Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by rockape34, Oct 25, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
An elegant solution would be for all criminals to have punitive damages awarded against them on conviction as an SOP. If they then later get awarded compensation, this would automatically be diverted into the bank accounts of their unfortunate victims.
Simple and fair.
Or alternatively the gubmint could grow a pair, tell the cons to feckin' do one and make prisons like that one in Yankee land a la Sheriff Joe, all tents, hard labour and pink coveralls.
This sort of leftie human rights shite really pisses me off, fcuktards!
Edited for shite typing
Like your approach. Alternatively charge them the full cost of their stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Then if, in future, they are owed money by HMG then it can come out of what they owe. Additionally, if they win the lottery in future life we can get that back from them as well.
wehappyfew -unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that in reality under Neue Arbeit (often backed by the Limp Debs), the only one's who have to pay for the guest accommodation in HMPs are those that have been found, on appeal, to have been innocent and whose charges have been quashed.
However I tend to favour your, and Cad's solution.
Its only going to get worse.
Next time they will release prisoners because its against their human rights to be detained.
Or, where the crime is against a community or communual property, it goes to a fund, specially set up if need be, for that group to benefit from. Should they wish to use it for, ooh I don't know, a set of stocks (purely for historical reasons, of course) so be it. We could apply the rule to any future income from any source - use the proceeds of drug-dealing to fund addiction treatment, and so on.
Personally, I'd like to see lower grade criminals placed in the situation where the law does not protect them from the type of crime they committed for the duration of a non-custodial sentance. A burglar will soon get the message if everything he owns can be taken as 'salvage' while he does a 2-stretch. If he's committed violence in the act, you can walk into his house, hoof him in the kisser and take your pick of what you find - the law will say, "Tough sh*t, sonny." Habitual crims get it for life, effectively returning to the old concept of 'outlaw' and a balance between rights and responsibilities under the law.
Slopping out was a disgusting practice - but so is robbing peoples homes, stabbing people outside pubs, selling heroin, pimping out teenagers or any of the other multitude of wicked and stupid acts that bring people to prison.
It should be accepted that if you commit crime you lose certain rights.
I don't believe that prisons should be hellholes. I think that they should be austere disciplined places with a strong emphasis on work, education and correct personal conduct. Its not unreasonable that a prison cell has an ensuite shower and toilet. Hygene and pride in personal appearance are to be encouraged and marching cons to communal showers and supervising them is a waste of time and manpower.
The fact that these scrotes did have to slop out is unfortunate. The penal system is in decay like most other institutions in Britain.
It should not give them the right to claim any compensation. They were in prison because they damaged society and hurt ordinary people. The same principals should apply to civil damages that apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme - except in unusual cases, criminals themselves are excluded from receiving money. They are the authors of their own misfortunes and have forfeited full equality beneath the law.
Politicians need to act on this, if their hands are tied by unwanted European laws they need to act on that too.
'Slopping Out' may be 'disgusting', but, nevertheless, well deserved.
Prison should never be more attractive than 'home': they should be so AWFUL that nobody would even think about it as an alternative.
Probably get someones back up, but convicted criminals should lose all their rights. They never considered the rights of their victims did they?
Which is why lawyers and politicians will never allow it, old boy!
Another "right" they could lose would be the possession of their skin in the back/arrse area......
After all, Mr rattan cane has to eat as well.
Separate names with a comma.