Prisons should serve as a way to isolate people with anti-social and aggressive tendencies. It makes no sense for them to serve time when they are likely to go back and their economic value only drops and therefore increases their chance of return.

I propose that less violent criminals have lesser sentences and then be put in isolated villages where they can be married and have a job, but are not allowed to leave.

"When I was in prison I had a better quality of life than I have ever had anywhere else, even when I had my own home"

Utter bollocks- I dont believe you've been in prison, you wouldnt be talking such crap if you had.

Just for the hell of it, I want to posit an old argument to see the reaction:

Ayatollah Khomeini once wrote a piece in which he criticized the Western criminal rehabilitation system as creating exactly the problem cited: endless cycles of repeat offenders.  He argued that, when western societies lock people in prison for one, five, twenty, or more years, they essentially create a huge change in that individual's relationship with the world.  The modern prison system essentially takes away years of possible world experience from an individual.  Especially for people with high prison terms, the rest of the world will be continually growing, leaving the prisoner behind.  This is probably especially true in modern days, where technology is continually advancing, reshaping the way we live on a daily basis.  In short, time is too valuable a resource for us to take from people.

What did he propose?  Khomeini still endorsed the criminal deterrence viewpoint of criminal justice.  He just didn't like the deterrence method employed.  Alternatively, he believed in the corporal punishment systems, involving punishments intended to physically harm people quickly.  The message would remain clear for a long time.

Consider theft.  Assume that the punishment for theft is 30 lashes.  Total time that person is in the justice system?  Maybe a day, following the trial, then some time treating the wounds (only to prevent infection).  In a relatively short time, the offender can return to a normal lifestyle.  There's very little need for any form of rehabilitation, and the deterrence message is very well understood.

I'm... I'm... not exactly sure how to respond to that...

On the one hand: I always expected that Chris would be fully in endorsement of beating criminals within an inch of their lives.  But on the other hand... he just endorsed an argument from the leader of the Iranian revolution...

Makes sense to me...

> Selur Ku wrote:
> "When I was in prison I had a better quality of life than I have ever had anywhere else, even when I had my own home"

Utter bollocks- I dont believe you've been in prison, you wouldnt be talking such crap if you had. <

I would prove it, but as it costs me money I don't have I'm not going to do that without good reason.
...
Your beleif is not required; An explanation of your beleif might be, IF you want a discussion.
__________
__________

Zarf's argument might be right... ...but tbh some people really should just be locked away. This is a conveniently timed example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10505263.stm

> Before the attacks began Moat's Facebook status was changed to read: "Just got out of jail, I've lost
> everything, my business, my property and to top it all off my lass has gone off with someone else.
>
> "Watch and see what happens."

Image obsessed weirdo, and not in the good way either... ...it's always the ugly ones isn't it?
__________
__________

RE Beating the snot out of the convicted:

What about the innocent?

> &#9773; Fokker wrote:

> Zarf's argument might be right... ...but tbh some people really should just be locked away. This is a conveniently timed example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10505263.stm

> Before the attacks began Moat's Facebook status was changed to read: "Just got out of jail, I've lost
> everything, my business, my property and to top it all off my lass has gone off with someone else.
>
> "Watch and see what happens."

Image obsessed weirdo, and not in the good way either... ...it's always the ugly ones isn't it?
__________

You know... it's funny how the exact article you posted proves my point.  The man was in prison.  When he comes back, he's lost all his investment in society (business, land, wife), largely due to his separation from the world.

The person he became may be a lowlife who you think should be locked up.  However, your criminal's own admission creates an indication, which we should examine, that the system may be the cause of repeat crime.

__________

RE Beating the snot out of the convicted:

What about the innocent?

Um... they shouldn't get the shit beaten out of them?  Was there some point in this argument which I may have missed?

Fact of the day on BBC today:

In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the USA was 28,874. In Britain, the figure was 207.

yar, dieing by a gun is so much worse then dieing by a knife....  silly propaganda.

Avo, are you trying to claim that the number of knife deaths in the UK per 1000 head of population is equivalent to the number of gun deaths per head of population in the USA? If so, do you have a source? If not, your post is irrelevant.

> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:

> Avo, are you trying to claim that the number of knife deaths in the UK per 1000 head of population is equivalent to the number of gun deaths per head of population in the USA? If so, do you have a source? If not, your post is irrelevant.

no, i'm not. and its still relevant. we have already established in these forums countless times that there are plenty of countries with equally lax gun control as the US with very low murder rates; establishing that the US's gun control laws are not the cause of the US's high murder rate.

i was simply laughing at British propaganda specifying gun killings as if being killed is fine as long as its not by a gun.

I don't think that has ever been stated or suggested.<<

I agree it was suggested by reporting the death toll FROM GUNS.