UK Tax dollars (pounds) hard at work!

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: LLAO Good point. Not much reading taking place there. EDIT: I suppose it should have been LYAO (Laughing Your Ass Off instead) of LLAO this time

Ooh...you had to go there, didn't you...I thought that joke had been forgotten by now![/QUOTE]LOL, you can blame Lolly Willowes the IX.

[Larry_OHF]

For what it is worth, and we are discussing the UK law here in this topic, I have a U.S. example...

A man that is imprisoned is allowed, by my understanding...to be allowed a personal visit by his wife...not anyone...just his wife...for matrimonial love-making. However, if the man is in prison for Life, without hope of ever getting out...he is denied that luxery.

A man that is prison for life, therefore, knowing that he could never get with his wife, asked permission to mail his seed by overnight carrier to his wife, so that he could be a daddy. He was denied this right. They said that whatever he did to deserve life imprisonment also made void all rights...even fatherhood.

An interesting topic.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Power to the Guilty! [img]graemlins/readingbook.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img]

Actually I see this whole thing as a rather disturbing trend,
Even the way you’re trying to frame that statement, “power to the guilty”.
You see, People like that, A Multiple murderer,
That sort of people shouldn’t really be let out, they should spend the rest of their life there.
Now, There’s nothing much revolutionary about that.
But I also happen to believe that they should be treated with basic human dignity.
Yes, They have killed people.
Yes, they have violated others right to life to name but one.
But why should we do the same to them?
By all means, there are certain things they give up.
They have little control over their lives, they have no freedom of movement in many prisons, and they are severely restricted in their leisure activities etc.

But the point of anything is not to mete out vengeance, but rather to promote change and trying to redeem the person.

Where they cannot be redeem or it’s too dangerous to let them out, by all means lock them up for the rest of their lives.
But I happen to think, that when you get it into your head that it’s OK to treat certain people badly, it’s easier to get it into your head to treat others people bad.
To suggest that they have no rights or should be punished with excessive harshness is to dehumanise them, And I believe that we in this day and age should be above that.

If I could wave a magic wand to make the world be full of peace and brotherly love I would, Of course we can’t.
But ensuring that all people are treated fairly and decently is a step towards that.

Dramnek I know you aren't that dense so quit acting like you don't have the ability to think. Who pays for EVERYTHING an inmate has? The TAX payers.

As for sex, they don't need porn to whack off. This is strictly a "WANT" not a "NEED"
I have never heard of a serial killer who was NOT a sick whack job regardless his use of porn.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, lots of good posts. I have so little to add (I know - don't faint or nuthin' ).

1. By definition, incarceration is the TAKING of some of the rights a person normally has, whatever country you live in. What rights can be taken are dictated by national law.

2. In the US, the sperm-mailing case mentioned above, whereby the BASIC right to reproduce - part of our right to privacy penumbra - was denied, is a classic example of how limited a prisoner's freedoms are.

3. The international convention on human rights does NOT have to be read this broadly - and it is silly to do so. Neither does the European Convention on Human Rights. If you disagree on this point, please do me the favor of reading the documents first so you can discuss it intelligently. Here's the text of the European one:
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

4. I must say that the medieval courts in England were a hellhole, and getting in front of a judge was a death sentence. But, if this is crime and punishment in England in the modern day - it's become waaaayy too ■■■■■-fied for me.

5. *IF* a prisoner has rights to access this type of smut (don't get me wrong - I like smut perfectly well), it should ONLY be when they can obtain it on their own (e.g. relative brings it) and they should NEVER use taxpayer dollars to buy it.

6. This is the kind of thing that makes me wish we'd just castrate sex offenders - which, take note, this fella was.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 4. I must say that the medieval courts in England were a hellhole, and getting in front of a judge was a death sentence. But, if this is crime and punishment in England in the modern day - it's become waaaayy too ■■■■■-fied for me. [/QB]

You are using an emotionally driven value judgement there,
Do emotionally driven decisions have any place in law or what we would call justice?

It is Emotion which drives the howling mob.
Emotion which Hangs em' high.

[ 11-26-2002, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Eisenschwarz ]

[Timber Loftis]

How poetic Eisenschwarz. Is that yours?

Anyway, it's not an emotion-driven thing. I think that PUNISHMENT is a perfectly valid reason to incarcerate people. I know that in the EU, the justification is much more related to public safety, but there are several reasons a society may rely on to exact criminal punishment, including:
punishment/vengeance
public safety/ removal of a danger from society
deterrent to would-be criminals

In America, our gov. condones the first on this list. The EU's rejection, to a large degree, of the "vengeance" justification for punishment is the largest reason the EU outlaws the death penalty. That said, some countries, like the US, do not outlaw it.

Vengeance is, to some degree, emotional. But, it's also an attempt to repay the victim of crimes by punishing the criminal equally - Hammurabi and all that. I know there are logical inconsistencies in it, but, well, hell, hypocricy exists in all of life. Anyway, if the goal is, in part, to punish, someone who has been convicted for 6 (yes, IIRC it said 6) murders should be more harshly treated. Allowing them so many of the freedoms they have outside of prison is, IMNSHO, simply giving them a free confined comfortable life. That's a waste, and it does not accomplish a very valid goal of the punishment to begin with.

You may not agree with my take on this, but I bet you won't deny my assertion that it's not my emotional drive. ■■■■■-fied was the way I chose to frame it, but any personal offense I take to it is certainly intellectual, not emotional.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: To suggest that they have no rights or should be punished with excessive harshness is to dehumanise them, And I believe that we in this day and age should be above that. If I could wave a magic wand to make the world be full of peace and brotherly love I would, Of course we can’t. But ensuring that all people are treated fairly and decently is a step towards that.

I think we'd all be happy to wave that wand. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So are you suggesting that depriving this inmate of porno is excessively harsh? Is porno a "right"? By giving him porno are we are attempting to "rise above"?

What is your point Dramek? You seem to be all over the board from porno being a valid human right to the injustice of capital punishment(which has nothing to do with this argument). Are capital punishment and the restriction of porno the same level of dehumanizing someone?

Actually, the article didn't talk about taking his life or seeking revenge on him. It said he was going to be allowed to have porno. Lot's of us don't think that's right.

So the people here that disagree with you don't phrase things the way you think we should. It's really a matter of opinion isn't it?

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: So the people here that disagree with you don't phrase things the way you think we should. It's really a matter of opinion isn't it?

Ron it is an old story, since you really can't justify your view nor refute the oposition, you turn the attack on the delivery of the oppositions message.

[WillowIX]

LOL MagiK (statement above). Well if I was to be imprisoned the first thing I´d ask for would certainly be pornography Violate human rights for denying prisoners porn. Silly! What´s next? Beating women will be allowed by the UN? Naah revoke the law immediately. If they have been able to live without pornography for so long why would they need it now?

Larry your post was very interesting indeed. Any additional information about that would be appreciated. My first thought is that they can´t deny him fatherhood. It has not been proven that criminality is heretic. One gene is thought of increasing violence though; but that hasn´t been proved yet either. [img]smile.gif[/img]