• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

sarahbell

Stop and search

Recommended Posts

Police to get more stop and search powers to tackle acid attacks

Home Secretary Sajid Javid will give police new powers to stop and search anyone suspected of carrying a corrosive substance in public.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/police-to-get-more-stop-and-search-powers-to-tackle-acid-attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that these substances became more popular as offensive weapons because the focus was on knife-crime and punishment of that. Acid was the "soft option".

Except that the actual penalty for going armed with a knife appears to be almost nothing. In one recent case of a thug running across the street brandishing a very large blade, the punishment was.. practically nothing. That was overturned and he got 3.5 years. But probably only after a high-profile sense of anger coming through clearly from people on social media.

In either event, I often hear "Punishment doesn't work as a deterrent". I don't think we have even tried. While I don't like the idea of putting children in prison - and a fair percentage of those carrying these weapons are children - knowing that if found with one - whether or not it is used - will bring an automatic custodial sentence, might cause people to think twice.

And if it does not, perhaps they will think differently after the sentence - they're "known" now and on the proverbial radar. And importantly, while they're incarcerated, the other benefit is that they're not going to attack anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DTMark said:

 

In either event, I often hear "Punishment doesn't work as a deterrent".And importantly, while they're incarcerated, the other benefit is that they're not going to attack anybody.


Locking people up has a couple of sides to it
- preventing them from continuing to commit further crime
- potentially rehabilitating them 
- making the prison experience so awful they never want to go back (again probably need support to ensure they have a chance of not re-offending through poverty/homelessness as a result of having been in prison.) 
 

Just locking people up and not doing anything to look at why they offend and whether they can be stopped from doing it again is pointless. You don't have to lock people up to assess them.
House arrest (tagged so can work during the day but not go out after work) would perhaps be something that could be of benefit to some people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sarahbell said:


Locking people up has a couple of sides to it
 


 

Prison just doesn't work. In fact it amplifies the problem. It seems to be a widespread view that prison is a training ground for criminals. They learn new techniques and methods from the experiences of other inmates. So the offender is incarcerated, learns new ways to operate and is released into society. Once released the ex-prisoner will find it difficult to get employment and often has little alternative but to get by in a life of crime.

All it seems to do is give society a short respite from the offenders behaviour whilst he is being kept in prison. In addition these days it seems they are converted to islam which gives them a licence to carry on with their criminal behaviour; so long as they don't offend other muslims of the same flavour.

The reformists claim that an offender is sent to prison as a punishment not for punishment which will remove one of the planks in favour of imprisonment, namely make conditions so harsh that they will never want to go back.

Its a tricky problem that no society seems to have found an answer to over the centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prison needs to be such a fucking unremitting awful experience that people do not want to ever go back to it.

We have muzzers using them as recruiting grounds

They have a relatively comfy lifestyle - TV etc.

I want prison to be fucking awful, thinking of hard labour, think of prisons in other 'non-enlightened' countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JFK said:

Prison needs to be such a fucking unremitting awful experience that people do not want to ever go back to it.

We have muzzers using them as recruiting grounds

They have a relatively comfy lifestyle - TV etc.

I want prison to be fucking awful, thinking of hard labour, think of prisons in other 'non-enlightened' countries.

IMO, prison should be about rehabilitation and punishment, with a heavy focus on the former. If I were Justice Secretary I'd overhaul the system completely, firstly by making sentences much longer for every crime. I'd follow the Singapore model but make it 10x more extreme and sentence people to 3 months prison (minimum) for dropping a Big Mac wrapper on purpose. Half of that 3 months would be in a prison cell with nothing but books, and the other half would be litter picking for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.

For other longer sentences and/or repeat offenders then mandatory training should be given. Once this was all implemented I'd remove the right for employers to do background checks on most crimes.

*I realise this all a pipe-dream and will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The yanks have a "three strikes and your out" policy. I cant help thinking that someone committing more than three crimes wont change their ways and should spend their life in prison.

It was only in 1968 that you needed a licence to own a shotgun. I cant help thinking the death penalty was a strong deterrent to the criminal classes going on killing sprees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Great Guy said:

The yanks have a "three strikes and your out" policy. I cant help thinking that someone committing more than three crimes wont change their ways and should spend their life in prison.

It was only in 1968 that you needed a licence to own a shotgun. I cant help thinking the death penalty was a strong deterrent to the criminal classes going on killing sprees. 

The yanks have a prison population of 2.3 million with a further 4.5 million on probation or parole. Good luck paying for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zugzwang said:

The yanks have a prison population of 2.3 million with a further 4.5 million on probation or parole. Good luck paying for that.

