h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's not just about punishment, Pixie.

Mol

Hi Ed,

>some of your postings are quite obtuse

Who was talking about Freud just now? And in he 'slips' I think you meant 'opaque'...?

Gif

Ancient Brit, where are you seeing "complacency"?

I know from having had a number of different jobs that the "making the world a better place" factor is extremely important to me, to the extent of having a higher weighting than salary.

I have 2 teenage children. Like any other parent (an assumption, granted, but a reasonable one) I worry deeply for their future. The uncertainty of the job market, and the sheer pace of change, together with the immediate financial crisis makes it almost inevitable that they and their peers face a challenging future.

But I'm with the optimists. I see their ability to multi-task, their easy competence with modern technology, and heck their enjoyment of life. And that gives me hope.

We'll probably agree that we don't live in a perfect world. Was there ever a perfect world? Can there ever be?

"The punishment should fit the crime and the fact they have more rights than the victim makes you question what exactly is going on in the society we live in!!"

Criminals don't have more rights than victims. This is something that seems to be said a lot, but it's simply untrue.

As for "punishment should fit the crime", well, that just begs the question. What punishment *does* fit what crime?

I also think that punishments should fit the criminal - a first time offender deserves more lenient treatment than a repeat offender, at least for most offences.

Otto- does this include murder??

As for punishment fitting the crime, the punishment clearly for murder should be life imprisonment. I am the same age as the Bulger killers. I knew right from wrong at the age James was killed, i remember it well and being shocked by it.
Just because they arent 'repeat offenders' except for Venables now obviously, their inital crime was horrendous!!

And when i say life imprisonment- i mean LIFE not 7-10 years, the fact they never spent anytime in an adult prison has made things more complicated as maybe some adult prison time would of actually put venables off re-offending as obviously adult prison is tougher that juvie

Sorry Pixie, but there's a huge assumption there: that all 10 year olds were as aware as you were at that same age.

Im talking from my own experience there im not speaking about all 10 year olds. As much as there is a majority of those who dont know right from wrong there is also a majority that do. I just cant understand how at 10 you can think its right to torture and kill someone. I admit its very difficult for me to understand and fathom. Everyones oppinion is different and mine is that there shouldve been some adult jail time there before they were released.

* I cant understand how you can think its right to torture and kill someone *
This was not aimed a you inparticular Beatrice it was ment in a sense of the particular person who committed the crime. I dont want that to get misunderstood x

As was posted in my first 2nd to last post (before this one!!) I should of changed that part. My apologies x

Pixie, I think murder is a difficult one. In principle, I'd say someone who killed someone in a fight should get more of a punishment if they do it again, but it all depends on the circumstances.

"I just cant understand how at 10 you can think its right to torture and kill someone. I admit its very difficult for me to understand and fathom."

If you don't mind me saying so, I think this is the wrong question to be asking yourself. The question is "why did they want to do it?". Most ten year olds aren't killers because they know it's wrong, but because they don't want to kill anyone, and would take no pleasure from it.

Maybe someone find interesting to read the book On Crimes and Punishments, by Cesare Beccaria (from the late 18th century)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria

"In it, Beccaria puts forth the first arguments ever made against the death penalty. His treatise was also the first full work of penology, advocating reform of the criminal law system. The book was the first full-scale work to tackle criminal reform and to suggest that criminal justice should conform to rational principles. (...) The book's serious message is put across in a clear and animated style, based in particular upon a deep sense of humanity and of urgency at unjust suffering. This humane sentiment is what makes Beccaria appeal for rationality in the laws. Beccaria also argued against torture, believing it was cruel and unnecessary to treat another human that way."

The discussion in this thread has reminded me of it.
I know about it because my brother had it as a compulsory reading in his Law studies. A logical, sensible choice for the curriculum.


AB, if you are still around: I´ve heard about a sociological investigation that is going to be carried out about the background of men that kill or act violently against their wifes or partners. They want to know all about them so that those crimes can be prevented and to give the criminal the most effective treatment. The study is founded by a provincial administration. Don´t you think that that money is well spent?

Its a strange case and situation. The age relation is probebly what causes that much more confusion from me about it all. In my own opinion adult jail time should have been served as a deterant from any future crimes they may commit. Sitting in a room with a PlayStation and all the mod-cons just doesnt cut it for me. This will go on and on and on with all the differing opinions but at the end of the day i cant imagine anyone who is writing on here will change their initial opinion. I know i won't.

Hi Pixie,

YOu think that rehabilitation doesn´t work because there are re-offenders, but what about those for whom it has worked?

Maybe not the best analogy, but if doctors fail at healing or saving the life of someone, that would mean that the health system doesn´t work?

