...should we not just open the jail cells now and let all the criminals out to spend time with their family? Or should the criminals have thought about that before they committed the crime?
2007-12-30 08:34:53 · 17 answers · asked by slıɐuǝoʇ 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Soft on crime and even softer on criminals!! Its the only thing this corrupt and useless government has achieved in 10 years of lies and faked crime figures.Even when criminals are finally sentenced to jail they can use the Human Rights Act to claim tens of thousands of pounds of compensation for the slightest violation of their so-called "rights"!
Commit a crime and suffer the consequences. Once committed, a criminal effectively waives his or her rights to the freedoms the rest of us law-abiding citizens enjoy. Bleating on about their 'human rights' is nothing short of a slap in the face for the rest of us who work hard and stay on the right side of the law.
Those convicted of crimes should serve the sentence they are given by the courts in FULL!
2007-12-30 09:38:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure we have actually really gone soft on crime as a society but I feel we have become confused between the need to provide a suitable punishment so that a victim feels that justice has been carried out. With the desire to change the way people behave and reintegrate them into society.
Sometimes I feel we have decided that everyone is a 'hard luck' case. A trading places analogy and have lost the ability (if we ever had it) to distinguish between those who are 'damaged' beyond repair and those who need to be educated and helped.
Perhaps that is because in many cases we can see a little bit of ourselves and feel 'but for the grace of God...'
Can't offer a solid conclusion as I don't feel it is a yes/no situation.
2007-12-30 10:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by noeusuperstate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
criminal regulation protects the minority, that's the main important shaggy dog tale ever. mushy sentancing with the aid of overcrowding and funds, The regulation is effectively the back bone of the country and if it fairly is susceptible than the country will become worse. How with a prior conviction for the comparable crime can some one charged back with Grevious actual harm get a 12 month suspended sentance and courtroom expenses. How can murderers get under a existence sentance which all of us see. The statistics that are printed are a smoke reveal screen to the actual pronounced and in turn dismised figures, the accepted public of pronounced petty crimes to the police do no longer even warrant a checklist no longer to show a decision out, with the aid of very fact the paper artwork in touch for each and all the crimes could be overwhelming sewing the seed for better crimes. If the actual figures the place to be printed remarkable the country could uprise and the government could lose grip on order and administration.
2016-11-26 21:46:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you do the crime, you must do the time! Sadly it seems that the time doesn't always fit the crime. I think it's time that the legal system re-addresses the balance in favour of the innocent and the victims of crime, but at the same time looks at the social causes which promotes crime in the first place. Isn't prevention better than the cure?
2007-12-30 08:48:02 · answer #4 · answered by simon ST150 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh yes it has......and it is no excuse to say that it is the criminal justice system or the judges who dispense inadequate sentences according to the law now are demeaning the crime/punishment arguement. We need government death squads taking out all known offenders, or a system of an eye for an eye, or lets chop off someones hands if they are caught stealing and lets do it in public so that other thieves will take notice. Then lets see how fast crime rates fall............
2007-12-30 08:46:36 · answer #5 · answered by stingmyflesh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Government has gone soft on crime not "Britain."
2007-12-30 08:42:48 · answer #6 · answered by Captain Sarcasm 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This lot went soft on crime a long time ago. They would rather "criminalise" and fine the honest citizen for breaking one of their new facist rules than lock up the real villains.
2007-12-30 08:44:57 · answer #7 · answered by Willow 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course you should do the time if you do the crime. I just think that the sentences should be distributed according to the crime.
Paedophiles, rapists and murderers should be sentenced longer than thieves, people who don't pay taxes etc.
There should be more appropriate and just sentencing.
2007-12-30 08:44:20 · answer #8 · answered by Flit 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we seem to be more tolerant of it i think. have you seen some of the rape sentences being handed out they are an absolute disgrace. I'm sure they would be a lot longer if it was men who suffered from that disgusting crime. the judges in this country are pathetic.
2007-12-30 09:16:33 · answer #9 · answered by bruce m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it all started with chamberlain in the 1930s. thank god churchill had the ball sack to keep the world safer for posterity sake.
i doubt anyone can fend off the weenies now, though.
2007-12-30 12:19:49 · answer #10 · answered by ab dominance 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