Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Prison for millionaires who still come out as rich men. Stupid idea?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
May 13, 2013, 7:15:31 AM5/13/13
to
Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
isssues altogether.
A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
which would teach them a lesson.
If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
for the convict, more constructive and cheaper. The scheme could provide
jobs for veterans, and a much tougher form of prison along the lines of
military nick could be used as a last resort for those who arse about.
Some would call this soft, I just think it's sensible to punish those
needing punishment, lock up those needing locking up, and realising that
the two are different.
mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
isssues altogether.
A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
which would teach them a lesson.
If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
for the convict, more constructive and cheaper. The scheme could provide
jobs for veterans, and a much tougher form of prison along the lines of
military nick could be used as a last resort for those who arse about.
Some would call this soft, I just think it's sensible to punish those
needing punishment, lock up those needing locking up, and realising that
the two are different.
JNugent
May 13, 2013, 8:14:04 AM5/13/13
to
Try to think about why that is.
The Todal
May 13, 2013, 8:21:43 AM5/13/13
to
readable language explains what it is like for a rich overprivileged man
to enter prison and get used to the way things are done. I used to
loathe him but the book made me respect him a lot more, though I think
he probably has the knack of making himself look good.
I think there can be no doubt that a few months in prison did more to
reform him than any fine would have done.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 8:56:49 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>waste of money.
While I tend to agree with you there has to be some element of
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>waste of money.
punishment.
Taking away a man's liberty is a very valid form of punishment,
especially if it's a rich man who gets slammed up in one of HM
Prisons...
AlanG
May 13, 2013, 9:19:16 AM5/13/13
to
>Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
>mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>
>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>
>So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>isssues altogether.
>
>A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>which would teach them a lesson.
>
>If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
What do you do when they tell you to piss off when you order them to
>mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>
>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>
>So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>isssues altogether.
>
>A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>which would teach them a lesson.
>
>If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
quick march?
The Todal
May 13, 2013, 9:37:18 AM5/13/13
to
On 13/5/13 14:19, AlanG wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
>> mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>> refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>>
>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>> waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>> anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>>
>> So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>> isssues altogether.
>>
>> A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>> public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>> bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>> which would teach them a lesson.
>>
>> If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>> drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>> for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
>
> What do you do when they tell you to piss off when you order them to
> quick march?
In the USA, the prison officers yell at the prisoners, hit them with
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
>> mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>> refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>>
>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>> waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>> anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>>
>> So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>> isssues altogether.
>>
>> A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>> public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>> bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>> which would teach them a lesson.
>>
>> If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>> drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>> for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
>
> What do you do when they tell you to piss off when you order them to
> quick march?
batons, strip them naked, fling them about a bit.
In the UK, I daresay things aren't quite as bad. Jonathan Aitken
describes how he and his convict mates were required to undergo strip
searching at regular intervals on the pretext of preventing drug
smuggling, and one of the officers would crouch down and stare very hard
at a prisoner's scrotum, as an extra humiliation.
R. Mark Clayton
May 13, 2013, 9:42:35 AM5/13/13
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> had yet another
zany idea and wrote in message news:kmqhpt$j5g$1...@dont-email.me...
drivers getting fined thousands for speeding on the motorway in one court
and hardened criminals coming out of the court next door laughing after
getting fined �250 for ABH - amounts they usually did not pay.
It soon brought justice into disrepute and was largely abandoned, although
courts are meant to have a view to the means of a defendant (so a rich man
will get fined lots more for say drink driving than a poor one).
AlanG
May 13, 2013, 9:52:10 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:37:18 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
>On 13/5/13 14:19, AlanG wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
>>> mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>>> refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>>>
>>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>> waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>>> anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>>>
>>> So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>>> isssues altogether.
>>>
>>> A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>>> public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>>> bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>>> which would teach them a lesson.
>>>
>>> If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>>> drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>>> for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
>>
>> What do you do when they tell you to piss off when you order them to
>> quick march?
>
>In the USA, the prison officers yell at the prisoners, hit them with
>batons, strip them naked, fling them about a bit.
Then if the prisoners are not kiled or crippled the guards have the
problem of hoping they don't get revenge
wrote:
>On 13/5/13 14:19, AlanG wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
>>> mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>>> refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>>>
>>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>> waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>>> anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>>>
>>> So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>>> isssues altogether.
>>>
>>> A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>>> public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>>> bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>>> which would teach them a lesson.
>>>
>>> If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>>> drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>>> for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
>>
>> What do you do when they tell you to piss off when you order them to
>> quick march?
>
>In the USA, the prison officers yell at the prisoners, hit them with
>batons, strip them naked, fling them about a bit.
problem of hoping they don't get revenge
>
>In the UK, I daresay things aren't quite as bad. Jonathan Aitken
>describes how he and his convict mates were required to undergo strip
>searching at regular intervals on the pretext of preventing drug
>smuggling, and one of the officers would crouch down and stare very hard
>at a prisoner's scrotum, as an extra humiliation.
What do expect when you hire sexual perverts?
>In the UK, I daresay things aren't quite as bad. Jonathan Aitken
>describes how he and his convict mates were required to undergo strip
>searching at regular intervals on the pretext of preventing drug
>smuggling, and one of the officers would crouch down and stare very hard
>at a prisoner's scrotum, as an extra humiliation.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 10:21:06 AM5/13/13
to
>On 13/5/13 14:19, AlanG wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
>>> mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>>> refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>>>
>>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>> waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>>> anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>>>
>>> So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>>> isssues altogether.
>>>
>>> A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>>> public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>>> bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>>> which would teach them a lesson.
>>>
>>> If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>>> drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>>> for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
>>
>> What do you do when they tell you to piss off when you order them to
>> quick march?
>
>In the USA, the prison officers yell at the prisoners, hit them with
>batons, strip them naked, fling them about a bit.
>
The IRA discovered the way to stop that sort of thing.
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:15:31 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>> <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very
>>> mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed
>>> refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
>>>
>>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>> waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill
>>> anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
>>>
>>> So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate
>>> isssues altogether.
>>>
>>> A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the
>>> public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant
>>> bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade,
>>> which would teach them a lesson.
>>>
>>> If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do
>>> drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work
>>> for the convict, more constructive and cheaper.
>>
>> What do you do when they tell you to piss off when you order them to
>> quick march?
>
>In the USA, the prison officers yell at the prisoners, hit them with
>batons, strip them naked, fling them about a bit.
>
They assassinated the prison guards who were utter bastards.
R. Mark Clayton
May 13, 2013, 10:33:00 AM5/13/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nkt1p89g2s8hrsqsq...@4ax.com...
the people who did this sort of thing were your prisoners I doubt you would
wish to be overly nice to them.
The Todal
May 13, 2013, 10:52:39 AM5/13/13
to
nice or nasty, as well as police officers.
It didn't stop that sort of thing, of course. It just made it even more
unpleasant for the heroic martyrs of the IRA. They were, in a real
sense, crapping in their own cells.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 11:07:20 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:33:00 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nkt1p89g2s8hrsqsq...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:37:18 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In the USA, the prison officers yell at the prisoners, hit them with
>>>batons, strip them naked, fling them about a bit.
>>>
>> The IRA discovered the way to stop that sort of thing.
