Amrik Gill

No compensation for those he conned? Imagine if you’d booked travel and accommodation for the match / gig.

Don’t they do the gamblers anonymous in prison?
 
Don't get me wrong, the sentence seems to make sense assuming that all of the details are correct, but it amazes me that someone can get to the stage where they have 65 previous convictions and are not automatically returned to prison when they commit another one.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Don't get me wrong, the sentence seems to make sense assuming that all of the details are correct, but it amazes me that someone can get to the stage where they have 65 previous convictions and are not automatically returned to prison when they commit another one.
Click to expand...
3 strikes and you’re in for life would reduce crime enormously. Most of these scumbags are incorrigible.
 
I’d sooner he was inside but receiving the help he needs too. My preference is a reformed man working for a living and making a contribution to society again.

My best mate’s younger brother was a tear away and ended up doing time. The experience matured him and he’s now a tradesman with a wife and kids.
 
Thomas Hearns said:
Well it has in states where it’s been applied. Other factors come into play but surely it has to be a good thing to keep recidivists in jail forever.
Click to expand...
Has it? In California, the crime rate was already decreasing before it was introduced. But it's basically become a way of reinventing the slave trade in America. They're often run for profit, and act as factories for all sorts of industries, so they have a huge interest in keeping a steady stream of free labour coming in and not actually rehabilitating anyone. Most of the evidence I've read has suggested that the likelihood of getting caught has a greater effect on the crime rate than the harshness of the sentencing. So if we've got limited money, it'd be better spent on increasing the police force rather than feeding and housing a bunch of ne'er-do-wells for the rest of their lives.
 
Some people aren’t wired up properly and just pure evil. Locking them away seems right.

Would you free Peter Sutcliffe, Charles Bronson or Ian Watkins?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.