Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

I'm saying that there is no evidence that harsher punishments deter crime. There are other reasons for punishment over deterrence but was specifically saying that putting people into a hole in a ground and making them eat mud and rabbit droppings for 20 years doesn't necessarily have the effect on crime TD might have thought it did.

Dear Lord above. If there was a white flag smilie I'd be waving it frantically. What an absolute load of bollox you really do talk.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm saying that there is no evidence that harsher punishments deter crime. There are other reasons for punishment over deterrence but was specifically saying that putting people into a hole in a ground and making them eat mud and rabbit droppings for 20 years doesn't necessarily have the effect on crime TD might have thought it did.

Dear Lord above. If there was a white flag smilie I'd be waving it frantically. What an absolute load of bollox you really do talk.

Yes, I provide you with the results of decades of research providing a rigorous and independently tested evidence base.

You come back with "you don't know what you're talking about".

Do you think you know more than the criminologist tams who over decades did these various pieces of research summarised in the link? Is that your argument?

[boltonboris]

Prisons in some countries are so bad, they cannot be staffed. People will not work there and the inmates are practically left to rot. They STILL commit crimes, knowing what the punishment will look like.

Some criminals are just inhumane, braindead superbastards and the potential punishments won't stop that

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Prisons in some countries are so bad, they cannot be staffed. People will not work there and the inmates are practically left to rot. They STILL commit crimes, knowing what the punishment will look like.

Some criminals are just inhumane, braindead superbastards and the potential punishments won't stop that

Yes. Got that, thanks. And, once more, I'll answer that I don't really give much of a toss about prevention... as you all point out, deterrence doesn't work. I'm still well up for vengeance though...

[malcd1]

I'm saying that there is no evidence that harsher punishments deter crime. There are other reasons for punishment over deterrence but was specifically saying that putting people into a hole in a ground and making them eat mud and rabbit droppings for 20 years doesn't necessarily have the effect on crime TD might have thought it did.

Dear Lord above. If there was a white flag smilie I'd be waving it frantically. What an absolute load of bollox you really do talk.

Yes, I provide you with the results of decades of research providing a rigorous and independently tested evidence base.

You come back with "you don't know what you're talking about".

Do you think you know more than the criminologist tams who over decades did these various pieces of research summarised in the link? Is that your argument?

Locking people up might not be a deterrent but they can't continue to commit offences while they are locked up. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/12 ... criminals/

Some people cannot be rehabilitated by sitting them down and telling them that they have been naughty boys and think of the poor people they have hurt or burgled. They don't give a shit and will re-offend again straight away.

[malcd1]

I'm saying that there is no evidence that harsher punishments deter crime. There are other reasons for punishment over deterrence but was specifically saying that putting people into a hole in a ground and making them eat mud and rabbit droppings for 20 years doesn't necessarily have the effect on crime TD might have thought it did.

Dear Lord above. If there was a white flag smilie I'd be waving it frantically. What an absolute load of bollox you really do talk.

Yes, I provide you with the results of decades of research providing a rigorous and independently tested evidence base.

You come back with "you don't know what you're talking about".

Do you think you know more than the criminologist tams who over decades did these various pieces of research summarised in the link? Is that your argument?

Sending people to prison might not be a deterrent but they can't continue to commit offences while they are locked up. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/12 ... criminals/

Some people cannot be rehabilitated by sitting them down and telling them that they have been naughty boys and think of the poor people they have hurt or burgled. They don't give a shit and will re-offend again straight away.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm saying that there is no evidence that harsher punishments deter crime. There are other reasons for punishment over deterrence but was specifically saying that putting people into a hole in a ground and making them eat mud and rabbit droppings for 20 years doesn't necessarily have the effect on crime TD might have thought it did.

Dear Lord above. If there was a white flag smilie I'd be waving it frantically. What an absolute load of bollox you really do talk.

Yes, I provide you with the results of decades of research providing a rigorous and independently tested evidence base.

You come back with "you don't know what you're talking about".

Do you think you know more than the criminologist tams who over decades did these various pieces of research summarised in the link? Is that your argument?

Locking people up might not be a deterrent but they can't continue to commit offences while they are locked up. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/12 ... criminals/

Some people cannot be rehabilitated by sitting them down and telling them that they have been naughty boys and think of the poor people they have hurt or burgled. They don't give a shit and will re-offend again straight away.

I agree. Prevention is important too. But a possibility of harsher punishment would not have saved the 98 year old. Sadly.

That was my point. Deterrence is not the only reason for prison and I fully accept that. I was just pointing out that criminals do not seem to fear punishment, they fear being caught.

[Prufrock]

Prisons in some countries are so bad, they cannot be staffed. People will not work there and the inmates are practically left to rot. They STILL commit crimes, knowing what the punishment will look like.

