More Bad News for Free Speech in the UK

[Steely Glint]

I'm stating that if prison was designed for rehabilitation we would keep offenders in longer that didn't rehabilitate. Because that doesn't happen its obvious prisons are designed for the purpose of rehabilitation.

You seem to be confusing prisons themselves and the sentences handed down by the justice system and the prisons themselves. Because "keeping offenders in longer if they didn't rehabilitate" basically describes a life sentence. You're right that prisons aren't designed to rehabilitate, though, and in fact, they can often run counter to that purpose.

[Lewkowski]

You seem to be confusing prisons themselves and the sentences handed down by the justice system and the prisons themselves. Because "keeping offenders in longer if they didn't rehabilitate" basically describes a life sentence. You're right that prisons aren't designed to rehabilitate, though, and in fact, they can often run counter to that purpose.

So we are in agreement. Glad that was resolved. Prisons are not designed for rehabilitation, lets stop pretending they are.

[Aimless]

Norwegian prisons ARE designed for rehabilitation.

[RandBlade]

That makes no sense. Sure, if the guy was convicted for hundreds of rapes, he should spend even more time in prison than someone who's convicted of 15 rapes. I don't know what kind of moral system allows one to say that every crime committed after the first should be either ignored or count for far less than that first crime.

A sensible one.

The first has to be the most important. Would you be happy with a priest or teacher looking after kids who "only raped a kid once"?

[Loki]

A sensible one.

The first has to be the most important. Would you be happy with a priest or teacher looking after kids who "only raped a kid once"?

If your kid is the second one raped, you'd be happy for the priest getting virtually no additional punishment for it? Remind me what the incentive is to stop committing crimes after the first one if you know that you won't get punished for it.

[Khendraja'aro]

If your kid is the second one raped, you'd be happy for the priest getting virtually no additional punishment for it? Remind me what the incentive is to stop committing crimes after the first one if you know that you won't get punished for it.

So, at the same time you're protesting the 18 weeks because that's too much when one could also say that it's roughly one week per incident?

[Loki]

So, at the same time you're protesting the 18 weeks because that's too much when one could also say that it's roughly one week per incident?

I don't think the behavior should be illegal at all.

[RandBlade]

If your kid is the second one raped, you'd be happy for the priest getting virtually no additional punishment for it? Remind me what the incentive is to stop committing crimes after the first one if you know that you won't get punished for it.

Whether mine was the first, second, third or fourth would not bother me at all. The fact they were raped was enough. Are you saying you'd seriously think justice was done if yours was the first but not the second?

I would view the entire conviction as to do with that crime against my kid, and not somehow parse it.

As for what stops a serial criminal, I've already answered that: Getting Caught. Are you saying that if someone only does it once they should get off with a slap on the wrist as we're dividing it evenly and it was just the one case of child abuse? I would be horrified at that.

[Loki]

No, you should get a full punishment for each crime. Is today strawman day or something?

[RandBlade]

No, you should get a full punishment for each crime. Is today strawman day or something?

Yes you do, he got approximately 11 years for them all.

What do you view as a "full punishment" for rape and how is the sentence broken down/justified.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Remind me what the incentive is to stop committing crimes after the first one if you know that you won't get punished for it.

The incentive not to is increased chance of getting caught every time you do the act (so there still is a pretty big one). I probably would scale up punishment if someone raped one kid verse raping eleven, but I wouldn't neccessarily do it linearly. This is pretty messed up thing to do.

[RandBlade]

The incentive not to is increased chance of getting caught every time you do the act (so there still is a pretty big one). I probably would scale up punishment if someone raped one kid verse raping eleven, but I wouldn't neccessarily do it linearly. This is pretty messed up thing to do.

Which is exactly what happens.

[Lewkowski]

Yes you do, he got approximately 11 years for them all.

What do you view as a "full punishment" for rape and how is the sentence broken down/justified.

