On the nose there its a job, its a vocation, it’s all they know
Most criminals never change there spots but you will always get the people who wear blinkers and think they know more than anyone
They live in a bubble
Absolutely.
Glad somebody agrees.
Yeah, fair comment.
But.
How do they get to be “hardened habitual criminals”?
The whole point is to try to get them educated before then are “hardened and habitual”.
Putting first time offenders inside without serious attempts at rehabilitation is instead putting them in a school for crime.
For some it is too late, true enough.
But for those going into the system not enough is being done to stop them from becoming the repeat offenders.
It will never work for every offender, but the facts show that some other regimes do better than the UK, and many do better than the tougher US model.
No, that’s not at all what mean. I’m thinking of: the violent assults on other inmates, “chivving” (stabbing with a makeshift "knife), extortion (ie protection), getting involved in smuggling things into jail, especially mobile phones which can allow some scrote to continue organizing illegal activities on the outside, even if that is just some low-level scummy drug dealing.
There are thousands of scrotes who improve society by the simple expedient of being locked up for as long as the legal system allows. I am more than happy with that system. Some (many?) of those are beyond help, they’ve grown up in an environment where crime is a legitimate “career” and jail time “an occupational hazard”, oftentimes encouraged by their own families. I’ve met a goodly number of people who fit that bill, (for those who know Newcastle) especially from the Scotswood Road area
Let’s get this right you admit that many incarcerated violent criminals not only don’t give a zb about being locked up, they just see it as a further opportunity to terrorise others and commit more serious violence while in the nick.
In which case solitary confinement and segregation is the obvious solution for them.
But you don’t then see, offering them an easy way out from that, by the choice of either solitary confinement with life sentence without parole, or hypoxia, their choice, as a win win.
Because, together with the non violent crims, you see locking them all up regardless as retribution ?.
You’re describing and advocating a contradictory oxymoron.What are you actually calling for.In the case of serious violent criminals who laugh at being locked up.
When by your rules the lowest category offenders suffer the most not only as victims of the highest category ones but also more often the mental torture of incarceration.
It’s obvious that we need some sort of civilised compromise along the lines described by both me and Franglais.
Lock up less of those who don’t really need to be locked up and who are often harmed by it. Together with what is effectively solitary confinement for life without parole or the choice of a humane end if they choose it.
A civilized death by chlorine inhalation? OK… 
Where do you get this idea that there are people who would choose death over a long term sentence? Oh yes, from The Carrysphere where the normal rules of reality and human psychology do not exist. 
It was only the likes of Sutcliffe and Brady who wanted to die, and it was right to prevent them from doing so, in order that they experienced their rightful punishment for as long as nature allowed. Even Hindley would not have chosen that, she still hoped to be released right up until the end.
Huntley won’t even admit his guilt so would be unlikely to choose your “humane option”. And if there is one monster who should be made to suffer for the remainder of their earthly existence, it is surely him.
Imagining that prisoners would willingly choose to die is ridiculous thinking. The only people of right mind who’d choose to die are understandably those who are dying from a chronic and painful disease. That’s a no brainer.
There are certain base instincts that we as humans are hard wired with; the need to eat, the need to procreate and overwhelmingly the need to live. To suggest otherwise is merely projecting your own twisted logic on the matter. Ya can’t fight evolution.
There must be a lot of people in the world who are not in their right mind
It might be said that they made a choice
More than 700 000 people die due to suicide every year.
For every suicide there are many more people who attempt suicide. A prior suicide attempt is an important risk factor for suicide in the general population.
Suicide is the fourth leading cause of death among 15–29-year-olds.
Seventy-seven per cent of global suicides occur in low- and middle-income countries.
Ingestion of pesticide, hanging and firearms are among the most common methods of suicide globally.
The only problem is ■■ They are most probley living a better life inside than many outside, because there are to many do gooders in this country.
Bring back the Rope, a life for a life is the answer, F–K the Do Gooders
Loss of freedom, especially in terms of long term incarceration, is as bad if not worse, as any painful physical disease.
So at least just offer them the choice.
If they take it it’s a win win we save the cost of keeping them and they are removed permanently from society.
Reducing air pressure to the point where oxygen molecules are too few and widely spaced for normal breathing to sustain brain activity isn’t the same thing as poisoning by chlorine.
You’re saying that their survival instinct outweighs the crushing reality of life behind bars then you’re saying you want to inflict incarceration on them as punishment and retribution.
If you’re so sure of the former then what’s your problem with giving them the choice ?.
The old Russians don’t ■■■■ about.
Not a lot of rehab and counselling in this establishment.
A good idea for the so called ‘asylum seekers’ too I reckon…a definite deterrent at least, and it beats Rwanda.
You know this how? Or are you speculating?
Let’s just say that when I was in hospital with a 50/50 chance of surviving necrotic Pancreatitis I was more interested in when I could be discharged, than whether I’d survive it or not, or when I could have the next dose of morphine and tramadol.
We’ve already got an admission that many of the pro lock em up and throw away the key advocates are all about using incarceration as retribution.While admitting that many of the worst of the worst will just see it as a holiday camp and crime opportunity regardless.
As I said the BBC drama Law and Order, especially A Prisoners Tale episode, was obviously too close to the truth to be listed for viewing on I Player.Providing the choice of humane euthanasia would have been a much happier ending.
So you never once enquired about being euthanised then?
And this helps your argument how?
This seems to be half your problem, you can’t differentiate fact from fiction.
To be fair they never said I would never be discharged from within the hospital walls.
You obviously never watched the film Buster then.Left his life behind risking even greater retribution rather than face the joke sentence he was given.Obviously didn’t do his mental health much good.
As for Law and Order obviously close enough to the truth for it to be effectively withdrawn from the BBC repeats programme and I Player Catch Up service.
Ironically the Coppers Tale episode foreshadowed the events of the Guildford 4 miscarriage.Fact and fiction indeed.
Seriously… ? SDU said you can’t discern fact from fiction and then you quote a schmaltzy pile of tosh romanticising some petty thief? I suppose you believe the Kray’s were working class heroes who loved their mum and "never hurt anyone who wasn’t one of our own"
I was a big fan of Phil Collins as a drummer, but for him to have agreed to that film was yet one more nail in the coffin for many people’s opinion of him.
Michael Caine did The Italian Job but only on the condition that he redressed the shmaltz of that (albeit massively entertaining film) with the more true to life grit of Get Carter.
1 Like
You’ve certainly got your own unique orbit, Carryfast.