General
11 Jan 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterI agree with you somewhat.
I feel that a convicted sex criminal or serial murderer should only be released if they do not represent a threat to the public at large irrespective of the initial sentence. The purpose of the judiciary and the penal system is to punish, to rehabilitate and to protect. The punishment is served but if the criminal is not rehabilitated then protection of ...[text shortened]... the OP reoffends, and he will, who will then stand up and say it was right that he was released.
Although I think the concept of "punishment" is archaic and self-defeating.
The purpose of incarceration should be protection and rehabilitation.
If the criminal is no longer and threat and has been rehabilitated then he should be free.
That decision is a tough one best left to professionals - rather than the internet mob.
14 Jan 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterThe same could be said of any convicted person who causes the death of a person, such as a drunken driver, a violent partner or someone stabbing someone. I worked with a person who got stabbed and murdered alongside their partner on their doorstep by their son in law from another country seeking revenge for his wife having ‘escaped’ home with their son. He got 8 years.
Generally speaking I agree, but if this man reoffends I think your pleas will sound a little hollow when someone else’s child is found dead.
I don’t know how we differentiate between these crimes and whether consideration should be taken for younger victims? Our prisons are already overcrowded. Do you think we should build more to keep these people forever?
Originally posted by @drewnogalAre you suggesting that the likelyhood of a drunk driver reoffending is the same as a child sex murderer...really?
The same could be said of any convicted person who causes the death of a person, such as a drunken driver, a violent partner or someone stabbing someone. I worked with a person who got stabbed and murdered alongside their partner on their doorstep by their son in law from another country seeking revenge for his wife having ‘escaped’ home with their son. ...[text shortened]... prisons are already overcrowded. Do you think we should build more to keep these people forever?
I’m sorry to hear about you work colleague, that must have been horrendous to be sure, but it doesn’t sound like the perpetrator was likely to be a reoffender despite his sentence being light.
I think we are conflating two issues here; punishment to fit the crime and protecting the public from probable reoffenders. Yes I think that child sex offences such as the one in the OP: abduction, rape and murder of a little girl, should carry life until death with no hope of reprieve. The punishment fits the crime and these men are driven sex monsters who will reoffend unless chemically neutered. As unpalatable as that may seem to you, yes I feel we should have sufficient resources to keep these people away from their potential victims for the rest of their lives.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59I acknowledge your point and clearly I am far more severely minded on this matter than some in this forum.
I agree with you somewhat.
Although I think the concept of "punishment" is archaic and self-defeating.
The purpose of incarceration should be protection and rehabilitation.
If the criminal is no longer and threat and has been rehabilitated then he should be free.
That decision is a tough one best left to professionals - rather than the internet mob.
In principle punishment is the lowest denominator in preventing crime but I would bet my life (sic) that if punishments were less severe, crimes would go up. It’s not a satisfactory formula I acknowledge, but fear of being caught I.e. punishment is a very effective deterrent. I do however concede that for those of whom it is not a deterrent, then it is counter productive and mostly likely leads to alienation and further social disfucntion. I suppose it is impossible to tell wether the deterrent for those who fear punishment, outweighs the harm for those for whom it isn’t a deterrent. I still maintain therefore that incarceration is for punishment, rehabilitation and protection.
Btw this is just a discussion, it seems a little harsh to refer to us as “the internet mob”.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by @divegeesterFrankly, I strongly suspect it's a lot higher.
Are you suggesting that the likelyhood of a drunk driver reoffending is the same as a child sex murderer...really?
14 Jan 18
Originally posted by @shallow-blueYou think that it is more likely that a drunk driver will kill another person, than a child sex murderer or rapist will reoffend?
Frankly, I strongly suspect it's a lot higher.
Originally posted by @divegeesterI share your point of view to a great extent. What kind of society do we want? Isn't murdering a child in cold blood one of the most serious crimes possible? I fail to see reasons why people who do this should have a second chance to go on with their lives.
I acknowledge your point and clearly I am far more severely minded on this matter than some in this forum.
In principle punishment is the lowest denominator in preventing crime but I would bet my life (sic) that if punishments were less severe, crimes would go up. It’s not a satisfactory formula I acknowledge, but fear of being caught I.e. punishmen ...[text shortened]...
Btw this is just a discussion, it seems a little harsh to refer to us as “the internet mob”.
Originally posted by @divegeesterThat question is left wide open because if the drunk driver drives drunk again, good chance he could kill another person without getting some help for his drinking problem. Could we say the same about a child sex murderer or rapist? Is everyone able to be rehabilitated? My guess would be NO.
You think that it is more likely that a drunk driver will kill another person, than a child sex murderer or rapist will reoffend?
-VR
Originally posted by @divegeesterFrom what I have read there is a very weak correlation between
In principle punishment is the lowest denominator in preventing crime but I would bet my life (sic) that if punishments were less severe, crimes would go up. It’s not a satisfactory formula I acknowledge, but fear of being caught I.e. punishment is a very effective deterrent.
Btw this is just a discussion, it seems a little harsh to refer to us as “the internet mob”.
punishment and deterrence. Not least because offenders normally
assume they won't be caught. This recent(ish) article is interesting.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal-justice
btw: No offence intended to you or anyone by my use of "internet mob"
14 Jan 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59I agree and in fact stated in my post that offenders are not likely to be deterred, but my gambit is that there are many other non-offenders who have been deterred.
From what I have read there is a very weak correlation between
punishment and deterrence. Not least because offenders normally
assume they won't be caught. This recent(ish) article is interesting.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/criminal-justice
btw: No offence intended to you or anyone by my use of "internet mob"
Originally posted by @boardreaderYes you probalby are the only one who thinks the topic has moved away from the OP, as it hasn’t. However if this thread being in the GF somehow infringes you, then please feel free to write to “@russ” as you mention, and I’m sure he will help you.
Am I the only one who thinks either it's moved away from the original thread or be moved to the Debates?
@russ
Originally posted by @divegeesterSo a potential rapist weighs up whether or not he will get 5 or 10 years before raping?
I agree and in fact stated in my post that offenders are not likely to be deterred, but my gambit is that there are many other non-offenders who have been deterred.
You think some potential rapists have thought
"Nah ... not raping today, don't want to spend 10 years inside, ... but if only they'd reduce it to 6 ..."
Originally posted by @wolfgang59No, almost certainly not. But people convicted of drink-driving probably do.
So a potential rapist weighs up whether or not he will get 5 or 10 years before raping?
You think some potential rapists have thought
"Nah ... not raping today, don't want to spend 10 years inside, ... but if only they'd reduce it to 6 ..."
Which is exactly the point I’ve been making about the likelyhood of sexual criminals reoffending and precisely why the person in the OP and the rapist in the link I provided should not be released, becuase incarceration will not deter them so unless they are rehabilitated or rendered incapable of reoffending, they will, eventually.
Originally posted by @divegeesterI don’t know how often these sort of offenders are released or the likelihood that they will reoffend. I would imagine that the forensic professionals involved in their assessment and treatment during their prison sentence would be the ones to advise upon the conditions by which such people are safely managed and supervised in the community.
I think we are conflating two issues here; punishment to fit the crime and protecting the public from probable reoffenders. Yes I think that child sex offences such as the one in the OP: abduction, rape and murder of a little girl, should carry life until death with no hope of reprieve. The punishment fits the crime and these men are driven sex monsters wh ...[text shortened]... nt resources to keep these people away from their potential victims for the rest of their lives.[/b]