Originally Posted by -Adam- Im glad people can use Google
lol I presume this is aimed at me , to me its obvious crime is getting worse - I have been in birmingham twice now while there has been armed robberies (found out later on TV what the commotion was about) . Me and my mates always wonder where the police battle wagons/cars are off too .
Not to mention the time i was in birmingham during the race riots that was scary (thankfully it did not involve caucausions so i managed to get home in one piece although it took me hours with all of birminghams roads being closed down...)
@ Muz: I do think the UK sentences are a joke to be honest. I know there is a balance between time inside and cost for gaurds/prisons etc but our sentences are a bit of a joke IMHO . Plus if the sentence fits the crime (i.e. long enough time) I am sure it will put people off doing the crime in the first place.
For example (local to where I live) one guy was doing 90 MPH in a Range Rover and hit a car head on in a 30mph road. The car had a family with a young child, and the child is now severely brain damaged and will be for life. The young driver is from what I gather is now out of prison. Is that right?
I dont agree with it to be honest, with such a short sentence I always think people will not learn yet to mention it giving a signal to every possible criminal that bad crimes only put you away for a short time. That guy has basically removed a perfectly normal life & future for the child, and now she will need constant care for the rest of her life. I used to drive down the very road to get to work every day, and I have been overtook many a time by people driving 4x4's or sports cars doing well above 60 .
Also if they do commit crime after coming out, put them away again and increase the time inside even longer. Exponential scale perhaps .
If our country stopped giving our money away we could afford more police, more prisons, better healthcare and better education. Tougher sentences/fines would not bother me one jot, I try not break the law
I can use Google, and i've been practicing using Yahoo too!
Seriously though, the sentencing in Britain needs more than just longer sentences. Sure it's a start, and the longer criminals spend inside the less time they are out and able to re-offend. However jails are too cushy for more serious criminals; t.v.'s, games consoles, activity days, Alton Towers days, day release... what the f**k is all that about? Most of these people have a better life inside than they would outside, so where's the deterent? More re-educating inside would help, but most of the criminals don't give a crap about learning. I think more drastic measures are required.
For example, why can't we chemically castrate peadophiles and rapists? It is proven to work in other countries and solves the problem when they come out. Granted it won't stop people committing armed robbery (or maybe it would, no-one's tried it yet!) but this approach could hold some answers.
For example, why can't we chemically castrate peadophiles and rapists? It is proven to work in other countries and solves the problem when they come out. Granted it won't stop people committing armed robbery (or maybe it would, no-one's tried it yet!) but this approach could hold some answers.
Because we are civilised in this country. Relatively.
Okay, we are civilised. But Peadophiles can never be cured using conventional teachings and courses, in the same way you can't 'cure' a gay (i'm not homophobic, i like the Pet Shop Boys), so why subject our children to the hazards of them just because their sentence has been served? They haven't changed their ways, they still desire children, why don't we do something about it? Why do we, as a civilised society, happily castrate dogs to stop them humping everything in sight, yet we don't want to save children's lives from the clutches of criminals in the same way?
A paedophile is not inherently a bad person (or a dangerous person). Only when a paedophile becomes a child abuser is the boundary crossed. There are many paedophiles who are self-controlled, normal people, and keep their sexual leanings to themselves, as society demands. Would you like to castrate these?
The media have of course altered the meaning of the word 'paedophile' from 'person who sexually desires children' to 'person who has acted sexually with children'. Two different things, and the former is something we actually know very little about (while the latter is front page news).
I think some of the child abuser laws are flawed (Or at least in America)
In America, an 18 year old sleeping with a 17.5 year old is child abuse.
I agree with most of it except that part. I think it should be considered okay with someone under 18 if you're within 3 years of them.
Anything else considered child abuse, in my mind is fair game for castration or prison or death penalty.
Well...any one who read this post from the beginning knows why I posted, and its been great to read everyones views, even when it changed into a political battle, lol
so...the Person in question has actually been brought to justice.
so a happy ending, finally one of the many rodent / Scally's has found they cant talk to adults and other children however they want.
K
----------------------
Time for a Sexy Party!
----------------------
Also, on what Wiiman said, it's sometimes a case of legal adult consent. That's why if a 25 year old has sex with a 17 year old, they can be charged for rape because it is the view of some people that people who are legally juveniles or young are not 100% liable for their actions. This has nothing to do with how mature either of the two parties are, just the general view that somehow when a person turns 18 (or 21) and are legally an adult, they are now 100% liable for their actions and must take full responsibility, they can't argue that they didn't know any better or were talked into it.
From Wikipedia:
"The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.
In many jurisdictions, age of consent is interpreted to mean mental or functional age.[3][4][5] As a result, victims can be of any chronological age if their mental age makes them unable to consent to a sexual act.[6][7][8][9] Other jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, eliminate the legal concept of "mental age" and treat sex with a mentally incapacitated person as a specific crime.
Laws vary[10] in their definitions of statutory rape. It is generally intended to punish heinous cases of an adult taking sexual advantage of a minor. Thus, many jurisdictions prohibit allowing a juvenile to be tried as an adult under this law (most jurisdictions have separate provisions for child molestation or forcible rape which can be applied to juveniles and for which a minor can be tried as an adult). Some jurisdictions also specify a minimum difference in age in order for the offense to be applicable. Under such terms, if the adult is, for instance, less than three years older than the minor, no crime has been committed or the penalty is far less severe. These are called "Romeo and Juliet" laws."
Good work Kai, you did the right thing! My fingers are crossed that the authorities do their bit and also do the right thing too! (it was supposed to be a fudge at a fingers-crossed emoticon!)
Advertisement
Post Reply
, to me its obvious crime is getting worse - I have been in birmingham twice now while there has been armed robberies (found out later on TV what the commotion was about) 
. Me and my mates always wonder where the police battle wagons/cars are off too 
. Plus if the sentence fits the crime (i.e. long enough time) I am sure it will put people off doing the crime in the first place.
.
Edited by an Administrator
(Or at least in America)
(it was supposed to be a fudge at a fingers-crossed emoticon!)