I agree Vince, but then I am unsure if you can trust any of them, and the problem with the so called Western World is that our leaders are way too enlightened for our good.

That or it is a political conspiracy to create so much social turmoil that they have to step in and change the law to "protect society".

Gosh there might even be an example or two here in the USA, the Patriot Act, and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act where Presidents now have unchecked dictatorial powers to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

Constitutional, statute and international laws won't apply. Martial law will replace them if so ordered.

As a result, US military personnel anywhere in the world may arrest US citizens and others, throw them in military dungeons, and hold them indefinitely outside constitutionally mandated civil protections, including habeas rights, due process, and other judicial procedures.

What I was trying to say was that the community norm is what drives local/regional law enforcement. Most western legal systems are set up that it is the less of two evils to let a criminal go free than it is to convict/imprision an innocent man. The US has District Attorneys, Judges and Sheriffs elected by the electorate and the people that get elected are generally the ones that reflect how the community wants its laws enforced.
(When you go from the east coast to the west coast in the same country you will find different attitudes to how the law is enforced. I have found this to be true in Canada and in the US. Being a westerner, I am amazed at how people in the east do things and their attitudes towards westerners and how we look at crime.) The Judges are made aware of the housing of criminals and they must decide on the best way of setting the deterant, the best interest of the people and the rehabilitation of the the accused to return to being productive in society.
The Conservative government here is embarking on a minimum sentencing hard line crime legislation. There are US LEOs who are advising against taking such an approach because of its utter failure when the US took the same approach over a decade ago with minimum sentencing. They cite the lack of space in prisons, the mixing of petty criminals and hard core ones who educate the younger ones, and the general agreement that one size does not fit all in setting the deterent and returning convicts back into being a contributing member of society.
Don't get me wrong I want to go old school on some of these crimes.
As I have gotten older, I find that there are more and more crimes that strike at my heart. i.e. financial white collar crimes where people are deprived of their retirement or life savings and the accused goes to jail and the victim is left on the street destitute; or extortion of people who now live in fear for themselves or their familys.
The tax payer is footing the bill for all of this and we have to choose what hill we want to die on. We all want a peaceful, safe communitys in which to live and raise our familys. When we are fearful, we strike out and that is a knee jerk reaction. Lots of us on this forum are LEOs, military or other 911 personnel who run into danger and not away from it. We all had training to minimize the fear that causes a reaction and were taught how to respond to a situation. We all know that response is better because we are in control of our actions.
Elvis, we have the same crap here and in the US with what the upbringing was of the accused. There are few times where that really should be a mitigating circumstance in sentencing. I am ashamed to admit that I too wish that we had the death penalty. It is easy to pull the trigger, and difficult to live with yourself after the fact. Not very Christian of me, is it.?

The exception to local communities deciding what is enforced is that in the USA we are a Republic with a constitution that has some of our rights listed and others inferred. Nobody can take those away. (unless we all become sheeple)

Ron, I cannot argue with a single word you have written above mate...in fact you could very easily have been describing Australia.

I agree 100% on your statement "Most western legal systems are set up that it is the less of two evils to let a criminal go free than it is to convict/imprision (sic) an innocent man." I believe that is better to let 10 guilty men go free than convict and imprison one innocent man. It is just unfortunate that the guilty bastards do go free. But, as my dear old Dad used to say..."All smart hens crap in their nest sooner or later".

Mitigating circumstances are something a Judge must always consider when deciding on guilt or innocence. Once someone is found guilty and convicted, they then must take ownership of, and accept, responsibility for their actions. I know that is a "black and white" view, but I feel that if the mitigating circumstances are strong enough he should possibly not found guilty. I don't consider a hard upbringing, or the lack of a teddy bear as a child to be mitigating circumstances.

I really don't know what the answer is...do we take that hard line and lock up every criminal in that "one size fits all" scenario, or do we take a softer line and slap a few wrists, kick a few arses and lock a few away. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the overriding factors to the length of incarceration of criminals is the cost to the Govt and ultimately society. This agenda is no doubt driven by the political "bean counters", to the detriment of society in the long run.

You are totally correct when you say the older hard-nosed criminals train up the young ones, the next "generation", and this is a major problem. Prison is no longer a deterrent, it is a "break away from society with 4 walls and a roof, and 3 square meals a day" for many. Sure there are some unpleasant sides to prison, but the hard-nosed are used to that...they take the not so good with the bad.

Maybe an answer to the problem is to have a number of levels of prison with varying levels of rehabilitation. Recidivist criminals show that rehabilitation doesn't work in all cases...they are the ones who should be locked away in a higher security prison with only like criminals. There should be no "time off for good behaviour", there should be no parole...you do the crime, you do the time. Make the penalty fit the crime and remove the option from the Judge of levying a low penalty. Every criminal should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate...until they show that they can't and then must take that next "step up" to the next level of prison.