I'm fully OK with someone who rapes 10 kids to have their sentence 10x as long... who wouldn't be? Well I guess child rapists, NAMBLA and their enablers.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm fully OK with someone who rapes 10 kids to have their sentence 10x as long... who wouldn't be? Well I guess child rapists, NAMBLA and their enablers.

What point does that serve? Other than quenching your need for vengeance?

I'm still astounded how you can square that bloodthirsty side of you with the belief in buddy Jesus. He'll be really impressed with you.

[RandBlade]

I'm fully OK with someone who rapes 10 kids to have their sentence 10x as long... who wouldn't be? Well I guess child rapists, NAMBLA and their enablers.

Are you fully OK with someone who rapes only one kid having their sentence one-tenth as long?

[Lewkowski]

Well honestly I'm in favor of life sentences or a bullet in the back of the head for child rapists. That being said if we society agrees on a fixed term for one child rape I have no problems with anything that furthers the chance they will spend the rest of their life in prison.

[RandBlade]

I'm in favour of life or castrationg but that's not what we get in reality and you know it.

If you sentence equally for each case you'll either sentence far too little for the first instance, or far too much for more. If you want it to be more for all, then the solution isn't consecutive punishments (which will just tend towards lower ones for the first then) but to increase them across the board.

There is little real difference besides potentially luck between a sick fiend who rapes 5 then gets caught and one who rapes 15 before getting caught. If, as is reality, we don't have life imprisonment then should the former server a mere third of the time of the latter? I don't think so. If we do have life then it makes no difference.

[Illusions]

What point does that serve? Other than quenching your need for vengeance?

Because prison serves three purposes: 1) Punishing people who commit crimes in the hopes that they don't do it again 2) Rehabilitation so that those incarcerated understand why they should not commit crimes (aside from the idea that they will be jailed if they do), and eventually feel that they do not want to commit crimes, and 3) To keep those people who are prone to criminal behavior and cannot or do not want to be rehabilitated away from society

I'd have to say that someone who has no issue with raping ten people falls into the third category.

[Khendraja'aro]

And? You can do that with a "life without parole" sentence. I don't quite see what purpose is served by "5 times life" or some nonsense like that.

[RandBlade]

Because prison serves three purposes: 1) Punishing people who commit crimes in the hopes that they don't do it again 2) Rehabilitation so that those incarcerated understand why they should not commit crimes (aside from the idea that they will be jailed if they do), and eventually feel that they do not want to commit crimes, and 3) To keep those people who are prone to criminal behavior and cannot or do not want to be rehabilitated away from society

I'd have to say that someone who has no issue with raping ten people falls into the third category.

Point 2 is why sentences are not linear.

[Illusions]

And? You can do that with a "life without parole" sentence. I don't quite see what purpose is served by "5 times life" or some nonsense like that.

So the person appeals and has his one "life without parole" sentence reduced, or removed, instead of one of his five life sentences reduced or removed. In your case, he now has a better chance at getting out of jail as opposed to the other instance where he still has four other life sentences to work through.

Point 2 is why sentences are not linear.

I'm responding to Khen's lack of understanding as to why someone can be sentenced to prison for far longer than an average human lifespan, or multiple life sentences.

[Loki]

Point 2 is why sentences are not linear.

Yeah, someone who committed hundreds of rapes is awfully likely to be rehabilitated. And it's definitely in society's interest to give him another chance.

Are you fully OK with someone who rapes only one kid having their sentence one-tenth as long?

Are you ok with someone with one traffic ticket getting 1/10 the fine of someone with 10? What a ridiculous question.

[Khendraja'aro]

So the person appeals and has his one "life without parole" sentence reduced, or removed, instead of one of his five life sentences reduced or removed. In your case, he now has a better chance at getting out of jail as opposed to the other instance where he still has four other life sentences to work through.

That does not even make any sense. Why would anyone even want to appeal in a system like that? If you appeal, you appeal the sentence as a whole and not some minor detail.

