Which would you rather have?

Question

A) Harsher sentences/hard labour/nobail/no appeals

OR

B) Re-instate National Service for 17-20year olds.

One category only and brief reason why please.

Answer 1

I reckon b would be a more effective way of teaching the values of respect, discipline and hard work. Even the younger people who aren't smashing up bus shelters and mugging people seem to have no work ethic or value system.

Answer 2

Re-instate National Service for 17-20year olds

Answer 3

B. Re-instate National service for 17-20 yr old without doubt.
Prison will only ever encourage...more of the same kind of behaviour...or worse. National Service would educate,discipline,develop character and encourage teamwork, resulting in a less self centred individual and a valuable member of society.

Answer 4

Why is it an either / or?

A. is unworkable. Harsh treatment in prison will not deter criminals because they do not believe that they will get caught. Without bail, (i.e. letting innocent people stay in the community until they come to trial) our already full prisons would be standing room only. Or do you mean parole?
No appeals would be fine if we could guarantee the courts never made a mistake. What do you mean we can't be sure of that?

B. is just plain silly. Our armed forces are among the best in the world because they are volunteer professional servicemen. Now imagine, instead of training professional soldiers, devoting the resources to keeping resentful 17 - 20 year olds in line. The services were loudest among those calling for the abolition of National Service in the 1950's.

You're asking us to choose between 2 over simplistic 'fixes' that won't work.

Answer 5

A.
The army is not a detention centre. Why should all 17-20 year olds have to do National Service because of a few criminals?

Answer 6

Re-instating National Service would not work on to days younger generation, they are a breed apart but lets face it I feel sorry for them, it is all about what you have not who you are and the Government are constantly seeing them as a commodity.

Answer 7

I would prefer A.

My country has national service because of our lack of manpower. As a citizen, I understand that. However, national service is a sacrifice of time and economy.

The men in my country cannot start work until they have finished national service. That's 2 years of lost income. 2 years of lost time that could be spent on career advancement.

Therefore, unless one's country has a shortage of military manpower, National Service is a costly alternative.

Let's not punish the men until they have commited a crime. There should be harsher sentences and we can teach our kids respect in school instead.

Answer 8

Harsher sentences don't work, it seems. However, I'm not sure the Army would be keen on doing what parents and schools should have been doing since day one. Maybe a separate organisation run by a separate army-trained unit?

Answer 9

Has the US ever had a national service program for
17-20 year olds other than the draft?

It seems to work well in other countries - it would be
interesting to see if there are any studies on how it
effects crime rates.

There is NO evidence that harsher sentences or
removing appeals reduces crime rates. I am
unfamiliar with any studies on hard labor.

Given no other information ... B.

Answer 10

ASBO`S don`t work, National Service is not the answer.

Make prison so bl00dy bad and horrible that offenders would not want to go back - No TV, No Pool Tables, No Gyms, No Radio..........Just hard work in a rotten atmosphere. And if they riot, ohh if they riot - unfortunately Yahoo would not allow my post on that subject.