is now calling simply "larger prisons") because they don't intend to send as many criminals to prison. I'm not sure that came out in Jo Crotty's speech.

[Bazj]

Hang 'em, flog 'em and deport 'em

 

There you go, prison numbers halved..... next problem?

[observer]

Steady on Baz, I'm sure the liberals would enjoy a "whip round", as long as they were on the receiving end?!

[Shelley]

Lib Dems are also into restorative justice whenever possible. This website seems to cover it pretty well.

 

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

 

Roughly speaking, the idea is about repairing the harm done rather than punishment. An eye for an eye makes two blind men. The idea of it occurred to me long before I learned the word for it when I watch the trial of the drunk driver who killed my sister. I found myself not really that interested in how much he was made to suffer for it. All I really wanted from him was for him to bring her back. He couldn't do that, but it seemed it would be far better than simply ruining another life for him to somehow be required to do some equal good for society. Admittedly there are practical details to be worked out, and it isn't always possible, but restorative justice seems to have worked out the details for at least some kinds of crimes, and they boast a very low re-offending rate.

[Sparky71]

Why don't they just deport the 11000 foreign nationals currently imprisoned here, to finish their sentences in the country of origin. That's a large chunk of the 77000 prison population. We wouldn't need to build a new one then.

[Bazj]

Lib Dems are also into restorative justice whenever possible. This website seems to cover it pretty well.

 

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

 

Roughly speaking, the idea is about repairing the harm done rather than punishment. An eye for an eye makes two blind men. The idea of it occurred to me long before I learned the word for it when I watch the trial of the drunk driver who killed my sister. I found myself not really that interested in how much he was made to suffer for it. All I really wanted from him was for him to bring her back. He couldn't do that, but it seemed it would be far better than simply ruining another life for him to somehow be required to do some equal good for society. Admittedly there are practical details to be worked out, and it isn't always possible, but restorative justice seems to have worked out the details for at least some kinds of crimes, and they boast a very low re-offending rate.

 

I didn't see it like that at the trial of the bloke who murdered my wife Shelley. I wamnted him to be swinging from the end of a rope and screaming in agony for the hurt he caused me and my 2 year old son. Hurt which still continues (albeit in a lesser state) 20 years later. Unfortunately, the liberal do gooders felt it was right to transfer him to an open prison after 11 years so that he could be "rehabilitated and re-integrated into society" unfortunately he didn't appear to want that and went out and murdered another young woman with kids.....

 

My solution would have eased the pain a long time before that could happen.

 

Killers of any discription; be they murderers, drunk driving killers or anything else (accidents aside of course) do not deserve a second chance of any sort and should die like their victims. It might well make two blindmen as you put it, but better a dead and blind killer than one who gets out and does it again because he can see what he's doing!

[observer]

How many prisoners have been let out on early release, only to murder again? I guess the re-offending rate blows a hole in the restorative justice arguement.

[Shelley]

How many prisoners have been let out on early release, only to murder again? I guess the re-offending rate blows a hole in the restorative justice arguement.

Not at all. True restorative justice is known to cut down re-offending practically to nothing. I'm not an expert, so I'd have to look up the statistics, but that is supposed to be one of its biggest selling points. Prison, on the other hand, is the biggest crime school in the world.

[Eagle]

Fortunately since restorative justice is promoted by the Lib Dems we have nothing to worry about.

Just build enough prisons to punish all criminals.

[Shelley]

Lib Dems are also into restorative justice whenever possible. This website seems to cover it pretty well.

 

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

 

Roughly speaking, the idea is about repairing the harm done rather than punishment. An eye for an eye makes two blind men. The idea of it occurred to me long before I learned the word for it when I watch the trial of the drunk driver who killed my sister. I found myself not really that interested in how much he was made to suffer for it. All I really wanted from him was for him to bring her back. He couldn't do that, but it seemed it would be far better than simply ruining another life for him to somehow be required to do some equal good for society. Admittedly there are practical details to be worked out, and it isn't always possible, but restorative justice seems to have worked out the details for at least some kinds of crimes, and they boast a very low re-offending rate.

 

I didn't see it like that at the trial of the bloke who murdered my wife Shelley. I wamnted him to be swinging from the end of a rope and screaming in agony for the hurt he caused me and my 2 year old son. Hurt which still continues (albeit in a lesser state) 20 years later.

I am really sorry for your pain, but would his suffering have really eased it. I know I'm talking fantasy here, but if there was a way he could have brought her back, I can't believe you wouldn't have preferred it. Okay that's not possible, but in restorative justice victims are involved and given a lot more support than in the present system. It is not necessarily soft on crime either. In your case righting the wrong would have been far tougher than the sentence he had. And although a show painfully death would probably not be an option, as a victim, you would have had a large say in it. I don't think they are really up to that kind of serious offense in their applications of restorative justice, but if they were, perhaps he could be required to save a life and pay for all the psychological help you and your son needed to get over the pain, or maybe even find you a new wife.

Unfortunately, the liberal do gooders felt it was right to transfer him to an open prison after 11 years so that he could be "rehabilitated and re-integrated into society" unfortunately he didn't appear to want that and went out and murdered another young woman with kids.....

Sounds like the result of a lot of bureaucratic one size fits all thinking.

 

My solution would have eased the pain a long time before that could happen.

 

Killers of any discription; be they murderers, drunk driving killers or anything else (accidents aside of course) do not deserve a second chance of any sort and should die like their victims. It might well make two blindmen as you put it, but better a dead and blind killer than one who gets out and does it again because he can see what he's doing!