>>
>> They assassinated the prison guards who were utter bastards.
>
>They "assassinated" women and children too, or tore them limb from limb.
I have no time for the IRA but you have to admit that they got the
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nkt1p89g2s8hrsqsq...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:37:18 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In the USA, the prison officers yell at the prisoners, hit them with
>>>batons, strip them naked, fling them about a bit.
>>>
>> The IRA discovered the way to stop that sort of thing.
>>
>> They assassinated the prison guards who were utter bastards.
>
>They "assassinated" women and children too, or tore them limb from limb.
prison service to work for them.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 11:08:31 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:52:39 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
I don't know about that, but what I do know is that being beastly to
an IRA man who was in prison was a dangerous thing to do.
an IRA man who was in prison was a dangerous thing to do.
AlanG
May 13, 2013, 11:23:06 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:07:20 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have no time for the IRA either but I also recall they had been
quiescent for over a decade prior to attacks on civil rights
campaigners by the NI police.
wrote:
quiescent for over a decade prior to attacks on civil rights
campaigners by the NI police.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 11:26:57 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:23:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
In what way does this add to a discussion on prison conditions?
Cynic
May 13, 2013, 11:49:09 AM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:56:49 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
of money, and is more likely to result in people becoming worse
criminals rather than rehabillitating them. It also results in harm
being done to innocent parties - the family and children of the
criminal for example.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a punishment
that is at least equally effective as a deterrant but does not have
those disadvantages?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>waste of money.
>While I tend to agree with you there has to be some element of
>punishment.
>Taking away a man's liberty is a very valid form of punishment,
>especially if it's a rich man who gets slammed up in one of HM
>Prisons...
Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment. It costs a lot
>>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>waste of money.
>While I tend to agree with you there has to be some element of
>punishment.
>Taking away a man's liberty is a very valid form of punishment,
>especially if it's a rich man who gets slammed up in one of HM
>Prisons...
of money, and is more likely to result in people becoming worse
criminals rather than rehabillitating them. It also results in harm
being done to innocent parties - the family and children of the
criminal for example.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a punishment
that is at least equally effective as a deterrant but does not have
those disadvantages?
--
Cynic
AC
May 13, 2013, 12:00:26 PM5/13/13
to
experience what the lower orders experience, and is a changed man as a
result. IMHO, he should be right in the middle of government now.
--
AC
Bill
May 13, 2013, 12:02:52 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 15:49:09 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:56:49 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>>waste of money.
>
>>While I tend to agree with you there has to be some element of
>>punishment.
>
>>Taking away a man's liberty is a very valid form of punishment,
>>especially if it's a rich man who gets slammed up in one of HM
>>Prisons...
>
>Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment.
We've tried several alternatives from transportation to mutilation to
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:56:49 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>>waste of money.
>
>>While I tend to agree with you there has to be some element of
>>punishment.
>
>>Taking away a man's liberty is a very valid form of punishment,
>>especially if it's a rich man who gets slammed up in one of HM
>>Prisons...
>
>Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment.
execution for trivial offences.
None of them works, all leave a legacy of bitterness and some are
very difficult to undo because you convicted someone for political
reasons or because there was a crooked cop or lawyer involved.
Prison seems to be the best alternative.
Someone did suggest dumping them on a remote island, but what do you
do when they come raiding...
AC
May 13, 2013, 12:09:08 PM5/13/13
to
public, or a repeat offender. I dont think money should come in to it at
all. Proper tagging, to enforce loss of freedom is or should be
sufficient. I suppose things like internet or communication
restrictions, stuff like that may be. If the punishment is loss of
liberty, I ont think it matter much where the offender resides, as long
as his liberty is removed. Prison should be the threat if they dont
comply. If possible, people should be able to retain their jobs, perhaps
with punishment tax attached for a period of time. Or something along
those lines.
If the offender's previous status has an influence, it should be when
they do probation, and their skills and influence from their previous
life should be used and targeted at something helpful. No point making a
banker decorate a scout hut, (s)he should be helping them fund raise or
something relevant.
Also, making a rich person slum it for 10 years would only result in
them getting rich again, since they often managed to do it once before.
Probably buying up the council estate only to flog it off to the middle
classes for a great profit!!!!!
One exception, politicians. Just have a default "tariff" of life.
--
AC
AC
May 13, 2013, 12:12:33 PM5/13/13
to
punishments. If that's all one's imagination and intellect can come up
with, then yes, prison is the better option, obviously.
I suspect though that TT was being a tad more intelligent in his thinking.
--
AC
Norman Wells
May 13, 2013, 12:29:11 PM5/13/13
to
kept away from the general public.
For other petty criminals, as a replacement for short jail terms, the
answer is a sentence of being Tasered a certain number of times over 24
hours under medical supervision. It's a penalty they really, really
won't like (which would be a novelty in our current system), and one
they really, really won't want to repeat. And they can go home to their
families after that with no real disruption to their lives, and nothing
to show for it.
AlanG
May 13, 2013, 12:42:33 PM5/13/13
to
Cynic
May 13, 2013, 2:21:23 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:02:52 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment.
>We've tried several alternatives from transportation to mutilation to
>execution for trivial offences.
There are a number of alternatives that we have not tried for long
enough to evaluate.
>None of them works, all leave a legacy of bitterness and some are
>very difficult to undo because you convicted someone for political
>reasons or because there was a crooked cop or lawyer involved.
Many of them worked as well, or better than prison.
>Prison seems to be the best alternative.
What evidence do you have for that statement? It costs a fortune,
punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and has a very poor track
record wrt stopping offending. It is also inequitous - because one
person will suffer far greater punishment for the same prison sentence
than another.
Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
It should be at least as effective (or ineffective) as prison as a
deterrent, it punishes only the guilty, and costs practically nothing.
It also appeases the vengeful public more than a fine or community
service does.
It has the advantage that if you later discover that you convicted the
wrong person, you have not cost that person anything irreplaceable,
such as their job and their family.
I really cannot understand why people believe that locking people up
and preventing normal social interaction with family for many years is
more civilised than physical punishment. The emotional pain of years
of incarceration can be far worse than any physical pain.
The cane was used in South Africa as one method of judicial
punishment, and it was certainly feared amongst the youth - far more
that community service.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment.
>We've tried several alternatives from transportation to mutilation to
>execution for trivial offences.
enough to evaluate.
>None of them works, all leave a legacy of bitterness and some are
>very difficult to undo because you convicted someone for political
>reasons or because there was a crooked cop or lawyer involved.
>Prison seems to be the best alternative.
punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and has a very poor track
record wrt stopping offending. It is also inequitous - because one
person will suffer far greater punishment for the same prison sentence
than another.
Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
It should be at least as effective (or ineffective) as prison as a
deterrent, it punishes only the guilty, and costs practically nothing.
It also appeases the vengeful public more than a fine or community
service does.
It has the advantage that if you later discover that you convicted the
wrong person, you have not cost that person anything irreplaceable,
such as their job and their family.
I really cannot understand why people believe that locking people up
and preventing normal social interaction with family for many years is
more civilised than physical punishment. The emotional pain of years
of incarceration can be far worse than any physical pain.
The cane was used in South Africa as one method of judicial
punishment, and it was certainly feared amongst the youth - far more
that community service.