I work relatively near a major court. I see prison vans being escorted by circa 4 police landrovers and 6 police bikes. How much does it cost to just transfer prisoners to court for the trial? Probably a couple of grand a day?

How much does it cost to put a prisoner through a trial? Probably 5 or 6 figures easily for a relatively routine case?

It's probably a lot cheaper to keep the criminal underclass in prison than have them in a prison/freedom/trial revolving door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if we should have different prisons for different types of crimes, partly to prevent cross-contamination of different criminal tendencies, and partly so rehabilitation efforts could be more efficiently and effectively focused.  The rehabilitation of drug addicts who steal to feed their habit would be very different to the rehabilitation of sex offenders or violent gang members or jihadi extremists.

I'd also have some sort of staged system, whereby the prisoners progress through different levels depending on their stage of rehabilitation, and can be demoted back to an earlier stage if they break the rules at their current stage.  Each stage comes with increased privileges and opportunities, and prisoners don't mix with those in other stages.  So violent prisoners for example may keep finding themselves back in the most austere, solitary confinement if they continue to assault people. 

Since the prisons would specialise in particular types of crime, the stages could be designed most appropriately for that crime. 

The idea would be to force prisoners to modify their behaviour if they want to finally progress to the later stages and eventually freedom, whilst providing the necessary means, education, and incentive to do so.

Edited by MvR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The yanks have a prison population of 2.3 million with a further 4.5 million on probation or parole. Good luck paying for that.

There's a passage in Freakonomics about the economic cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes and imprisoning convicted offenders. The cost of imprisoning offenders, they say, is the least costly element. 

I think its widely accepted that only a small proportion of the population actually commit criminal offences so I suppose if they were all locked up then it might be a more cost effective way of dealing with crime.

The fly in the ointment of course is what happens when an administration. like Bliars, effectively criminalises the entire population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spunko said:

IMO, prison should be about rehabilitation and punishment, with a heavy focus on the former. If I were Justice Secretary I'd overhaul the system completely, firstly by making sentences much longer for every crime. I'd follow the Singapore model but make it 10x more extreme and sentence people to 3 months prison (minimum) for dropping a Big Mac wrapper on purpose. Half of that 3 months would be in a prison cell with nothing but books, and the other half would be litter picking for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.

For other longer sentences and/or repeat offenders then mandatory training should be given. Once this was all implemented I'd remove the right for employers to do background checks on most crimes.

*I realise this all a pipe-dream and will never happen.

Either way, that could end up with everyone picking up their own piece of litter.

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hopeful said:

Either way, that could end up with everyone picking up their own piece of litter.

It'd certainly be very clean again. I don't see why people expect councils to clean up litter when we've got thousands upon thousands of convicts just sitting around vaping in prisons. In Arizona they brought back the chain gang recently , what a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

 

The fly in the ointment of course is what happens when an administration. like Bliars, effectively criminalises the entire population?

Creating effectively political prisoners to serve their SJW and politically correct whims.

Its why I refuse to travel back to the U.K. - arbitrary laws, court enforcement and policing.

Edited by Bkkandrew
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bkkandrew said:

Creating effectively political prisoners to serve their SJW and politically correct whims.

Its why I refuse to travel back to the U.K. - arbitrary laws, court enforcement and policing.

And also previous convictions?:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sleepwello'nights said:

Prison just doesn't work. In fact it amplifies the problem. It seems to be a widespread view that prison is a training ground for criminals. They learn new techniques and methods from the experiences of other inmates. So the offender is incarcerated, learns new ways to operate and is released into society. Once released the ex-prisoner will find it difficult to get employment and often has little alternative but to get by in a life of crime.

All it seems to do is give society a short respite from the offenders behaviour whilst he is being kept in prison. In addition these days it seems they are converted to islam which gives them a licence to carry on with their criminal behaviour; so long as they don't offend other muslims of the same flavour.

The reformists claim that an offender is sent to prison as a punishment not for punishment which will remove one of the planks in favour of imprisonment, namely make conditions so harsh that they will never want to go back.

Its a tricky problem that no society seems to have found an answer to over the centuries.

I'd say that some societies in the past had a very viable answer, but nowadays we consider ourselves too modern and too enlightened to resort to those.

What I do know for sure is that a person without arms won't stab me or shoot me or anyone else again. Just saying.

There was a discussion about penitentiary system in another thread and I stand by what I said, that there should be a point - ideally after first re-offence - that would remove you from society for good. If you re-offend, you get shot in your fucking criminal no-good head go into insulated prison for life and you continue your life separated from the rest of the society, with no visits, no phone calls, no internet, those walls are your world now. The added benefit is that first-time offenders wouldn't be able to meet re-offenders in jail, so the "training ground" effect would be minimised.

