"It's just a washing machine"

[kathryn d]

kathryn, I've not asked you to apolgoise for naything. Onyl thing Iv'e3 aked is that you not insullt and riducle other and make open accusations in a rude & mocking others simply for not agreeing with you.

I honestly do not think you're suggetions would work. They are not new ideas to get enthused about, they are the same thing that pop into most people's minds the moment they hear something that "shocks" them.

But unfortunately, they don't actually work.

I don't know what exactly what to replace what we have now with which will fix the problems society has now exactly, but that doesn't mean your ideas, like building separate prisons for pedophiles (?) will work.

I have not ridiculed or insulted anyone personally.If that is how some posters view it, they must see some remarks I've made to be directly at them. If the shoe fits....

Obviously, "your" penal system doesn't work either.
Given the choice of the two...I opt to keep society safer.
Makes me wonder why others would not want the same thing.

If we go with my option, I would like to make as little financial impact on the law abiding citizens as possible.

If we need to lock up more people, we can certainly segregate violent from nonviolent inmates. We can also keep different degrees of criminals away from each other...such as a hardcore paedophiles, and others just because they are a couple years older than their girlfriend. (if the law determines they need to be considered a criminal in the first place)

 

[wylie]

Newspapers have to say 'alleged' because nothing has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Surely we don't want another Chamberlain case where everyone 'knew' she was guilty?

I understand why they used "alleged" and said so in my post.

What I do not understand is why they said there was an "alleged" fight or an "alleged brawl" or somebody received an "alleged" punch, when clearly there WAS a fight or brawl and somebody was clearly punched.

My understand is that the word alleged should be used when discussing the perpetrator, not the incident.

I just think the journalists get it wrong and use it in the wrong way.

 

[dan c]

I understand why they used "alleged" and said so in my post.

What I do not understand is why they said there was an "alleged" fight or an "alleged brawl" or somebody received an "alleged" punch, when clearly there WAS a fight or brawl and somebody was clearly punched.

My understand is that the word alleged should be used when discussing the perpetrator, not the incident.

I just think the journalists get it wrong and use it in the wrong way.

I think Journalists often err on the side of caution when using 'alleged', because of the legal system.

If someone makes an allegation that they were punched, and the other party denies it, then I think it's proper to report it as 'an alleged punch'. Because all there is at that stage is an allegation by one party. Nothing has been proven.

But I agree, most of the time the action is not in doubt, so it's alleged Mr so and so punched Mr Y etc.

 

[dan c]

I make no apologies for my desire to have criminals away from society. As long as they aren't physically tortured, I don't give them a second thought. They should not be attempted to be rehabilitated...it doesn't work in the majority of the cases.

If we increased sentences, so that new offenders could learn even more off hardened crims, offered no rehabilitation, and no chances when they were released, don't you think this would increase repeat offending?

So the offender is finally released, and the only new skills he has picked up are fron his fellow inmates. He's maybe gone from a guy with a drug problem to a guy with a new skill set. He can now rob you, attack you, steal your car, stick up banks or service stations much better then he previously could, because of his new found skills. He has contacts onthe outside, to help him avoid capture. And because of his experience in jail, he will not be taken easily when the police finally catch up with him.

Feeling safer yet??

 

[kathryn d]

If we increased sentences, so that new offenders could learn even more off hardened crims, offered no rehabilitation, and no chances when they were released, don't you think this would increase repeat offending?

So the offender is finally released, and the only new skills he has picked up are fron his fellow inmates. He's maybe gone from a guy with a drug problem to a guy with a new skill set. He can now rob you, attack you, steal your car, stick up banks or service stations much better then he previously could, because of his new found skills. He has contacts onthe outside, to help him avoid capture. And because of his experience in jail, he will not be taken easily when the police finally catch up with him.

Feeling safer yet??

Do you think he doesn't already get that new skill from his inmates now?
He just gets a lot sooner, to put them to work.

Ok..I guess it is up to me to offer solutions for this problem too?
There could be factories that employ ex-convicts. Something like mining towns, where food and accommodation are provided. When they decide to leave, and go into the "real" world, they have been slowly mainstreamed.With their wages, they can take "readjustment" courses, at their own expense.

Given the choice of having a criminal off the street for 5 years..or 15, I will take the latter.

Maybe some "bleeding hearts" can offer them room and board in their home, and show them the compassion you think they deserve.

 

[dan c]

Do you think he doesn't already get that new skill from his inmates now?
He just gets a lot sooner, to put them to work.

SOME do, sure. But some don't. Locking them up for longer with nothing to do means that MORE would.

Ok..I guess it is up to me to offer solutions for this problem too?
There could be factories that employ ex-convicts. Something like mining towns, where food and accommodation are provided. When they decide to leave, and go into the "real" world, they have been slowly mainstreamed.With their wages, they can take "readjustment" courses, at their own expense.

Hmm, sounds like rehabilitation! Don't tell me you're turning into a do-gooder before our very eyes!

Here's what I think, and apologies, because it will be very vague. If we cut down on re-offending, it will benefit society as a whole. The process to cut down re-offending could be both part carrot and part stick.

Something like a three strikes policy that they employ in certain states of the USA, as well as offering training and new skills.

I have no problem with repeat offenders being locked away for a long time. If they don't take their chances to rehabilitate, then lock 'em up.

But there are others where it's in society's best interests to ensure they don't come back. The threat of an increased sentence is only part of the solution. If they pick up some (non-criminal) skills in jail, which improves their chances of staying on the straight and narrow, then this is a good thing, isn't it?

 

[kathryn d]

SOME do, sure. But some don't. Locking them up for longer with nothing to do means that MORE would.