--
Cynic
Boutros Boutros-PMD
May 13, 2013, 2:23:56 PM5/13/13
to
Norman Wells was thinking very hard :
Associating tasers with punishment will only encourage the police to
use these weapons willy nilly as Colin Farmer can testify.
use these weapons willy nilly as Colin Farmer can testify.
Cynic
May 13, 2013, 2:25:48 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:29:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>> Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a punishment
>> that is at least equally effective as a deterrant but does not have
>> those disadvantages?
>There are some whose crimes dictate that they are a danger and must be
>kept away from the general public.
That's a fairly low percentage - and in those cases, unless you keep
the person locked up for life you are only deferring the problem for a
few years and possibly making the criminal more bitter and antisocial.
>For other petty criminals, as a replacement for short jail terms, the
>answer is a sentence of being Tasered a certain number of times over 24
>hours under medical supervision. It's a penalty they really, really
>won't like (which would be a novelty in our current system), and one
>they really, really won't want to repeat. And they can go home to their
>families after that with no real disruption to their lives, and nothing
>to show for it.
What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with a punishment
>> that is at least equally effective as a deterrant but does not have
>> those disadvantages?
>There are some whose crimes dictate that they are a danger and must be
>kept away from the general public.
the person locked up for life you are only deferring the problem for a
few years and possibly making the criminal more bitter and antisocial.
>For other petty criminals, as a replacement for short jail terms, the
>answer is a sentence of being Tasered a certain number of times over 24
>hours under medical supervision. It's a penalty they really, really
>won't like (which would be a novelty in our current system), and one
>they really, really won't want to repeat. And they can go home to their
>families after that with no real disruption to their lives, and nothing
>to show for it.
--
Cynic
Boutros Boutros-PMD
May 13, 2013, 2:26:57 PM5/13/13
to
Cynic formulated the question :
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:02:52 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment.
>
>> We've tried several alternatives from transportation to mutilation
>> to execution for trivial offences.
>
> There are a number of alternatives that we have not tried for long
> enough to evaluate.
>
>> None of them works, all leave a legacy of bitterness and some are
>> very difficult to undo because you convicted someone for political
>> reasons or because there was a crooked cop or lawyer involved.
>
> Many of them worked as well, or better than prison.
>
>> Prison seems to be the best alternative.
>
> What evidence do you have for that statement? It costs a fortune,
> punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and has a very poor
> track record wrt stopping offending. It is also inequitous - because
> one person will suffer far greater punishment for the same prison
> sentence than another.
>
> Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
> It should be at least as effective (or ineffective) as prison as a
> deterrent, it punishes only the guilty, and costs practically
> nothing. It also appeases the vengeful public more than a fine or
> community service does.
Is it not also inequitous as people all have different pain thresholds?
> wrote:
>
>>> Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment.
>
>> We've tried several alternatives from transportation to mutilation
>> to execution for trivial offences.
>
> There are a number of alternatives that we have not tried for long
> enough to evaluate.
>
>> None of them works, all leave a legacy of bitterness and some are
>> very difficult to undo because you convicted someone for political
>> reasons or because there was a crooked cop or lawyer involved.
>
> Many of them worked as well, or better than prison.
>
>> Prison seems to be the best alternative.
>
> What evidence do you have for that statement? It costs a fortune,
> punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and has a very poor
> track record wrt stopping offending. It is also inequitous - because
> one person will suffer far greater punishment for the same prison
> sentence than another.
>
> Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
> It should be at least as effective (or ineffective) as prison as a
> deterrent, it punishes only the guilty, and costs practically
> nothing. It also appeases the vengeful public more than a fine or
> community service does.
Cynic
May 13, 2013, 2:53:26 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:26:57 +0100, Boutros Boutros-PMD <P...@SIBU.HQ>
wrote:
>> What evidence do you have for that statement? It costs a fortune,
>> punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and has a very poor
>> track record wrt stopping offending. It is also inequitous - because
>> one person will suffer far greater punishment for the same prison
>> sentence than another.
>> Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
>> It should be at least as effective (or ineffective) as prison as a
>> deterrent, it punishes only the guilty, and costs practically
>> nothing. It also appeases the vengeful public more than a fine or
>> community service does.
>Is it not also inequitous as people all have different pain thresholds?
I have no idea whether that is or is not true - some people may just
be better at *enduring* pain than others. IMO it is far less
inequitous than prison. A homeless unemployed hermit would not suffer
at all in prison, whilst a family man with a good job would suffer
tremendously.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> What evidence do you have for that statement? It costs a fortune,
>> punishes the innocent along with the guilty, and has a very poor
>> track record wrt stopping offending. It is also inequitous - because
>> one person will suffer far greater punishment for the same prison
>> sentence than another.
>> Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
>> It should be at least as effective (or ineffective) as prison as a
>> deterrent, it punishes only the guilty, and costs practically
>> nothing. It also appeases the vengeful public more than a fine or
>> community service does.
>Is it not also inequitous as people all have different pain thresholds?
be better at *enduring* pain than others. IMO it is far less
inequitous than prison. A homeless unemployed hermit would not suffer
at all in prison, whilst a family man with a good job would suffer
tremendously.
--
Cynic
JNugent
May 13, 2013, 2:55:09 PM5/13/13
to
On 13/05/2013 16:49, Cynic wrote:
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>> waste of money.
>
>> While I tend to agree with you there has to be some element of
>> punishment.
>
>> Taking away a man's liberty is a very valid form of punishment,
>> especially if it's a rich man who gets slammed up in one of HM
>> Prisons...
>
> Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment. It costs a lot
> of money, and is more likely to result in people becoming worse
> criminals rather than rehabillitating them. It also results in harm
> being done to innocent parties - the family and children of the
> criminal for example...
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a
>>> waste of money.
>
>> While I tend to agree with you there has to be some element of
>> punishment.
>
>> Taking away a man's liberty is a very valid form of punishment,
>> especially if it's a rich man who gets slammed up in one of HM
>> Prisons...
>
> Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment. It costs a lot
> of money, and is more likely to result in people becoming worse
> criminals rather than rehabillitating them. It also results in harm
> being done to innocent parties - the family and children of the
...whereas bankrupting a convicted defendant and removing every asset he
has couldn't possibly have any harmful effects on his wife and children,
could it?
[Yes, I know it wasn't you who suggested it.]
Norman Wells
May 13, 2013, 5:09:03 PM5/13/13
to
hanging was a judicial punishment than now?
Norman Wells
May 13, 2013, 5:10:17 PM5/13/13
to
lack of sufficient pain.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 5:13:42 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:21:23 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:02:52 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:02:52 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>None of them works, all leave a legacy of bitterness and some are
>>very difficult to undo because you convicted someone for political
>>reasons or because there was a crooked cop or lawyer involved.
>
>Many of them worked as well, or better than prison.
No, we stopped using them because they didn't work.
>>very difficult to undo because you convicted someone for political
>>reasons or because there was a crooked cop or lawyer involved.
>
>Many of them worked as well, or better than prison.
>>Prison seems to be the best alternative.
>
>What evidence do you have for that statement?
Well, everyone but the loonier of the Islamic states.
>Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
strong as you thought they were.
Bill
May 13, 2013, 5:14:13 PM5/13/13
to
Bill
May 13, 2013, 5:15:29 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:25:48 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
The old fashioned light heart attack...