We might be denying an opportunity to be resocialized to that 0.0001% of hardened cirminals who could possibly change their ways, but we increase the quality of life for the vast majority of law-abiding population. I now which side of that bargain I'd rather take.

Edited by kibuc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so serious now, we have our own version of the Mafia forming in London and other cities. As Italy has found, it's quite hard to get rid of.

Khan's "public health based approach" is nonsense.

First offence of being caught with a knife or acid: one month custodial sentence with rehabilitation as the key focus, day in day out. Specialist wing. People from Gangsline, who do some fantastic work and who speak common sense, involved if possible. Give the culprits every chance to turn their lives around and change direction.

Second offence: minimum one year prison term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spunko said:

It'd certainly be very clean again. I don't see why people expect councils to clean up litter when we've got thousands upon thousands of convicts just sitting around vaping in prisons. In Arizona they brought back the chain gang recently , what a great idea.

I'd bring back the chain gang in an instant, my first job as prisons minister.

Get crims filling pot holes, clearing gutters, chucking mud back on top of hedgerows, picking litter, clearing flytipping, painting white lines (have you nticed how councils aren't now doing this so road markings are disappearing), mowing grass, etc etc

 

Edited by Hopeful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A prisons minister the first thing we would need to do is remove many crimes from being crimes. I am talking all drugs crimes, possession of knifes  / firearms etc. They are not real crimes just government control. 

That said what followed then should be very harsh (but safe) first time offenders, should be kept separate to repeat offenders. however they should be one inmate per cell, 23 hours  a day in it, no early release, TV or radio or phone calls and perhaps on visit a month (non contact of course) 

It would be the same for repeat offenders however for them there would be a minimum of 5 years in prison for a second offence

I would also have a minimum of 2 years for benefit fraud 

Oh and just to ensure political correctness we would address the biggest in equality there currently is, the number of women in prison compared to the number of men . We would have the same numbers :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently in Israel and almost everywhere you go, there are either armed police, armed security guards, or armed soldiers in the streets, in public buildings, on trains and buses etc. Add to that a high proportion of unarmed but reserve and ex-forces men and women trained in unarmed combat (Krav Maga etc). There is simply no chance of somebody kicking off and causing serious trouble (unless they are muzzer suicide bombers who don't care) as they will be shot dead or incapacitated in most cases within minutes.

I don't advocate we go that far, but if you look at old pictures and footage of the UK,  from about 1840 to about 1970 there were always police on the beat, everywhere, and even small villages had a police station. This meant that a. troublemakers were known in the community and could be kept an eye on and b. trouble was nipped in the bud and so prison was needed less. Add to that a strong prison system (hard labour, birch and death penalty) and you had the more stable and less violent society of yesteryear.

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kibuc said:

I'd say that some societies in the past had a very viable answer, but nowadays we consider ourselves too modern and too enlightened to resort to those.

What I do know for sure is that a person without arms won't stab me or shoot me or anyone else again. Just saying.

There was a discussion about penitentiary system in another thread and I stand by what I said, that there should be a point - ideally after first re-offence - that would remove you from society for good. If you re-offend, you get shot in your fucking criminal no-good head go into insulated prison for life and you continue your life separated from the rest of the society, with no visits, no phone calls, no internet, those walls are your world now. The added benefit is that first-time offenders wouldn't be able to meet re-offenders in jail, so the "training ground" effect would be minimised.

We might be denying an opportunity to be resocialized to that 0.0001% of hardened cirminals who could possibly change their ways, but we increase the quality of life for the vast majority of law-abiding population. I now which side of that bargain I'd rather take.

Sharia law, in other words. Just like fundamentalist Saudi Arabia? Why not recruit a few headchoppers from Isis while we're about it and put the Enlightenment behind us forever?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hopeful said:

I'd bring back the chain gang in an instant, my first job as prisons minister.

Get crims filling pot holes, clearing gutters, chucking mud back on top of hedgerows, picking litter, clearing flytipping, painting white lines (have you nticed how councils aren't now doing this so road markings are disappearing), mowing grass, etc etc

 

I would be fine with that. I would expect that the prisoners should be paid the going rate for the job though. If they weren't it would amount to slave labour and I'm not fine with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sleepwello'nights said:

I would be fine with that. I would expect that the prisoners should be paid the going rate for the job though. If they weren't it would amount to slave labour and I'm not fine with that.

NMW into a savings account perhaps, but not the going rate AFAIC.

And, if they are paid money they can pay for their board and lodging and pay taxes etc

AFAIC, their labour is their contribution back to society for the damage they have done, repaying their criminal costs to society.

Don't want pay back with your hard labour ?, then dont be a crim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.