Some criminals are just inhumane, braindead superbastards and the potential punishments won't stop that

Yes. Got that, thanks. And, once more, I'll answer that I don't really give much of a toss about prevention... as you all point out, deterrence doesn't work. I'm still well up for vengeance though...

It might surprise you to read this but I broadly agree. Ideologically the reasons for punishment are supposed to be 4 fold: deterrence (don't do it or else), prevention (can't do it while locked up, tagged), rehabilitation (stop you doing it again) and punishment. I think our mistake is treating them as one size Fits Hall.

Rehab for me is the most important. So much crime is due to factors that can be fixed (which isn't to say they're always excuses): mental health, addiction, poverty, desperation. Short sentences don't address those problems and often exacerbate them. Job interruption, loss of housing, institutionalisation which leads to more crime etc. Rehab and prevention should be the priority for the vast majority of sentences and no-one should be in prison for less than a year.

But... For the worst stuff there should be a collective feeling of vengeance which I get is the punishment bit above. Partly to make everyone else feel better and partly so there's a collective idea that certain things are abhorrent (a sort of indirect deterrence). I don't believe in the death penalty but mainly because a trial is an inherently uncertain way of deciding things and a mistake is too final. But prison is horrible and the most serious offences should have serious consequences.

[malcd1]

I'm saying that there is no evidence that harsher punishments deter crime. There are other reasons for punishment over deterrence but was specifically saying that putting people into a hole in a ground and making them eat mud and rabbit droppings for 20 years doesn't necessarily have the effect on crime TD might have thought it did.

Dear Lord above. If there was a white flag smilie I'd be waving it frantically. What an absolute load of bollox you really do talk.

Yes, I provide you with the results of decades of research providing a rigorous and independently tested evidence base.

You come back with "you don't know what you're talking about".

Do you think you know more than the criminologist tams who over decades did these various pieces of research summarised in the link? Is that your argument?

Locking people up might not be a deterrent but they can't continue to commit offences while they are locked up. https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/12 ... criminals/

Some people cannot be rehabilitated by sitting them down and telling them that they have been naughty boys and think of the poor people they have hurt or burgled. They don't give a shit and will re-offend again straight away.

I agree. Prevention is important too. But a possibility of harsher punishment would not have saved the 98 year old. Sadly.

That was my point. Deterrence is not the only reason for prison and I fully accept that. I was just pointing out that criminals do not seem to fear punishment, they fear being caught.

Harsher sentences worked in New York, didn't they? Three strikes and you are gone. If it worked there (I haven't researched its effect but read reports) why can it not work in the UK?

As you said criminals do not fear sentences but is it more criminals do not fear lenient sentences?

[Prufrock]

No it didn't. That was a correlation not causation thing. What seems to have caused the drop in the New York crime rate is Roe v Wade ~20 years earlier. Where before young mums would've had kids too soon (who would be the 90s have been in their 20s, peak criminal activity age), RvW meant they hadn't had those kids who weren't around to do the crime (though stats show those same mums had no fewer kids, they just had them later when they were more prepared).

The reason they know it wasn't NY 3 strikes policing is that the same crime rate drop happened all across America in states which had not introduced tougher policing/sentencing. It's one of the subjects in the excellent Freakonomics.

[boltonboris]

Prisons in some countries are so bad, they cannot be staffed. People will not work there and the inmates are practically left to rot. They STILL commit crimes, knowing what the punishment will look like.

Some criminals are just inhumane, braindead superbastards and the potential punishments won't stop that

Yes. Got that, thanks. And, once more, I'll answer that I don't really give much of a toss about prevention... as you all point out, deterrence doesn't work. I'm still well up for vengeance though...

I like that... But then again, I'm scared of the consequences

[BWFC_Insane]

Our disgrace of a government thinking it is above our parliament. Find it weird how there isn't a complete outrage over this. Parliament instructed them to publish the full legal advice. Therefore they had to do it. But simply are refusing. They have no grounds to do so.

Clearly hiding exactly how bad our legal position in the backstop would be. May really is doing everything she can to win worst PM in post war history. She's got it nailed.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Prisons in some countries are so bad, they cannot be staffed. People will not work there and the inmates are practically left to rot. They STILL commit crimes, knowing what the punishment will look like.

Some criminals are just inhumane, braindead superbastards and the potential punishments won't stop that

Yes. Got that, thanks. And, once more, I'll answer that I don't really give much of a toss about prevention... as you all point out, deterrence doesn't work. I'm still well up for vengeance though...

It might surprise you to read this but I broadly agree. Ideologically the reasons for punishment are supposed to be 4 fold: deterrence (don't do it or else), prevention (can't do it while locked up, tagged), rehabilitation (stop you doing it again) and punishment. I think our mistake is treating them as one size Fits Hall.