I have always stated they should be working hard while incarcerated. They are not being sentenced longer, they are just serving longer.


Hmm, sounds like rehabilitation! Don't tell me you're turning into a do-gooder before our very eyes!

This was after they finished their sentence, at no cost to the taxpayers. It also keeps them away from general society a bit longer

Here's what I think, and apologies, because it will be very vague. If we cut down on re-offending, it will benefit society as a whole. The process to cut down re-offending could be both part carrot and part stick.

Something like a three strikes policy that they employ in certain states of the USA, as well as offering training and new skills.

I have no problem with repeat offenders being locked away for a long time. If they don't take their chances to rehabilitate, then lock 'em up.

But there are others where it's in society's best interests to ensure they don't come back. The threat of an increased sentence is only part of the solution. If they pick up some (non-criminal) skills in jail, which improves their chances of staying on the straight and narrow, then this is a good thing, isn't it?

The incentive..such as 3 strikes your out will not work.
At the moment it is extrememly difficult for a crim to even serve any time. They are being given chance after chance now.

 

[jaycee]

Do you actually know what you are talking about, or is that not a pre requisite ?

 

[Aaron_C]

Do you actually know what you are talking about, or is that not a pre requisite ?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here jaycee. Ignorance begets ignorance.

 

[kathryn d]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here jaycee. Ignorance begets ignorance.

I'm sure if someone wanted to have a halfway home in your area it would be NIMBY.

Talk about igornace being bliss....you 2 are so far removed ..you live in the clouds.

 

[Aaron_C]

I'm sure if someone wanted to have a halfway home in your area it would be NIMBY.

Talk about igornace being bliss....you 2 are so far removed ..you live in the clouds.

Nope kathryn, wrong again. I don't have an issue with development adjacent to mine - I have never complained and I don't intend to. I care about making money far too much to worry about a small issue like a new development near my land.

 

[kathryn d]

Nope kathryn, wrong again. I don't have an issue with development adjacent to mine - I have never complained and I don't intend to. I care about making money far too much to worry about a small issue like a new development near my land.

Not talking about the land, I'm referring to the residents.
After you make your fortune, I'm sure the gated community, or the secured buildings will be more your style.


If violence hits home to your loved one, I wonder if your outlook would change then.

Of course, I'm sure you are against the death penalty too, if it was permitted again.

 

[jaycee]

I wish I could believe your solutions would work kathryn, but I can't see it.

Simple as that, I don't believe it will work,, I don't believe it will save money/.

No big deal, I've come up with heaps of "solutions" that wouldn't work in my life.... We don't HAVE to know the answer to everything.

 

[wylie]

I'm sure if someone wanted to have a halfway home in your area it would be NIMBY.

I think many people would be very surprised about how man halfway homes are in and around their suburb.

We had an issue several years ago where we trying to find out why a bottle shop had been disallowed in a new row of shops being built.

Turns out the reason it was disallowed was due to the halfway house a hundred metres away. There was a girls school across the road from the halfway house, and a paedophile at that particular time was staying in the halfway house, and all the government was concerned about was he might be able to buy alcohol. What about the girls school across the road . What about my (then) 11 year old son who might be walking home from school?

During the fallout from this revelation about the halfway house, it came out that we actually have five such places within about a mile radius. I knew of one, but the "general public" would be surprised to know how many such places exist, maybe just next door.

And I am in no way being NIMBY about it, just pointing out that these places must be somewhere, but it confirmed my decision not to let my son walk home from school past this place every day.

Other people may bleat about wrapping our kids in cotton wool, but there is good reason to be alert about this stuff right outside the front door.

 

[kathryn d]

Wylie,
You are right, they are everywhere. Where I live in canada, there is a women's prison within 2 kms and a halfway house, just a couple streets away.

I will not change anyone's mind, and I don't really care.
As Dazz mentioned in another thread, generally we all have our own ideas, and rarely venture from it.

I will always believe people need to take responsibility for their actions.
There will always be ones who in society who will make excuses for them.

 

[jaycee]

Wylie,
You are right, they are everywhere. Where I live in canada, there is a women's prison within 2 kms and a halfway house, just a couple streets away.

I will not change anyone's mind, and I don't really care.
As Dazz mentioned in another thread, generally we all have our own ideas, and rarely venture from it.

I will always believe people need to take responsibility for their actions.
There will always be ones who in society who will make excuses for them.

what's that got to do with anything ?

Most of have just said we think your idea to solle crime won't solve crime, no one on this thread suggested "go easy on him/her because..." at all.

 

[kathryn d]

what's that got to do with anything ?

Most of have just said we think your idea to solle crime won't solve crime, no one on this thread suggested "go easy on him/her because..." at all.

Mine does solve it.They are not back on the street to commit any more, until they have served their entire sentence.
I've cut crime by up to 66 %.

 

[Belbo]

No, Kathryn, you've just put forward a recipe to make people angry. Not the people you've imprisoned, but their friends, their partners, and their offspring. And angry people are not nice neighbours. It comes around.

 

[kathryn d]

No, Kathryn, you've just put forwarf a recipe to make people angry. Not the people you've imprisoned, but their friends, their partners, and their offspring. And angry people are not nice neighbours. It comes around.

And this is your reason for not wanting to put away murderers, rapists,thieves, etc?

That is the most illogical reason I have ever heard.

 

[jaycee]

Mine does solve it.They are not back on the street to commit any more, until they have served their entire sentence.
I've cut crime by up to 66 %.

Yeah, um, errr... come on, not even YOU believe that surely ? That's all it will take huh and allt he motive from cimre and stuff will dissappear.

If you implemented this "tomorrow", how long will it take before 2/3s of crime STOPS in Australia because of it ?