Essentially, you want to sentence people to life in prison without the chance of parole or appeal. Yeah, that fits in nicely with the track record for human rights abuses of your country. Killing innocents, removing the right appeal, what's next? Habeas corpus? Oh, wait, I forgot Gitmo.

Are you ok with someone with one traffic ticket getting 1/10 the fine of someone with 10? What a ridiculous question.

I'll now borrow a note from Dread's tactics: You just compared getting a traffic ticket to rape. You horrible person.

[Illusions]

That does not even make any sense. Why would anyone even want to appeal in a system like that? If you appeal, you appeal the sentence as a whole and not some minor detail.

You are appealing the sentence as a whole. Someone murders five people, they can be charged with five individual counts of murder. If there is sufficient lack of evidence to not charge them with one of the murders, they still get the sentence for the other four.

Essentially, you want to sentence people to life in prison without the chance of parole or appeal.

So I'm a bad person for recognizing that there are people who either can't be rehabilitated, or do not want to be rehabilitated, and that there should be a place for them outside of regular everyday society where they can live out the remainder of their lives? And that it should be difficult for these people, or the people they pay (or other people have paid) to find loopholes in our legal system in order to get back to regular everyday society?

Yeah, that fits in nicely with the track record for human rights abuses of your country. Killing innocents, removing the right appeal, what's next? Habeas corpus? Oh, wait, I forgot Gitmo.

[Khendraja'aro]

You are appealing the sentence as a whole. Someone murders five people, they can be charged with five individual counts of murder. If there is sufficient lack of evidence to not charge them with one of the murders, they still get the sentence for the other four.

And? In our hypothetical system, they'd still get life without parole for the 4 remaining murders. I still don't see the point.

[Ominous Gamer]

Yeah, someone who committed hundreds of rapes is awfully likely to be rehabilitated.

Citation? I'd wager that someone who repeats without punishment is more likely in need of mental help / rehabilitation than someone who doesn't.

[Aimless]

In prison, 2 years is

a) twice as bad as 1 year

b) twice as long as 1 year

Which answer is the most correct?

[Illusions]

And? In our hypothetical system, they'd still get life without parole for the 4 remaining murders. I still don't see the point.

Because you can reduce both the sentence and the crime. What if they appealed and sought to have the sentence reduced?

Let me explain what you are arguing:

A hypothetical perfect solution to a hypothetical perfect legal system.

What I am arguing:

The reasoning behind our current best-case solution to our current legal system.

It is pointless to argue why we aren't implementing a perfect solution that only works in a legal system that does not currently exist. The reason your solution does not work, it is not applicable to our legal system. I know that you will now argue that Lewk, and the rest of the American forum members are somehow whatever you mentioned in the above rant about Gitmo and Habeas Corpus, because, of course, we are all personally responsible for the last two hundred years of accumulated debris in our legal system, and how dare we not have already fixed it in our lifetimes. I'll get right on it after I fix the CSS for Classic Blue

[RandBlade]

Are you ok with someone with one traffic ticket getting 1/10 the fine of someone with 10? What a ridiculous question.

If all the tickets are issued at the same time? No I think they should both have only one.

This actually rather proves my point. Here you get 3 points for a speeding offence. More than six would make me lose my insurance, 12 or more loses the licence.

After I passed my test I regularly used to speed. Got caught eventually by a speed camera, got 3 points and did it far less. After that I got caught a second time and thought I'd now have six so panicked and didn't speed again. Actually took a Speed Awareness Course so no points, and first has long since expired so my licence is now completely clean but I still don't speed anymore.

It's not the amount of times the act happened that causes change, but the amount of times caught. Had on the first occassion caught they'd said "we've got evidence for four occasions so we're going to prosecute for you to lose your licence" would that have been fair? I think not. If you're willing to do it once you're willing to do it many times so it always should be viewed that way.

[Aimless]

Are you ok with someone with one traffic ticket getting 1/10 the fine of someone with 10? What a ridiculous question.

Er, are you comparing a fine with imprisonment?