English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Now this is a difficult one - considering the questions I have been asking of late. However, all I am after is a way of lowering the crime rate in my questions - therefore which of the above would you personally think would lower the crime throughout the world.

2007-03-27 09:41:28 · 14 answers · asked by deep in thought 4 in Politics & Government Law Enforcement & Police

14 answers

It is very true that the victim is not emphasized enough however if we made it harder on the offenders it might come to a point we wouldn't have as many victims. That is what I would like to see happen.

2007-03-27 09:56:02 · answer #1 · answered by "Hooks" 3 · 1 0

Victims are often left to their own devices but I think generally most get some help. Maybe not enough but some. I think that a victim should NEVER be counter sued for self protection or trying to prevent a crime. NEVER!

What ticks me off is the BILLIONS of $$ spent on lawyers and courts for some of the high profile cases to protect the rights of complete scum. In Canada, the case against the pig farmer arrested has cost us almost $100 million dollars and court is just in its infancy stages. The man has openly complained he was arrested before he could make it a round 50 victims instead of 49. WHY DO WE waste money on this scum?

Why do American jails house death row inmates for decades. I know there are a few errors but proper law procedures would alleviate these. Place a 3 year limit on battling the law then, pull the goddam plug.

Why do we pay to house the Clifford Olsons and Charlie Mansons or any of these other ilk? Why do we arrest and put pedophiles and other sex criminals into jail then release them without bloody well making sure they cannot re-offend? I am a large fan of ... er... the removal of offending weapons in sexual offenses if you get my drift. If these pervs knew they would lose it for their crime, they might think twice.

Your Three strikes needs to be reevaluated as well. It is laughable if only it did not hurt so many people.

2007-03-27 17:47:39 · answer #2 · answered by Noor al Haqiqa 6 · 0 0

The offender where at all possible should be made to look at the impact that he has had on the victim. The victim of crime should in my opinion be exempt from any kind of counter proceedings by the offender (i.e protecting your home from an intruder).

The Offender should lose all human rights other than the basic one to breathe air and have enough food and water to sustain their life.

Given the recent press, it seems as if we can't call them cells anymore, they are called rooms and prisoners are free to come and go as they please from them. What sort of a deterrent is this?

I also think that many turn to crime because of a lack of education so maybe this be addressed and maybe it should be mandatory to learn a trade or get academic qualifications.

I'm pretty far right and not much into rehabilitation but we have to get the root of the problems as well as throw the book at people.

2007-03-27 16:47:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Depends what you mean by "emphasis". An offender should be punished, perhaps bring back the birch, but if it were not for "Victims Support" victims of a crime would get no help at all to recover from the crime inflicted on them. The police resources do not allow for the counselling of the victims.

2007-03-27 18:56:56 · answer #4 · answered by Winnie 4 · 0 0

I was a victim of armed robbery in London. After I've reported this to the police, I've received a lot of letters from a charity called Victim Support with letter like: "We're sorry to hear you were a victim of crime. If you'd like to talk about this, you may reach us at..."
I don't need that! Why do they share my details with them? What's the point of this? My answer for your question is: the police should find the offerenders and leave the victims alone.

P.S. They couldn't find the offenders, although there was a recording CCTV nearby.

2007-03-27 17:10:31 · answer #5 · answered by B D 2 · 1 0

I'm uncertain about how we should lower crime in the long term,but I'm sure that in the short term we should be dealing quite severely with many of the violent criminals that we are suffering in Britain.
The knife murders we have seen over the last few weeks are, to me,not an aberration but a sign that this type of crime will be here to stay unless it's clamped down on now.
The weekend yobs that destroy our towns and city centres need to know that enough is enough and that they will be jailed for any violent assaults they commit.
I know that is only a small part of the criminal landscape of this country,but it's a start.

2007-03-27 17:01:12 · answer #6 · answered by STEPHEN G 1 · 0 0

did any of you watch This Morning? it was about a man who found a man in his hallway of his house just about to burgle it and after a struggle and a few words,the burglar was arrested by the police and taken away.the police contacted the victim and wondered if he would be interested in a scheme they were trying out about reforming the offender. He agreed and after much work and empathy they finally began to understand each other and put the past behind them. they are now very good friends. i know some people will think its ludicrous but it seemed to work for them. maybe the emphasis should be aimed at the offender but it would take a very strong victim to go through it.

2007-03-27 17:25:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

More emphasis on the offender. We already do, just dont apply the resources in an effective way. We use our time money and effort to keep em locked up and feed them etc... Rather than on getting to the root cause of their criminal act and making a serious and sustained effort (as opposed to the superficial jokes the government roll out every now and then) to stop them reoffending.

Example: Locking pedophiles up for 10 or so years (ok, they get tiny amount of crap therapy inside too) then releasing them.......Does any one really think that will stop them wanting to do what they do?!

2007-03-27 16:47:12 · answer #8 · answered by huvgj 2 · 3 1

There should be a balance between the two.

Considering the past trend I think we need to give more emphasis on the victims.

Case in point Tooke a cold blooded killer and how Hollywood came out with a vast sympathy for him but nothing about the victims of it were mention.

The talk about the evils of the death pentaly but they don't give the same press to the evil the person did.

2007-03-27 16:46:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I think we need to focus on the offender.

First of all, victims are easy to find. They tend to call 911 if they are able. Offenders tend to hide. That in itself demands more attention.

Second, the victim already has plenty of incentive to not want to be a victim in the future. We need to find ways to make the offender not want to be an offender anymore, or at least take away their ability to be an offender.

2007-03-27 16:46:01 · answer #10 · answered by open4one 7 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers