Gaming0 min ago
Is It Time Life Meant Life?
32 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
/Are you saying it is ok if innocents are slain as along as it's under a certain precentage? /
Yes
It's called using the Facts TTT
It's how decisions are made in the Grown Up World
It helps us get our priorities right and allocate resources to where they are most needed
Is it bad that 5 people were killed in this way? yes
Is 0.26% percent statistically significant? Probably not compared with other issues
If it was a Recidivism Rate of 26% that would be different
The notion that the percentage doesn't matter because 'one would be too many' is unrealistic and hampers any prioritisation or rational decision making
Yes
It's called using the Facts TTT
It's how decisions are made in the Grown Up World
It helps us get our priorities right and allocate resources to where they are most needed
Is it bad that 5 people were killed in this way? yes
Is 0.26% percent statistically significant? Probably not compared with other issues
If it was a Recidivism Rate of 26% that would be different
The notion that the percentage doesn't matter because 'one would be too many' is unrealistic and hampers any prioritisation or rational decision making
I have to hold my hand up and say that I would be quite happy for whole of life sentences to actually be whole of life.
Sometimes in the US, you hear of sentences of 300 years being passed down, and to be honest, that makes me grin a little.
Imprisonment should be partly rehabilitation and partly punishment.
There are some who absolutely cannot be rehabilitated. Some people are simply evil. Part of my taxes goes to pay for stuff I totally don't agree with...however, I wouldn't complain if I had to pay a few quid more each year to keep someone in jail for the rest of their natural days.
Liberal leftie speaking...
Sometimes in the US, you hear of sentences of 300 years being passed down, and to be honest, that makes me grin a little.
Imprisonment should be partly rehabilitation and partly punishment.
There are some who absolutely cannot be rehabilitated. Some people are simply evil. Part of my taxes goes to pay for stuff I totally don't agree with...however, I wouldn't complain if I had to pay a few quid more each year to keep someone in jail for the rest of their natural days.
Liberal leftie speaking...
/Just seems like a bit of a double standard to me./
How exactly?
From my reading of anti-capital punishment posts on AB, the fundamental issue is that killing people is wrong and barbaric
It's wrong for private individuals to do it
It's wrong for the State to do it
The opportunity to review cases and release innocent people while they are still alive is a happy by-product
How exactly?
From my reading of anti-capital punishment posts on AB, the fundamental issue is that killing people is wrong and barbaric
It's wrong for private individuals to do it
It's wrong for the State to do it
The opportunity to review cases and release innocent people while they are still alive is a happy by-product
/You don't seem to bothered about innocents being slain because we let known murderers walk the streets/
TTT I am bothered about that
16.26 /Is it bad that 5 people were killed in this way? yes /
But in the overall scheme of things not as bothered as I would be if the problem was statistically greater - it would be nice if we could reduce it further
That seems a rational and intelligent approach.
Conversely, one might infer from your OP that it would be better to keep locked up all 1900 of the Lifers released on licence because 5 of them committed murder.
I don't think that makes sense.
TTT I am bothered about that
16.26 /Is it bad that 5 people were killed in this way? yes /
But in the overall scheme of things not as bothered as I would be if the problem was statistically greater - it would be nice if we could reduce it further
That seems a rational and intelligent approach.
Conversely, one might infer from your OP that it would be better to keep locked up all 1900 of the Lifers released on licence because 5 of them committed murder.
I don't think that makes sense.
"....it would be nice if we could reduce it further" - err perhaps by keep known killers in jail!
TTT
What would be your methodology (in addition to those already used by the authorities) for identifying the 5 who were going to kill out of the 1900 released on licence?
Or are you proposing that all of them should be kept locked up including those who would go on to lead blameless and useful lives once released?
TTT
What would be your methodology (in addition to those already used by the authorities) for identifying the 5 who were going to kill out of the 1900 released on licence?
Or are you proposing that all of them should be kept locked up including those who would go on to lead blameless and useful lives once released?
You're being played
This is all to do with the outsourcing of the probation service
http://
It's catching a lot of criticism so Grayling's briefing all the papers to try to say what a terrible job they're doing to support the outsourcing project.
This is all to do with the outsourcing of the probation service
http://
It's catching a lot of criticism so Grayling's briefing all the papers to try to say what a terrible job they're doing to support the outsourcing project.
I don't have one, life would mean life they would all be in jail untill they die, if the silly EU demand a release date then they can have one in 150 years time. I find it remarkable that you think it's ok to let known killers out on to the streets based on n% reoffending rate, I suppose you'd see it as acceptable collateral damage. I don't.