>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
aaa
May 13, 2013, 5:29:04 PM5/13/13
to
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> "Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> had yet another zany idea and wrote in message news:kmqhpt$j5g$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> It soon brought justice into disrepute and was largely abandoned, although courts are meant to have a view to the means of a defendant (so a rich man will get fined lots more for say drink driving than a poor one).
Why not simply have a fixed number of hours of required work?
>
> "Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> had yet another zany idea and wrote in message news:kmqhpt$j5g$1...@dont-email.me...
> > Locking someone up is very expensive. Sure it's needed for the very mentally disturbed, criminal or not, and at a pinch for unprocessed refugees, who might be dangerous until checks have suggested otherwise.
> >
> > Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
> >
> > So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate isssues altogether.
> >
> > A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade, which would teach them a lesson.
> >
> > If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work for the convict, more constructive and cheaper. The scheme could provide jobs for veterans, and a much tougher form of prison along the lines of military nick could be used as a last resort for those who arse about.
> >
> > Some would call this soft, I just think it's sensible to punish those needing punishment, lock up those needing locking up, and realising that the two are different.
> >
> >
>
> They tried graded fines back in the 90's. The problem was they had rich BMW drivers getting fined thousands for speeding on the motorway in one court and hardened criminals coming out of the court next door laughing after getting fined #250 for ABH - amounts they usually did not pay.
> >
> > Thing is, locking up people who aren't any danger to the public is a waste of money. Most of the more dangerous criminals are mentally ill anyway and whilst need locking up don't necessarily deserve punishment.
> >
> > So it would be sensible to treat punishment and imprisonment as separate isssues altogether.
> >
> > A very rich man commiting a "custodial" offence, if not a danger to the public, would be better hit with an infinite fine, causing instant bankruptcy, and they'd have to slum it for the best part of a decade, which would teach them a lesson.
> >
> > If those doing community service had to wear a smart uniform and do drill and hard exercize like in the military, it would be harder work for the convict, more constructive and cheaper. The scheme could provide jobs for veterans, and a much tougher form of prison along the lines of military nick could be used as a last resort for those who arse about.
> >
> > Some would call this soft, I just think it's sensible to punish those needing punishment, lock up those needing locking up, and realising that the two are different.
> >
> >
>
>
> It soon brought justice into disrepute and was largely abandoned, although courts are meant to have a view to the means of a defendant (so a rich man will get fined lots more for say drink driving than a poor one).
Why not simply have a fixed number of hours of required work?
Cynic
May 14, 2013, 9:07:16 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:13:42 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
>
>And people die or are crippled now and again because they're not as
>strong as you thought they were.
That is *far* less likely than it is that a person commits suicide or
is murdered in prison.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>Personally I see nothing wrong with administering pain as punishment.
>
>And people die or are crippled now and again because they're not as
>strong as you thought they were.
is murdered in prison.
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 14, 2013, 9:08:31 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:15:29 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
beforehand?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
>The old fashioned light heart attack...
And what is the probability of that, assuming there is a medical check
>>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
>The old fashioned light heart attack...
beforehand?
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 14, 2013, 9:10:58 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:55:09 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>> Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment. It costs a lot
>> of money, and is more likely to result in people becoming worse
>> criminals rather than rehabillitating them. It also results in harm
>> being done to innocent parties - the family and children of the
>> criminal for example...
>
>...whereas bankrupting a convicted defendant and removing every asset he
>has couldn't possibly have any harmful effects on his wife and children,
>could it?
>
>[Yes, I know it wasn't you who suggested it.]
I certainly did not suggest it, no.
And what is worse than bankrupting a convicted defendant is
bankrupting an *aquitted* defendant. Which happens all too
frequently.
Or were you unaware that an aquittal does not guarantee the recovery
of all, or even tyhe majority of the defendant's costs?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> Imprisonment is, IMO, a very bad form of punishment. It costs a lot
>> of money, and is more likely to result in people becoming worse
>> criminals rather than rehabillitating them. It also results in harm
>> being done to innocent parties - the family and children of the
>> criminal for example...
>
>...whereas bankrupting a convicted defendant and removing every asset he
>has couldn't possibly have any harmful effects on his wife and children,
>could it?
>
>[Yes, I know it wasn't you who suggested it.]
And what is worse than bankrupting a convicted defendant is
bankrupting an *aquitted* defendant. Which happens all too
frequently.
Or were you unaware that an aquittal does not guarantee the recovery
of all, or even tyhe majority of the defendant's costs?
--
Cynic
Bill
May 14, 2013, 11:36:12 AM5/14/13
to
What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
grounds?
What do you do when a doctor gets it wrong and you kill someone?
Cynic
May 14, 2013, 11:47:01 AM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:36:12 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
so there will be few who do. In those cases they go back for
re-sentencing and are given a different punishment.
>What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
>grounds?
Get another doctor.
>What do you do when a doctor gets it wrong and you kill someone?
The same as you do when a policeman gets it wrong and kills someone.
Or when a convict is murdered in prison.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
>>>The old fashioned light heart attack...
>>And what is the probability of that, assuming there is a medical check
>>beforehand?
>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
I suspect such sentences will be reserved for the younger criminals,
>>>>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
>>>The old fashioned light heart attack...
>>And what is the probability of that, assuming there is a medical check
>>beforehand?
>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
so there will be few who do. In those cases they go back for
re-sentencing and are given a different punishment.
>What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
>grounds?
>What do you do when a doctor gets it wrong and you kill someone?
Or when a convict is murdered in prison.
--
Cynic
Rob
May 14, 2013, 11:48:25 AM5/14/13
to
Bill wrote:
|| On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:08:31 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
|| wrote:
||
||| On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:15:29 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
||| wrote:
|||
||||| What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
|||
|||| The old fashioned light heart attack...
|||
||| And what is the probability of that, assuming there is a medical
||| check beforehand?
||
|| What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
||
|| What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
|| grounds?
Get ATOS to do it.
|| On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:08:31 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
|| wrote:
||
||| On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:15:29 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
||| wrote:
|||
||||| What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
|||
|||| The old fashioned light heart attack...
|||
||| And what is the probability of that, assuming there is a medical
||| check beforehand?
||
|| What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
||
|| What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
|| grounds?
--
Rob
Bill
May 14, 2013, 3:44:33 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 15:47:01 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:36:12 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
>
>>>>The old fashioned light heart attack...
>
>>>And what is the probability of that, assuming there is a medical check
>>>beforehand?
>
>>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
>
>I suspect such sentences will be reserved for the younger criminals,
Why?
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 16:36:12 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>>What's wrong with the old-fashioned light cane?
>
>>>>The old fashioned light heart attack...
>
>>>And what is the probability of that, assuming there is a medical check
>>>beforehand?
>
>>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
>
>I suspect such sentences will be reserved for the younger criminals,
>so there will be few who do. In those cases they go back for
>re-sentencing and are given a different punishment.
handful of Beta Blockers get off.
>>What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
>>grounds?
>
>Get another doctor.
thing.
>>What do you do when a doctor gets it wrong and you kill someone?
>
>The same as you do when a policeman gets it wrong and kills someone.
>Or when a convict is murdered in prison.
No wriggling out of this one because the copper doing the punishing
'lost control in an instant of uncertainty'.