Additionally, prisons should be self supporting. You want to eat, you grow and harvest the food. Prisoners should be required to work "for society" whilst incarcerated, thereby easing the burden on the public purse. The prisoners should produce goods that make an income for the prison, allowing the purchase of luxuries for those prisoners that earn the privilege of said luxuries. A luxury would be personal items such as better quality toiletries, books, writing materials etc...definitely not TVs, internet connections, phones, teddy bears and other such items. As far as TV is concerned, there COULD be a TV room for each level, or section, of the prison that a prisoner may gain access to for good behaviour...that is his/her "time off" for good behaviour.

Centuries ago, the only penalties that were generally meted out to criminals, and many innocent people unfortunately, were banishment or death. I am all for banishment, but as far as the death penalty is concerned I keep thinking of that one innocent man versus the 10 guilty men. Having said that, if guilt is proven beyond all shadow of doubt, then if the crime is so heinous that the death penalty is justified...I'm all for it.



Cheers, Vince

the trouble with banishment is that AUSTRALIA is already full

Elvis wrote:

the trouble with banishment is that AUSTRALIA is already full

Yup...we got so many now we are looking at sending the KIWIs home that snuck in without declaring their criminal history and record.

Cheers, Vince

$61.5 billion, or $205 per every man, woman, and child in the USA. That is the dollar cost of what we are doing now to contain our criminals and with nearly a 70% recidivism rate my guess is that it is not working. Without going too much further this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Why, because because there are bad and evil people, there always has been and there always will be. As long as man is in charge. But, the real question is what can we do about it, I suspect not much as long as we try to understand them and what makes them so different from us.

I do not care anymore why or what happened to them that caused them to live a life of crime. Did daddy beat you, mommy was a sl-t and brought strange men home, gosh you were teased when you were young, oh somebody on TV said that without a $1000 pair of Air Jordan's you just won't fit in and since you didn't think it was important to learn to read at school the $7.00 an hour job flipping burgers just don't cut it, oh I am so sad for you. The innumerable reasons psychologists and social workers come up with why someone became a criminal is far to long to address here, but the bottom line is, it is all crap. For everyone you find who's daddy abused him I will find 10 who were abused that became productive members of society. No more tears for the criminals, they are what they choose to be, and should be held responsible for their actions. That is what it is all about RESPONSIBILTY. All men are created equal, but not all men are equal.

As for the innocent that wind up incarcerated, yep it happens, sadly. The most glaring example of it is the sinless man who was persecuted and then crucified at Golgotha.

But, as for us in today's world, as long as any District Attorney is measured successful by their conviction rate, and not the truth, they will work to convict irrespective of truth. And, as long as some people are willing to bear false witness for whatever reason they have, innocents will be convicted. As long as the worst criminals are in the government-- oops sorry that's a different forum.

I don't claim to have any answers on this one, but here are some ideas. If you are convicted you will work a minimum of ten hours a day helping to produce whatever the prison needs to support you. You will be paid a wage commensurate with your job and advanced in jobs as you improve your skills. Additionally, you will attend educational classes a minimum of two hours a day. You will wash your own clothes, and linens. You will eat what is served or go hungry, no menus. You will pay out of your wages for whatever your needs are, including medical and dental treatment. This is not a free ride. You will follow all rules to the letter. Failure to do any of the above will result in solitary confinement with only water till you follow the rules. Sex problems, drug problems. If you are to tired from working to support yourself some of these problems might just go away. Am I sure, no but I'll sure feel better about how my $205 was spent. White collar prisons, no way there should be only one type of prison, don't want to go there and be Bubba's new BFF don't do the crime.

Is it cruel and unusual? I don't think so. When I didn't work I didn't eat, couldn't afford TV, or a gym membership, or any other nicety. I got what I worked for and if it was not enough I worked more, went to school nights and weekends, took a second job. I did what I had to do for myself and my family without committing any crime. As have the vast majority of people. Why should they be any different.

As for parole boards, and judges who let criminals out early or fail to send them to prison. Not on my watch unless the criminal lives with you for a year or two. Ya might think twice about your liberal agendas if you have to actually be exposed to the people you feel so bad about.

my favourite bumper sticker says it all
kill em all and let GOD sort them out.

Lester wrote:

...I do not care anymore why or what happened to them that caused them to live a life of crime. Did daddy beat you, mommy was a sl-t and brought strange men home, gosh you were teased when you were young, oh somebody on TV said that without a $1000 pair of Air Jordan's you just won't fit in and since you didn't think it was important to learn to read at school the $7.00 an hour job flipping burgers just don't cut it, oh I am so sad for you.

Unfortunately Lester, a life of crime is considered a legitimate career choice by some these days mate.

Cheers, Vince