Rehab for me is the most important. So much crime is due to factors that can be fixed (which isn't to say they're always excuses): mental health, addiction, poverty, desperation. Short sentences don't address those problems and often exacerbate them. Job interruption, loss of housing, institutionalisation which leads to more crime etc. Rehab and prevention should be the priority for the vast majority of sentences and no-one should be in prison for less than a year.

But... For the worst stuff there should be a collective feeling of vengeance which I get is the punishment bit above. Partly to make everyone else feel better and partly so there's a collective idea that certain things are abhorrent (a sort of indirect deterrence). I don't believe in the death penalty but mainly because a trial is an inherently uncertain way of deciding things and a mistake is too final. But prison is horrible and the most serious offences should have serious consequences.

Yep, that did surprise me slightly. I mostly agree with your response, which might surprise you too.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Our disgrace of a government thinking it is above our parliament. Find it weird how there isn't a complete outrage over this. Parliament instructed them to publish the full legal advice. Therefore they had to do it. But simply are refusing. They have no grounds to do so.

Clearly hiding exactly how bad our legal position in the backstop would be. May really is doing everything she can to win worst PM in post war history. She's got it nailed.

Haven't seen the news today, so this May (pun intended) have changed. But yes, they are right Cox (pun intended again).

[Prufrock]

Our disgrace of a government thinking it is above our parliament. Find it weird how there isn't a complete outrage over this. Parliament instructed them to publish the full legal advice. Therefore they had to do it. But simply are refusing. They have no grounds to do so.

Clearly hiding exactly how bad our legal position in the backstop would be. May really is doing everything she can to win worst PM in post war history. She's got it nailed.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Usual position is govt doesn't disclose its legal advice from AGO (in fact the standard position is to refuse to even confirm there has even been any advice). There is clear public interest IMO in making sure the govt can have frank legal advice without the worry it will be published. You make them publish this, then next time the govt is less likely to get legal advice (can't have anything embarrassing disclosed if it doesn't exist) or the AG will be less likely to be frank (and so upset his boss). Neither of those are good options. I can't see an argument that the Brexit advice is any different. Although P seems to have the power to compel disclosure I'm really not sure it should.

That said, given it has, no excuse for the govt not doing so.

[Enoch]

Folk determined to work against the democratic wishes of the majority and in their own selfish political interests rather than respecting legal professional privilege and the common law.

[Hoboh]

I'm saying that there is no evidence that harsher punishments deter crime. There are other reasons for punishment over deterrence but was specifically saying that putting people into a hole in a ground and making them eat mud and rabbit droppings for 20 years doesn't necessarily have the effect on crime TD might have thought it did.

Dear Lord above. If there was a white flag smilie I'd be waving it frantically. What an absolute load of bollox you really do talk.

Yes, I provide you with the results of decades of research providing a rigorous and independently tested evidence base.

You come back with "you don't know what you're talking about".

Do you think you know more than the criminologist tams who over decades did these various pieces of research summarised in the link? Is that your argument?

Decades of research have left us with full prisons, suspended sentences and folk who don't give a toss about the law or anybody, so why is that valid?
Shoot them or lock them up till they are old, they don't re-offend and others won't be so quick to follow.

[Hoboh]

Folk determined to work against the democratic wishes of the majority and in their own selfish political interests rather than respecting legal professional privilege and the common law.

Sorry mate, if it is government business and does not compromise national security, is specifically requested by the house then it should be published.
You cannot have a situation in public life were possibly hiding things is acceptable otherwise we may as well have a Putin character in charge.

[Enoch]

Folk determined to work against the democratic wishes of the majority and in their own selfish political interests rather than respecting legal professional privilege and the common law.

Sorry mate, if it is government business and does not compromise national security, is specifically requested by the house then it should be published.
You cannot have a situation in public life were possibly hiding things is acceptable otherwise we may as well have a Putin character in charge.

.
I'm not expressing a view on the rights or wrongs, I just don't believe the outrage is anything other than opportunistic f*ckery.

[Hoboh]

Folk determined to work against the democratic wishes of the majority and in their own selfish political interests rather than respecting legal professional privilege and the common law.

Sorry mate, if it is government business and does not compromise national security, is specifically requested by the house then it should be published.
You cannot have a situation in public life were possibly hiding things is acceptable otherwise we may as well have a Putin character in charge.

.
I'm not expressing a view on the rights or wrongs, I just don't believe the outrage is anything other than opportunistic f*ckery.

Totally agree there are forces in the remain camp that are trying to frustrate Brexit but all this business rests firmly at the feet of May and a few of her sycophantic advisers. If we had been firm in our negotiations there would have been a deal that most, even those like me, could have grudgingly accepted, a simple line removing any chance of the UK becoming part of a federalist EU, divorce cash dependant on future trade agreements, the ability to trade with non EU countries without having to work within EU rules and regs and a recognition that UK courts and our parliament was supreme in law and law making, we would never fall under the jurisdiction of any EU army, I could have gone with that.