Cynic
May 15, 2013, 9:43:59 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:44:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
>>I suspect such sentences will be reserved for the younger criminals,
>Why?
That was the case in South Africa, so I assumed it would be the case
anywhere else. Thinking about it, I suspect that the type of crimes
and criminal histories that would merit such a sentence are far more
likely to be committed by younger people than older people. The older
person would either have grown out of that type of behaviour, or will
have quite a few convictions already, meaning that a different sort of
punishment would be indicated.
>>so there will be few who do. In those cases they go back for
>>re-sentencing and are given a different punishment.
>I see, so bad boys who can fake a heart problem by swallowing a
>handful of Beta Blockers get off.
No, they get sent to prison instead. Because there will not be a
shortage of prison space if there is alternative punishment that is
considered equally severe, so no pressure on magistrates and judges to
give non-custodial sentences.
>>>What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
>>>grounds?
>>Get another doctor.
>Nope, not of the GMC say they strike off any doctor who does such a
>thing.
In the US a doctor is present at executions, so I doubt that the GMC
will go against government policy. But if so there are a few options.
Firstly you simply don't do any checks at all - after all a policeman
does not need a doctor's approval before tazering someone who has not
even been convicted. You could advise the convict to get a health
check and bring a doctor's note if anything is found that would make
the punishment dangerous. Secondly you could import doctors from
other countries to do the checks, or use qualified doctors in the UK
who are not actually practising medicine. Thirdly you could train a
non-doctor so that they are competant enough to do those very basic
checks.
>>>What do you do when a doctor gets it wrong and you kill someone?
>>The same as you do when a policeman gets it wrong and kills someone.
>>Or when a convict is murdered in prison.
>Oh no, this would be horribly public.
>No wriggling out of this one because the copper doing the punishing
>'lost control in an instant of uncertainty'.
People have heart-attacks and die when they are arrested or their door
is battered down at 4AM. It will simply be regarded as a rare and
unforeseeable unfortunate outcome of a perfectly reasonable and
legitimate punishment.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
>>I suspect such sentences will be reserved for the younger criminals,
>Why?
anywhere else. Thinking about it, I suspect that the type of crimes
and criminal histories that would merit such a sentence are far more
likely to be committed by younger people than older people. The older
person would either have grown out of that type of behaviour, or will
have quite a few convictions already, meaning that a different sort of
punishment would be indicated.
>>so there will be few who do. In those cases they go back for
>>re-sentencing and are given a different punishment.
>I see, so bad boys who can fake a heart problem by swallowing a
>handful of Beta Blockers get off.
shortage of prison space if there is alternative punishment that is
considered equally severe, so no pressure on magistrates and judges to
give non-custodial sentences.
>>>What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
>>>grounds?
>>Get another doctor.
>Nope, not of the GMC say they strike off any doctor who does such a
>thing.
will go against government policy. But if so there are a few options.
Firstly you simply don't do any checks at all - after all a policeman
does not need a doctor's approval before tazering someone who has not
even been convicted. You could advise the convict to get a health
check and bring a doctor's note if anything is found that would make
the punishment dangerous. Secondly you could import doctors from
other countries to do the checks, or use qualified doctors in the UK
who are not actually practising medicine. Thirdly you could train a
non-doctor so that they are competant enough to do those very basic
checks.
>>>What do you do when a doctor gets it wrong and you kill someone?
>>The same as you do when a policeman gets it wrong and kills someone.
>>Or when a convict is murdered in prison.
>Oh no, this would be horribly public.
>No wriggling out of this one because the copper doing the punishing
>'lost control in an instant of uncertainty'.
is battered down at 4AM. It will simply be regarded as a rare and
unforeseeable unfortunate outcome of a perfectly reasonable and
legitimate punishment.
--
Cynic
Bill
May 15, 2013, 12:45:48 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:43:59 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:44:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
>
>>>I suspect such sentences will be reserved for the younger criminals,
>
>>Why?
>
>That was the case in South Africa, so I assumed it would be the case
>anywhere else.
The South African judicial system of those days isn't really a model
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:44:33 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>What do you do to the people who fail the heath check?
>
>>>I suspect such sentences will be reserved for the younger criminals,
>
>>Why?
>
>That was the case in South Africa, so I assumed it would be the case
>anywhere else.
you'd want to follow in anything much.
>>I see, so bad boys who can fake a heart problem by swallowing a
>>handful of Beta Blockers get off.
>
>No, they get sent to prison instead.
Because there will not be a
>shortage of prison space if there is alternative punishment that is
>considered equally severe, so no pressure on magistrates and judges to
>give non-custodial sentences.
They'll just shut prisons to save money.
>>>>What do you do when doctors refuse to do the health check on moral
>>>>grounds?
>
>>>Get another doctor.
>
>>Nope, not of the GMC say they strike off any doctor who does such a
>>thing.
>
>In the US a doctor is present at executions, so I doubt that the GMC
>will go against government policy.
>Firstly you simply don't do any checks at all - after all a policeman
>does not need a doctor's approval before tazering someone who has not
>even been convicted. You could advise the convict to get a health
>check and bring a doctor's note if anything is found that would make
>the punishment dangerous.
Secondly you could import doctors from
>other countries to do the checks, or use qualified doctors in the UK
>who are not actually practising medicine.
The liberal press would crucify them on the first nasty accident.
> Thirdly you could train a
>non-doctor so that they are competant enough to do those very basic
>checks.
>>>>What do you do when a doctor gets it wrong and you kill someone?
>
>>>The same as you do when a policeman gets it wrong and kills someone.
>>>Or when a convict is murdered in prison.
>
>>Oh no, this would be horribly public.
>>No wriggling out of this one because the copper doing the punishing
>>'lost control in an instant of uncertainty'.
>
>People have heart-attacks and die when they are arrested or their door
>is battered down at 4AM. It will simply be regarded as a rare and
>unforeseeable unfortunate outcome of a perfectly reasonable and
>legitimate punishment.
The people who brought it in would be unelectable in months, and they
know it.
Cynic
May 15, 2013, 12:56:51 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:45:48 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>I see, so bad boys who can fake a heart problem by swallowing a
>>>handful of Beta Blockers get off.
>>No, they get sent to prison instead.
>So it's back to prison then...
I did not suggest it as a universal replacement for prison, only as a
viable additional alternative.
>>In the US a doctor is present at executions, so I doubt that the GMC
>>will go against government policy.
>
>They do now and again.
>
>>Firstly you simply don't do any checks at all - after all a policeman
>>does not need a doctor's approval before tazering someone who has not
>>even been convicted. You could advise the convict to get a health
>>check and bring a doctor's note if anything is found that would make
>>the punishment dangerous.
>
>I assume that's a joke.
For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at all
likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools without and
medical checks being required. "Distraction techniques" are used by
prison guards on unruly inmates. People regularly die in custody with
no huge outcry.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>I see, so bad boys who can fake a heart problem by swallowing a
>>>handful of Beta Blockers get off.
>>No, they get sent to prison instead.
>So it's back to prison then...
viable additional alternative.
>>In the US a doctor is present at executions, so I doubt that the GMC
>>will go against government policy.
>
>They do now and again.
>
>>Firstly you simply don't do any checks at all - after all a policeman
>>does not need a doctor's approval before tazering someone who has not
>>even been convicted. You could advise the convict to get a health
>>check and bring a doctor's note if anything is found that would make
>>the punishment dangerous.
