ForumGarden

It seems that after the ultra-disciplined Victorian era, societies generally got more and more liberal and nowadays it is more likely that a person will be punished for defending his family or property, than that the criminal will receive justice! Punishment these days seems to mean things like ASBOs (usually ignored), or after a few zillion warnings, a spell in an institution where the yobs can play snooker, watch DVDs, and if they`re really naughty, get a trip to a holiday camp or even on safari (Fact: A group of delinquents were taken from an institution to Centre Parcs and more crime occured there during the one week they were there than in the Parc`s 15 year history prior to that)

Well, don`t know if anybody other than yours truly is getting a bit sick of all this so how about bringing back actual PUNISHMENT for these thugs. I suggest a minimum 5 year sentence for vandalism / graffiti, a minimum 10 year sentence for robbery or violence, life without parole (or the death penalty) for murderers, and castration for sex offenders. Yes, all very draconian, but perhaps, who knows, what is actually needed in this day and age>

john8pies wrote: It seems that after the ultra-disciplined Victorian era, societies generally got more and more liberal and nowadays it is more likely that a person will be punished for defending his family or property, than that the criminal will receive justice! Punishment these days seems to mean things like ASBOs (usually ignored), or after a few zillion warnings, a spell in an institution where the yobs can play snooker, watch DVDs, and if they`re really naughty, get a trip to a holiday camp or even on safari (Fact: A group of delinquents were taken from an institution to Centre Parcs and more crime occured there during the one week they were there than in the Parc`s 15 year history prior to that)



Well, don`t know if anybody other than yours truly is getting a bit sick of all this so how about bringing back actual PUNISHMENT for these thugs. I suggest a minimum 5 year sentence for vandalism / graffiti, a minimum 10 year sentence for robbery or violence, life without parole (or the death penalty) for murderers, and castration for sex offenders. Yes, all very draconian, but perhaps, who knows, what is actually needed in this day and age> I don't agree locking up these yobs is the answer. Costs the state a fortune in keeping them there in these inmate holiday camps. Bring back the birch, cat O' nine tails, stocks in public squares. Buzzard's Law

Rules like that tend not to last long, and a good thing too.

' Draco's code, which is generally dated to 621, was not the first reduction of Athenian law to writing, but it may have been the first comprehensive code or a revision prompted by some particular crisis. Draco's code was later regarded as intolerably harsh, punishing trivial crimes with death; it was probably unsatisfactory to contemporaries, since Solon, who was the archon in 594 BC, later repealed Draco's code and published new laws, retaining only Draco's homicide statutes. '

(A History of Ancient Greece: Draco and Solon Laws; http://history-world.org/draco_and_solon_laws.htm )

Some thing has to be done - why reward a person/child who has broken the law 20 or 30 times.

acydikeen wrote: Your all after going about this the wrong way..

Do you know what our laws and ounishment are nowadays:

Civil



We don't want to go back to such a barbaric age do we?



Lets say all those of you that downloaded music illegally (and I imagine there are a few on here) were cought..

According to the "old laws" theives were to have a hand chopped off..

Try downloading without your "clicking" hand people ;)If the average person thought they'd get their hand chopped off for downloading music illegally, then chances are high they wouldn't do it...which is the point, don't you think?

acydikeen wrote: So you think we should go back to such barbaric ways of living, with the state controlled by the hand of fear?



Sound very Nazi-Germany to me *sniff*Please don't tell me you're one of those people who can't accept personal responsibility for your actions? If you make good choices, you get to reap the rewards? If you make bad choices, it's the fault of government, your parents, the moon rising in Jupiter?



Regardless, what I am saying is that if the punishment for a crime deters the majority of people from committing the crime, then isn't the law/punishment effective?

You know, we could combine this thread with the calls for that seven-year-old to be considered within the age of criminal responsibility, and cut his hand and foot off too. And if we add the existing notion of a lottery for permission to be the one to "pull the switch" (though I'm sure using a blunt axe would be a lot more telegenic in this case) we could even make money for the state concerned.

draconian penalties are not needed. appropriate penalties are.

murder someone? why should you ever be allowed back amongst non-murderers again?



steal a TV? a man was recently released from prison after serving 30 years for the crime. that's insane. theft is wrong, but frankly, the penalty ought to fit the value of what's stolen, at least vaguely.



a person who serially commits assault, battery, burglary, robbery - each past conviction should indeed count against them at sentencing. a pattern of antisocial behavior is reasonable grounds for keeping them locked up longer and longer. i think our current 'three strikes' laws have been unfortunately turned into draconian penalties - non-violent petty crimes counting towards the strike total is absurd. three violent assaults, however, should garner a LONG sentence.

Bravo, anastrophe. We have a proverb in England to the effect that, if the penalty is the same and you're going to commit crime, you may as well go the whole hog: or, as the OED cites, "1678 J. RAY Eng. Proverbs (ed. 2) 350 As good be hang'd for an old sheep as a young lamb.

acydikeen wrote:

But you want humanity to return to barbaric ways?

You want civilisation to regress?Ok, I'll bite.

1. Why would you assume that civilization would regress?

2. Why would you assume that I prefer Draconian measures based on my original question?



My personal opinion aligns very closely with Anastrophe's post. As usual. Even though he had no coffee on this one (LOL). I'm not for irrational punishment, but then again I'm not for irrational tolerance either. Make sense?



I'm just as sick of the bizarre wielding of justice these days as everyone else is. While I don't approve of brutality, and I certainly don't approve of state-sanctioned brutality, I can't find any warm fuzzy feelings for those convicted of crimes. I truly don't see how the notion of expecting people to take responsibility for themselves would be regressive in the slightest.

Rapists, Murderers and child abusers I would gladly step into Peerpoint's shoes.