<< This will go on and on and on with all the differing opinions but at the end of the day i cant imagine anyone who is writing on here will change their initial opinion. I know i won't. <<

But we need evidences to form our opinions. Have you considered what makes you believe that rehabilitation doesn´t work?

Where do you get that of the "Playstation and all the mod-cons"? I doubt that rehabilation is that.

Im not saying 'all rehabilitation' doesnt work but i know more people where it hasnt worked than where it has. This might sound odd to you but in my lifetime i have been surrounded by alcoholics and addicts from where i come from and the people i have grown up with and known over the years. I base my opinions on my life experience where ive been surrounded by people who have been in and out of rehabilitation clinics, prison, etc, i dont feel the need to look at statistics because seeing it through my own eyes and hearing the words of the people that i know that have been in and out of jail, have addictions etc thats what i base my own personal opinion on.
I am also aware of occasions where people in juvie are not scared off the thought of re-offending. Its all well and good reading the newspapers, looking at the statistics and being educated at uni, etc, but i think personally the best education comes from knowing people who have been through rehabilitation and hearing what they have to say. But like i say this is only my opinion.

Otto:
>>Criminals don't have more rights than victims. This is something that seems to be said a lot, but it's simply untrue.

I'm not sure Rights comes into it. I've not mentioned them. And the HRA allows certain rights to be limited in accordance with the penal code.

It's more a matter of what's sensible, appropriate and acceptable. I'm quite prepared to disagree on Thompson and Venables...but I really do find it hard to accept that their behaviour was not shaped to an enormous degree by their circumstances. Their upbringing was intolerable - and nobody intervened to ensure their own safety - which might have had the glorious side effect of ensuring James Bulger's safety..

Accepting that - I really can't see that long-term imprisonment of damaged children from the age of ten is acceptable, no matter how much revulsion we feel. Our societal responsibility includes repairing children's lives. Although it would, of course, be better to ensure they weren't damaged before any atrocity occurs.

We can agree or disagree on that - but it's not about Rights...it's about doing what's right.

I still think that there should of been some adult jail time served. Like ive said in previous posts i am the same age as thompson and venables and basically grew up with this story, it is one of the first pieces of major news i understood. I can't say anymore than what i have said. venables got juvie, a new identity, a new place to live- a whole new life infact and he messed it all up and brought the whole horrific situation to the forefront of the news again, dragging it all up for the country to see and for James mum to have to deal with again, surely you have to understand just slightly why the opinion against them runs so deep?

There's a problem, though, with taking a child from a therapeutic, rehabilitative regime designed to address their deviant behaviour and putting them into the punitive environment of an adult prison: any good work is going to be undone.

Yes - I quite see why opinion runs deep (even though the fact that they were damaged children is brushed over). I am, though, disturbed by some of the rhetoric around it and some of the solutions proposed. I don't think it helps anyone - least of all James's mother.

Pixie,
The rehabilation of a drug addict (leaving aside if there´s criminality involved, which makes the situation really complex) is a long and painful process, it needs an intense medical attention, usually at hospital, followed by a therapy of support, re-education, help to balance the person emotionally and finally the social rehab. Even doing all that , people fall again, because as I´ve said it is a long process that needs several times to go through detoxication and medical-social support*.
Many take drugs to scape from reality, but whatever the cause they do it for, if the enviroment they come back to, is still the same, it makes quite difficult not to fall again into the spiral of drug addiction.
Your friends failed, but we don´t know the reasons. Your opinion is negative about how well rehab works,ok, you´ve got evidences, but that situation of failure you know can´t be extended to all people under rehabilitation, still less can we extend that failure to other forms of rehabilitation.

We can´t simplify those complex problems by assuming that once someone has made a mistake or a crime they are completely lost and deserve the mess they are in.


* and not "shooting galleries" as it seems to be the policy in many countries.

To be honest i think i have said all i can say on this subject. I appreciate everyones opinions are different. I just hope that where venables is concerned he now gets punished as necessary. I understand that maybe their childhoods werent a walk in the proverbial park but neither were alot of peoples that i know but they didnt commit murder at any age. But once again everyone i different, still the question here at the moment is rehabilitation, what more can i say that i havent? Where this crime, the rehabilitation, release and now for venables re-call has been done and he went on to re-offend. I wonder if he is beyond rehabilitation would people be up in arms over a permanent sentance that saw no release? Would we still be questioning the system or would we have to admit that that individual person is lost. Do we keep giving them rehabilitation- where does it stop? All im asking is whether the short sharp shock of some adult jail time may have make him re-think re-offending and the thought of having to go back to a jail he is familiar with. Anyways ive had my time on here now and will leave my opinions there.