>
>I assume that's a joke.
likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools without and
medical checks being required. "Distraction techniques" are used by
prison guards on unruly inmates. People regularly die in custody with
no huge outcry.
--
Cynic
Bill
May 15, 2013, 1:13:58 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at all
>likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools without and
>medical checks being required.
I was caned in school.
>For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at all
>likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools without and
>medical checks being required.
Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
Norman Wells
May 15, 2013, 1:34:11 PM5/15/13
to
Bill
May 15, 2013, 1:38:32 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
wrote:
Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
AlanG
May 15, 2013, 1:50:52 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:13:58 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
We used to get caned across the buttocks. Frequently the beating
caused bleeding. I recall a couple of the teachers got erections every
time they wielded a cane. Then we get fuckwits on this NG shouting how
there is no respect for authority. I could tell them why but they
wouldn't believe it
wrote:
caused bleeding. I recall a couple of the teachers got erections every
time they wielded a cane. Then we get fuckwits on this NG shouting how
there is no respect for authority. I could tell them why but they
wouldn't believe it
AlanG
May 15, 2013, 1:51:31 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Never worked in the past
wrote:
Cynic
May 15, 2013, 1:58:01 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:13:58 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at all
>>likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools without and
>>medical checks being required.
>
>I was caned in school.
>
>Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>
>What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
Do you think that making you stay in detention would have worked any
>>For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at all
>>likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools without and
>>medical checks being required.
>
>I was caned in school.
>
>Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>
>What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
better?
--
Cynic
Bill
May 15, 2013, 2:02:47 PM5/15/13
to
I just went home.
Because the administration in the school was poor nobody ever noticed.
Norman Wells
May 15, 2013, 3:37:25 PM5/15/13
to
Norman Wells
May 15, 2013, 3:44:01 PM5/15/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>
>>> I was caned in school.
>>>
>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>
>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>
>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>
> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it. The
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>
>>> I was caned in school.
>>>
>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>
>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>
>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>
> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear even if
they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
> Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
individual's control, and it might not. However, I believe offenders
who commit crimes when they know full well what they're deliberately
doing, and do have a choice in the matter, may well fear the punishment
and therefore consider the matter a little more seriously.
Bill
May 15, 2013, 4:27:55 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:44:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
Most minor offences are committed by druggies...
Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>
>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>
>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>
>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>
>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>
>The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it. The
>problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear even if
>they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
>
>> Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
>
>I don't know.
Well that's that one dead for a start.
>Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>
>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>
>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>
>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>
>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>
>The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it. The
>problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear even if
>they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
>
>> Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
>
>I don't know.
Most minor offences are committed by druggies...
Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
Bill
May 15, 2013, 4:29:28 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:37:25 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
There's reasonably large body of statistical evidence that says so,
so, yes...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=49871
so, yes...
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=49871
Norman Wells
May 15, 2013, 5:15:52 PM5/15/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:37:25 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> AlanG wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>>
>>> Never worked in the past
>>
>> Got any evidence for that?
>
> There's reasonably large body of statistical evidence that says so,
> so, yes...
>
> https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=49871
Why on earth do you think that actually supports your position?
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:37:25 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> AlanG wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>>
>>> Never worked in the past
>>
>> Got any evidence for that?
>
> There's reasonably large body of statistical evidence that says so,
> so, yes...
>
> https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=49871
I suggest you read it.
Norman Wells
May 15, 2013, 5:34:18 PM5/15/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:44:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>>
>>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>>
>> The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it.
>> The problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear
>> even if they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
>>
>>> Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
> Well that's that one dead for a start.
No it isn't. It's not a universal panacea.
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 20:44:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>>
>>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>>
>> The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it.
>> The problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear
>> even if they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
>>
>>> Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
>>
>> I don't know.
>
> Well that's that one dead for a start.
> Most minor offences are committed by druggies...
>
> Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
should be. What I'm saying is that he should have the additional option
available to him of Tasering if he thinks the offence merits it.
Nothing wrong with that I'd have thought.
Bill
May 15, 2013, 6:02:48 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:34:18 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
A judge will decide, as now, what the appropriate penalty
>should be.
Judges are loath to impose non reversible punishments.
That's because they know the courts make mistakes and that some police
are corrupt.
wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> Most minor offences are committed by druggies...
>>
>> Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
>
>Why not?
Because we tend to fine them.
>Bill wrote:
>> Most minor offences are committed by druggies...
>>
>> Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
>
>Why not?
A judge will decide, as now, what the appropriate penalty
>should be.
That's because they know the courts make mistakes and that some police
are corrupt.
Norman Wells
May 15, 2013, 6:22:11 PM5/15/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:34:18 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>
>>> Most minor offences are committed by druggies...
>>>
>>> Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because we tend to fine them.
So what? Why shouldn't we Taser them either instead of or in addition
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 22:34:18 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>
>>> Most minor offences are committed by druggies...
>>>
>>> Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because we tend to fine them.
to a fine?
> A judge will decide, as now, what the appropriate penalty
>> should be.
>
> Judges are loath to impose non reversible punishments.
>
> That's because they know the courts make mistakes and that some police
> are corrupt.
Bill
May 15, 2013, 6:28:52 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:22:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
They do, and frequently authorise huge payments to people who have
been jailed unfairly.
How do you compensate someone who has been fitted up by the police and
then Tasered?
Do you allow them to Tazer the cops who fitted them up?
How about Tasering the chief constable, or the prosecuting solicitor,
or even the judge...
been jailed unfairly.
How do you compensate someone who has been fitted up by the police and
then Tasered?
Do you allow them to Tazer the cops who fitted them up?
How about Tasering the chief constable, or the prosecuting solicitor,
or even the judge...
Norman Wells
May 15, 2013, 6:33:09 PM5/15/13
to
compensate them financially. Why should there be any difference between
having been sent unfairly to prison and having been unfairly Tasered?
You can't undo either. All you can do is compensate.
Bill
May 15, 2013, 6:47:51 PM5/15/13
to
The Todal
May 16, 2013, 4:17:26 AM5/16/13
to
On 15/5/13 20:44, Norman Wells wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>
>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>
>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>
>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>
>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>
> The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it. The
> problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear even if
> they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
Tasering is not intended as a punishment and it is unlawful to use it as
> Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>
>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>
>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>
>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>
>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>
> The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it. The
> problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear even if
> they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
such.
It is supposed to be a way of subduing a violent and dangerous person
without much risk to the officer doing the subduing.
>
>> Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
>
> I don't know. Physical addicitions could be regarded as out of an
> individual's control, and it might not. However, I believe offenders
> who commit crimes when they know full well what they're deliberately
> doing, and do have a choice in the matter, may well fear the punishment
> and therefore consider the matter a little more seriously.
than those in the UK. Sexual abuse and physical violence are common,
and the prison officers turn a blind eye. Cockroach infestations (not
the odd one or two, but dozens of them) in cells are quite normal. Air
conditioning is not provided in hot weather. Crime has increased and
more people are in prison than ever before. Breaking into houses and
raping the inhabitants still happens as often as ever. Fear of
punishment merely results in the criminal attempting to kill the victim
and any witnessses.
