advertisement


Is our Society going insane

Why -

unless you advocate that prisoners should have no rights at all , then this is a legitimate exercise of justice . Justice is indiscriminate , it is not for you to decide who is entitled to it .

What should be questioned is why did this get as far as a trial ?

If you advocate , prisoners should be stripped of all rights , then that is of course a different argument .
 
I can see how it does look daft to some but it is correct and fair. His behaviour and crimes do not automatically preclude him from access to justice.
 
There was another baffling case reported recently where a bloke broke out of prison because he was fed up of hearing other prisoners' rap music. Sentencing him to another 12 months on top of his original sentence, the judge said that having to listen to the music was 'part of his punishment', which raises all sorts of interesting questions.
 
Which lil' fish were most vocal on the Old Persons Moaning About Rap 'n' Hip Hop thread in the music room?
 
Going back to the OP, membership of any society brings with it both privileges and responsibilities. As a discussion point, not my opinion necessarily, why should anyone be allowed to benefit from the privileges whilst deliberately opting to ignore the responsibilities?
On a similar theme, the same 'logic' applies to the decision to withhold benefits from long term unemployed who refuse to sweep the streets, wash down War Memorials etc.? They accept the benefits of living off the state when the need arises but see no need to do a little for the state in return. I am greatly in favour of the state helping out those who need help but it does seem wrong to me that there seems to be no need to try to do anything in return.
FWIW I speak as one who has had three periods of redundancy in my working life and have 'signed on' but always managed to find some sort of paid remuneration during these periods - easier then than it apparently is these days.
Dave.
 
I would imagine that the victims of this chap's crimes might be the rightful recipients of this award from the courts.
 
It's a step to far AFAIC. I was burgled and the thief took £400, my wallet & cards and my car key and then stole the car. He was caught and he was a known offender who had just been released not 3 weeks prior from his 3rd time in prison. He was imprisoned.....again, but he didn't recompense me for the money he stole, he didn't recompense me for the increase in insurance premiums I ended up with as a result, he didn't recompense me for the hassles I had with having to cancel and renew all my cards etc. and more importantly, he didn't recompense me for the psychological damage mainly to my partner who then liver in fear of a similar thing happening again.

As far as the person in the article is concerned, it reported he took 3 human lives, attacked and wounded two women at the time and also attacked and severely wounded others since being incarcerated. To me, he has forfeited his extended 'human rights' on the basis of the severity of the crimes he has committed. Why should he be able to claim his human rights on something as petty as some missing possessions when he didn't afford the more basic and serious right to life for his victims?

And how he is allowed FaceBook whilst serving a prison sentence? I didn't think prisoners were allowed such things as they are not allowed mobile phones etc.?
 
Why should he be able to claim his human rights on something as petty as some missing possessions when he didn't afford the more basic and serious right to life for his victims?

Because he's a human, and history shows when we've dehumanised our fellow/fellowettes the results are a guaranteed sh1t sandwich.
 
Because he's a human, and history shows when we've dehumanised our fellow/fellowettes the results are a guaranteed sh1t sandwich.


I'm not so sure he is what I would describe as 'human'. It would appear he didn't show much 'humanity' to his victims.

But here's a thing......there have been recent articles on things such as the new, but very expensive, cancer drug that on average, could prolong the life of a person by 6 months. The issue in the news is surrounding whether the NHS can afford to dispense such a drug as it would cost an average of £45,000 to give it to the average cancer sufferer. But here we have a person who doesn't uphold or respect any human rights values in others but the cost to keep him incarcerated over the minimum 35 year term will come in at a minimum of £1.75m in today's money. How is that fair and just?
 
Who cares if he lost some nail clippers he tried to murder prison guards and a 3 year old kid.

Let the fvcker accidentally fall down the stairs.
 
no money or very little money would be saved if we executed murders , we would still require a prison system to house 80,000 plus criminals and a CJS to try them .

And it is absurd to compare the cost of the CJS with an shortage of NHS funding , you may as well argue its unfair bananas are yellow are not orange .
 
no money or very little money would be saved if we executed murders , we would still require a prison system to house 80,000 plus criminals and a CJS to try them .



And it is absurd to compare the cost of the CJS with an shortage of NHS funding , you may as well argue its unfair bananas are yellow are not orange .


I didn't suggest executing anyone. What is absurd to me is the money wasted on such people when there are others more deserving of limited funds. It is an unfortunate reality that we live in a world/country where the cost of things has a direct bearing on decisions made. I think people like this should be afforded the very basic right to life......but thats it. They should have to work for everything else and perhaps pay something back to society via their efforts.
 
I'm not so sure he is what I would describe as 'human'. It would appear he didn't show much 'humanity' to his victims.

But here's a thing......there have been recent articles on things such as the new, but very expensive, cancer drug that on average, could prolong the life of a person by 6 months. The issue in the news is surrounding whether the NHS can afford to dispense such a drug as it would cost an average of £45,000 to give it to the average cancer sufferer. But here we have a person who doesn't uphold or respect any human rights values in others but the cost to keep him incarcerated over the minimum 35 year term will come in at a minimum of £1.75m in today's money. How is that fair and just?

I take your points, and I'm not diminishing the suffering and often dubious treatment of victims of crime.
But dehumanising people, and stripping them of human rights, is a very slippery and dangerous slope.
 
The real question is:

Are you prepared to give up your humanity because some amongst us in society have none?


Think about it before you answer.
 


advertisement


Back
Top