Holly Willoughby - stalker gets life (minimun 15 years) P31

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The trouble with embarking on a genuine attempt to address the rise in serious crime and to take steps that just might help reduce it, is that no government would be in power long enough to see the rewards.

So why bother with years of hysteria directed at them for going ‘soft on crime’ when they won’t even be around to take the accolades should it be successful?

What I feel odd is whenever there’s debate on law and order, it inevitable leads to calls for us to follow states in America who still have capital punishment. Or take a leaf out of China’s book and have undesirables simply disappear. No need for pesky court cases. Or blocking up prison cells for years.

Yet strangely, you never seem to hear people suggesting we look to countries like Norway who have amongst both the ‘softest’ jails and the lowest crime rates. Also an extremely low rate of recidivism.

I’m not suggesting we should just completely adopt all their policies overnight. We are different people, with different cultures.

But surely if you were looking at how to bring crime down, the first places you’d look at are those countries with the lowest crime rates, to see if any lessons could be learnt?

Never seems to happen though.

It’s an endless circle of insanity.

 

[DrBlueBob]

It’s actually very straightforward and based on the maxim of being hung for a sheep as well as a lamb.

When did hanged get hung out to dry, as it where?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Not necessarily.

In fact I’d go as far to say that the majority are probably not.

While there are, at least in the U.S., varying degrees of murder (First degree, second degree…), the basic “common law” definition of murder regards premeditation.

“Cornell Law School:

Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.

The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder.

Common Law Murder​

Murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought.”

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The trouble with embarking on a genuine attempt to address the rise in serious crime and to take steps that just might help reduce it, is that no government would be in power long enough to see the rewards.

So why bother with years of hysteria directed at them for going ‘soft on crime’ when they won’t even be around to take the accolades should it be successful?

What I feel odd is whenever there’s debate on law and order, it inevitable leads to calls for us to follow states in America who still have capital punishment. Or take a leaf out of China’s book and have undesirables simply disappear. No need for pesky court cases. Or blocking up prison cells for years.

Yet strangely, you never seem to hear people suggesting we look to countries like Norway who have amongst both the ‘softest’ jails and the lowest crime rates. Also an extremely low rate of recidivism.

I’m not suggesting we should just completely adopt all their policies overnight. We are different people, with different cultures.

But surely if you were looking at how to bring crime down, the first places you’d look at are those countries with the lowest crime rates, to see if any lessons could be learnt?

Never seems to happen though.

Societal differences can create vastly different outcomes.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It’s worth pointing out that if this offence had taken place thirty years ago (through different means, obviously) then he’d have been looking at about ten years, so out in about six. This guy is going to serve at least twenty.

Society was less violent and unkind back then. It was also more forgiving.

Sentences have been increasing steadily in that time and yet the problems that society faces in terms of serious crime have been increasing throughout that period too. And the calls for tougher and tougher sentences continue. And the cycle continues.

People need to step back and consider what the problem actually is, because it might not be where they think it presently lies.

The desire for retribution is a natural one, but it plainly doesn’t provide all the answers.

And I fear too many people believe it does.

If we persist with having wars on nouns, as opposed to wars on proper nouns, I fear we’re locked into this doom loop forever.
The very framing of a war, be it on drugs, on crime, on terror, or any of the myriad of ‘wars on’, far from being the ‘solution’ are, indeed, often the problem. In my view the problem with wars on nouns is that most people see it as a war of ‘others’, that is people who aren’t them. Once that has happened the game is up before you’ve actually started and, unlike the Proper Nouns, nouns cannot surrender…..

If we were a sane country we’d actually have a consensus on certain aspects of society that government(s) would just agree on, whatever their colour.
NHS to be funded at GDP or inflation, train as many nurses and doctors who successfully apply for places every year, defence spending to be x% of GDP etc…
Instead, every few years, or even months recently, everything gets thrown up in the air and nobody has any idea what the next plan will be.
If we want jail time to be the answer, build lots of prisons and fund the criminal justice system properly. If we want prevention to play a part, then fund children and youth activities and invest hugely in education, but do these things consistently, as a matter of course, not on a piecemeal basis for 3 years.

When making policy, be guided by the evidence and don’t be afraid of where it takes you, might actually make for good government…

 

[Stephen230]

While there are, at least in the U.S., varying degrees of murder (First degree, second degree…), the basic “common law” definition of murder regards premeditation.

“Cornell Law School:

Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.

The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder.

Common Law Murder​

Murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought.”

I assumed we were talking about the law in England and Wales, where you are guilty of murder if you kill another person with the intention to cause serious injury.

Of course you’re also guilty of murder if you kill someone and that was your intention.

But I’d say the majority fall into the former category and don’t exactly set out with a premeditation to actually kill.