The Todal
May 16, 2013, 4:19:56 AM5/16/13
to
punishment. You'd get more pain being stung by a wasp.
Flogging with a cane or sjambok, now that might have a deterrent effect.
Barbaric of course, but it would gratify the victims or their relatives.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 4:42:11 AM5/16/13
to
The Todal wrote:
> On 15/5/13 20:44, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>>
>>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>>
>> The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it.
>> The problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear
>> even if they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
>
> Tasering is not intended as a punishment
Who says?
> On 15/5/13 20:44, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:34:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 16:56:51 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For goodness' sake, you are creating an issue where it is not at
>>>>>> all likely to exist. Pupils were routinely caned in schools
>>>>>> without and medical checks being required.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was caned in school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hitting a child on the hand with a stick was no cure for my bad
>>>>> handwriting. My handwriting remains bad to this day.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think it'll be a cure for bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple. Fear that it will be repeated.
>>>
>>> Well, not if they think they won't be caught.
>>
>> The more painful the punsishment, the more they'll think about it.
>> The problem at the moment is that they know there's little to fear
>> even if they are caught. With Tasering on the menu, there will be .
>
> Tasering is not intended as a punishment
I certainly intend it as a punishment. It's my central thesis in this
thread.
> and it is unlawful to use it as such.
see.
> It is supposed to be a way of subduing a violent and dangerous person
> without much risk to the officer doing the subduing.
however we choose.
>>> Think it'll work for people who are drug addicts?
>>
>> I don't know. Physical addicitions could be regarded as out of an
>> individual's control, and it might not. However, I believe offenders
>> who commit crimes when they know full well what they're deliberately
>> doing, and do have a choice in the matter, may well fear the
>> punishment and therefore consider the matter a little more seriously.
>
>
> In the USA this is taken to extremes. Prisons are far more unpleasant
> than those in the UK. Sexual abuse and physical violence are common,
> and the prison officers turn a blind eye. Cockroach infestations (not
> the odd one or two, but dozens of them) in cells are quite normal. Air
> conditioning is not provided in hot weather. Crime has increased and
> more people are in prison than ever before. Breaking into houses and
> raping the inhabitants still happens as often as ever. Fear of
> punishment merely results in the criminal attempting to kill the
> victim and any witnessses.
those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering is.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 4:52:00 AM5/16/13
to
videos I've seen either. You're felled like an ox and it hurts like
hell.
> Flogging with a cane or sjambok, now that might have a deterrent
> effect. Barbaric of course, but it would gratify the victims or their
> relatives.
have a field day with the supposed brutality and inhumanity of it all.
Tasering leaves at most two tiny red spots. It's very clinical in
comparison. Nothing to show, nothing for your mother to weep over,
nothing for your mates to empathise with, nothing for the media to get
angry about. No war wounds to brag about later. Just a very,very
painful memory.
It's perfect.
The Todal
May 16, 2013, 5:01:53 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/5/13 09:52, Norman Wells wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
>> On 15/5/13 22:34, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>>> Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
>>>
>>> Why not? A judge will decide, as now, what the appropriate penalty
>>> should be. What I'm saying is that he should have the additional
>>> option available to him of Tasering if he thinks the offence merits
>>> it. Nothing wrong with that I'd have thought.
>>
>> Apart from the health risks, tasering doesn't really work as a
>> punishment. You'd get more pain being stung by a wasp.
>
> Not according to those who have been Tasered. And not according to the
> videos I've seen either. You're felled like an ox and it hurts like hell.
An exaggeration. The average law abiding citizen might possibly say it
> The Todal wrote:
>> On 15/5/13 22:34, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>>> Or will you be hurting people for getting into a fight in a pub?
>>>
>>> Why not? A judge will decide, as now, what the appropriate penalty
>>> should be. What I'm saying is that he should have the additional
>>> option available to him of Tasering if he thinks the offence merits
>>> it. Nothing wrong with that I'd have thought.
>>
>> Apart from the health risks, tasering doesn't really work as a
>> punishment. You'd get more pain being stung by a wasp.
>
> Not according to those who have been Tasered. And not according to the
> videos I've seen either. You're felled like an ox and it hurts like hell.
hurts like hell. The thug who is accustomed to getting into fist fights
and who thinks nothing of having his nose broken or a tooth knocked out
will find it quite easy to tolerate a taser. It will of course stop him
in his tracks so that he can't attack the officer, but only for a few
moments.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 5:47:17 AM5/16/13
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMFQj00DoLE
Bill
May 16, 2013, 5:51:45 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:42:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable for
>those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering is.
Electric shocks aren't that painful and the Taser doesn't immobilize
by pain.
Electric shocks at high voltage cause a person to lose control of
their muscles.
The frequency superimposed on the Taser pulse (that's an odd way of
describing it, but that really is your problem, I understand it)
means that the charge should not penetrate deep into the body and so
the risk of a heart attack is greatly reduced.
wrote:
>You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable for
>those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering is.
by pain.
Electric shocks at high voltage cause a person to lose control of
their muscles.
The frequency superimposed on the Taser pulse (that's an odd way of
describing it, but that really is your problem, I understand it)
means that the charge should not penetrate deep into the body and so
the risk of a heart attack is greatly reduced.
The Todal
May 16, 2013, 5:57:20 AM5/16/13
to
physical violence.
You would probably achieve much the same result by kicking them in the
balls.
I can see the attraction of a Taser as a method of punishment. I think a
person could administer it without any pang of conscience. A bit like
attaching electrodes to a person's nipples, rather than cracking their
bones with thumbscrews. The priority is to avoid any distress for the
person inflicting the punishment. He might have a lot of torture to
inflict that day, and it would be unfortunate if he were to require
psychiatric treatment for PTSD.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 9:03:14 AM5/16/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:42:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable
>> for those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering
>> is.
>
> Electric shocks aren't that painful
I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:42:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable
>> for those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering
>> is.
>
> Electric shocks aren't that painful
groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
> and the Taser doesn't immobilize by pain.
>
> Electric shocks at high voltage cause a person to lose control of
> their muscles.
>
> The frequency superimposed on the Taser pulse (that's an odd way of
> describing it, but that really is your problem, I understand it)
> means that the charge should not penetrate deep into the body and so
> the risk of a heart attack is greatly reduced.
shock - literally.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 9:07:26 AM5/16/13
to
> You would probably achieve much the same result by kicking them in the
> balls.
>
> I can see the attraction of a Taser as a method of punishment. I
> think a person could administer it without any pang of conscience. A
> bit like attaching electrodes to a person's nipples, rather than
> cracking their bones with thumbscrews. The priority is to avoid any
> distress for the person inflicting the punishment. He might have a
> lot of torture to inflict that day, and it would be unfortunate if he
> were to require psychiatric treatment for PTSD.
button. Simples.
The Todal
May 16, 2013, 9:21:38 AM5/16/13
to
Your modest proposal would probably fall foul of the UN prohibition
against torture. Inflicting pain as a punishment is likely to be
regarded as torture. It wouldn't be torture if used in self defence, as
it normally would be by police officers.
pensive hamster
May 16, 2013, 9:28:30 AM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 2:07 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
[...]
authority figures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
'... the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms
where they could communicate but not see each other. ...
'The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock
generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly
receive during the experiment. ...'
> The Todal wrote:
[...]