I think it is important to make the distinction between protection of the public and punishment as revenge. Your guy quite likely was a unreformable nutcase, who maybe should have been locked up permanently in a padded cell where he couldn't harm anyone. Yes, killing him might be cheaper, but you're on a slippery slope with that. Who that's deemed a burden to society goes next?

 

But I totally agree with you about the importance of prevention. We need better policing. We need better mental health support. We need to create the kind of society that doesn't create as many of the kind of pressures that lead people to crime in the first place. We need to get out of Pottervill.

[Bazj]

Lib Dems are also into restorative justice whenever possible. This website seems to cover it pretty well.

 

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

 

Roughly speaking, the idea is about repairing the harm done rather than punishment. An eye for an eye makes two blind men. The idea of it occurred to me long before I learned the word for it when I watch the trial of the drunk driver who killed my sister. I found myself not really that interested in how much he was made to suffer for it. All I really wanted from him was for him to bring her back. He couldn't do that, but it seemed it would be far better than simply ruining another life for him to somehow be required to do some equal good for society. Admittedly there are practical details to be worked out, and it isn't always possible, but restorative justice seems to have worked out the details for at least some kinds of crimes, and they boast a very low re-offending rate.

 

I didn't see it like that at the trial of the bloke who murdered my wife Shelley. I wamnted him to be swinging from the end of a rope and screaming in agony for the hurt he caused me and my 2 year old son. Hurt which still continues (albeit in a lesser state) 20 years later.

I am really sorry for your pain, but would his suffering have really eased it. I know I'm talking fantasy here, but if there was a way he could have brought her back, I can't believe you wouldn't have preferred it. Okay that's not possible, but in restorative justice victims are involved and given a lot more support than in the present system. It is not necessarily soft on crime either. In your case righting the wrong would have been far tougher than the sentence he had. And although a show painfully death would probably not be an option, as a victim, you would have had a large say in it. I don't think they are really up to that kind of serious offense in their applications of restorative justice, but if they were, perhaps he could be required to save a life and pay for all the psychological help you and your son needed to get over the pain, or maybe even find you a new wife.

Unfortunately, the liberal do gooders felt it was right to transfer him to an open prison after 11 years so that he could be "rehabilitated and re-integrated into society" unfortunately he didn't appear to want that and went out and murdered another young woman with kids.....

Sounds like the result of a lot of bureaucratic one size fits all thinking.

 

My solution would have eased the pain a long time before that could happen.

 

Killers of any discription; be they murderers, drunk driving killers or anything else (accidents aside of course) do not deserve a second chance of any sort and should die like their victims. It might well make two blindmen as you put it, but better a dead and blind killer than one who gets out and does it again because he can see what he's doing!

I think it is important to make the distinction between protection of the public and punishment as revenge. Your guy quite likely was a unreformable nutcase, who maybe should have been locked up permanently in a padded cell where he couldn't harm anyone. Yes, killing him might be cheaper, but you're on a slippery slope with that. Who that's deemed a burden to society goes next?

 

But I totally agree with you about the importance of prevention. We need better policing. We need better mental health support. We need to create the kind of society that doesn't create as many of the kind of pressures that lead people to crime in the first place. We need to get out of Pottervill.

Shelley,

 

Look, I don't have much pain these days; it isn't something that takes my undivided attention as things have moved on and the passage of time is a great healer. However, some of your responses smack of naivity to the point that lets people out of prison to kill again. Anyone who kills someone as the result of a deliberate or calculated attack or action should be executed as there is no role for them in society other than to be a financial burden to the state.

 

Then, in true Liberal fashion you then try to turn the argument to make it sound like I would be then in favour of executing other "burdens" on society and no doubt you would like me to come back with a response. No, I am not in favour of killing old people, disabled people or people in vegetative states of existance or other people who may well be deemed to be a burden; because those people have done nothing wrong. Killers have and should accept the penalty

 

As for revenge.... bloody dead right I wanted revenge. I wanted it then and I still want it now and if the chance ever arose to get it I would pull the trigger myself. and as for bringing her back; of course I would, but I would have still wanted him swinging for causeing the problem in the first place!

[observer]

The reason "prisons" don't currently work, is because sloppy do-gooder management regimes and policies, and the intentional "blind eye" to drug taking just to keep them doped up and manageable. Prison supposed to punish and reform, punishment comes in the form of realistic sentencing and deprivation of freedoms and comforts; reformation should come in the form of re-conditioning (as per Pavlov's dogs). These wasters should be broken down in order to be re-built, and if we lose a few to suicide along the way - tough. It's not rocket science - just basic psycology.

[disgusted]

Shelley,

 

Look, I don't have much pain these days; it isn't something that takes my undivided attention as things have moved on and the passage of time is a great healer. However, some of your responses smack of naivity to the point that lets people out of prison to kill again. Anyone who kills someone as the result of a deliberate or calculated attack or action should be executed as there is no role for them in society other than to be a financial burden to the state.

 

Then, in true Liberal fashion you then try to turn the argument to make it sound like I would be then in favour of executing other "burdens" on society and no doubt you would like me to come back with a response. No, I am not in favour of killing old people, disabled people or people in vegetative states of existance or other people who may well be deemed to be a burden; because those people have done nothing wrong. Killers have and should accept the penalty

 

As for revenge.... bloody dead right I wanted revenge. I wanted it then and I still want it now and if the chance ever arose to get it I would pull the trigger myself. and as for bringing her back; of course I would, but I would have still wanted him swinging for causeing the problem in the first place!

Great post Baz. And sorrry for your loss, even though a long time ago now.