> > I can see the attraction of a Taser as a method of punishment. I
> > think a person could administer it without any pang of conscience. A
> > bit like attaching electrodes to a person's nipples, rather than
> > cracking their bones with thumbscrews. The priority is to avoid any
> > distress for the person inflicting the punishment. He might have a
> > lot of torture to inflict that day, and it would be unfortunate if he
> > were to require psychiatric treatment for PTSD.
>
> Put him in a separate room then where all he has to do is press a
> button. Simples.
You must be thinking of the Milgram experiment, on obedience to
> > think a person could administer it without any pang of conscience. A
> > bit like attaching electrodes to a person's nipples, rather than
> > cracking their bones with thumbscrews. The priority is to avoid any
> > distress for the person inflicting the punishment. He might have a
> > lot of torture to inflict that day, and it would be unfortunate if he
> > were to require psychiatric treatment for PTSD.
>
> Put him in a separate room then where all he has to do is press a
> button. Simples.
authority figures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
'... the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms
where they could communicate but not see each other. ...
'The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock
generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly
receive during the experiment. ...'
pensive hamster
May 16, 2013, 9:30:23 AM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 2:03 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:42:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> > wrote:
>
> >> You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable
> >> for those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering
> >> is.
>
> > Electric shocks aren't that painful
>
> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
> groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>
Satisfying to whom, Norman?
> Bill wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:42:11 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> > wrote:
>
> >> You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable
> >> for those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering
> >> is.
>
> > Electric shocks aren't that painful
>
> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
> groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 9:33:36 AM5/16/13
to
doubt, we can always get a derogation.
> Inflicting pain as a punishment is likely to be regarded as torture.
normal reason to torture someone, but to punish them. And punishments
are allowed. Some, I'm sure, regard a stay in prison or having to do
community service as torture, but it doesn't make it so. Slippery
concept, torture.
> It wouldn't be torture if used in self defence, as it normally would
> be by police
> officers.
It's used to incapacitate someone who won't comply with instructions.
Anyway, where's the let out for either?
Bill
May 16, 2013, 10:44:21 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:03:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
>groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
By expressing delight in the pain of others I think you just
disqualified yourself from this conversation.
wrote:
>I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
>groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
disqualified yourself from this conversation.
Jon Ribbens
May 16, 2013, 11:02:47 AM5/16/13
to
>> Your modest proposal would probably fall foul of the UN prohibition
>> against torture.
>
> Where's that then? Even if it does apply in this country, which I
> doubt, we can always get a derogation.
As usual, you are entirely wrong. The United Nations Convention
>> against torture.
>
> Where's that then? Even if it does apply in this country, which I
> doubt, we can always get a derogation.
against Torture most certainly applies in this country, and no
we cannot get a "derogation" - the very idea is nonsensical.
The European Convention on Human Rights obviously applies here
as well, and no we cannot get a derogation from that either.
>> Inflicting pain as a punishment is likely to be regarded as torture.
>
> I doubt it actually. It's not to extract information, which is the
> normal reason to torture someone, but to punish them.
follows: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical
or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
... punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed".
In case that's not good enough for you, the Convention also prohibits
"other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
which do not amount to torture". The ECHR similarly bans not just
torture but "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 11:27:47 AM5/16/13
to
crime, and to anyone who thinks little shits should be punished with
something they really don't like rather than treated like delicate
little flowers.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 11:38:30 AM5/16/13
to
inflict pain, and it would be very satisfying to most people, I believe,
if our judiciary at last had available a punishment that offenders
really, really don't like. A lot of people consider we're far too soft
on offenders at present, especially those who seem to get away with a
slapped wrist when what they really need is 5000 volts, and I think all
of those would be rather satisfied too, don't you?
Bill
May 16, 2013, 11:49:59 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:38:30 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
Normal people feel distaste at the thought of pain inflicted as
revenge.
That's why it's illegal in international law.
wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:03:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
>>> groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>>
>> By expressing delight in the pain of others I think you just
>> disqualified yourself from this conversation.
>
>Absolutely not. The whole idea of Tasering offenders would be to
>inflict pain, and it would be very satisfying to most people
Well no.
>Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:03:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
>>> groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>>
>> By expressing delight in the pain of others I think you just
>> disqualified yourself from this conversation.
>
>Absolutely not. The whole idea of Tasering offenders would be to
>inflict pain, and it would be very satisfying to most people
Normal people feel distaste at the thought of pain inflicted as
revenge.
That's why it's illegal in international law.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 11:50:10 AM5/16/13
to
Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> The Todal wrote:
>>> Your modest proposal would probably fall foul of the UN prohibition
>>> against torture.
>>
>> Where's that then? Even if it does apply in this country, which I
>> doubt, we can always get a derogation.
>
> As usual, you are entirely wrong. The United Nations Convention
> against Torture most certainly applies in this country, and no
> we cannot get a "derogation" - the very idea is nonsensical.
> The European Convention on Human Rights obviously applies here
> as well, and no we cannot get a derogation from that either.
Of course we can if we want to, or we can leave the convention. We are
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> The Todal wrote:
>>> Your modest proposal would probably fall foul of the UN prohibition
>>> against torture.
>>
>> Where's that then? Even if it does apply in this country, which I
>> doubt, we can always get a derogation.
>
> As usual, you are entirely wrong. The United Nations Convention
> against Torture most certainly applies in this country, and no
> we cannot get a "derogation" - the very idea is nonsensical.
> The European Convention on Human Rights obviously applies here
> as well, and no we cannot get a derogation from that either.
a sovereign state, and can do as we like.
Anyway, I don't regard it as torture but as a judicial process. If it
were torture, then the police wouldn't be allowed to do it even in
pursuit of their duties, would they?
>>> Inflicting pain as a punishment is likely to be regarded as torture.
>>
>> I doubt it actually. It's not to extract information, which is the
>> normal reason to torture someone, but to punish them.
>
> Wrong again. The Convention against Torture defines torture as
> follows: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical
> or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
> ... punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
> suspected of having committed".
as no more than a wasp sting. And if you think it is torture, then
you'd better be getting the UN to stop the police using it in all of the
many countries where they do.
> In case that's not good enough for you, the Convention also prohibits
> "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
> which do not amount to torture". The ECHR similarly bans not just
> torture but "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
offender has a very precious view of the world. Anyway, it wouldn't be
up to him to decide, but for society in general.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 11:53:46 AM5/16/13
to
Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:38:30 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:03:14 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem
>>>> to groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>>>
>>> By expressing delight in the pain of others I think you just
>>> disqualified yourself from this conversation.
>>
>> Absolutely not. The whole idea of Tasering offenders would be to
>> inflict pain, and it would be very satisfying to most people
>
> Well no.
>
> Normal people feel distaste at the thought of pain inflicted as
> revenge.
>
> That's why it's illegal in international law.
Quote me the bit that says that. Give us the reference.
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:38:30 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 14:03:14 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem
>>>> to groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>>>
>>> By expressing delight in the pain of others I think you just
>>> disqualified yourself from this conversation.
>>
>> Absolutely not. The whole idea of Tasering offenders would be to
>> inflict pain, and it would be very satisfying to most people
>
> Well no.
>
> Normal people feel distaste at the thought of pain inflicted as
> revenge.
>
> That's why it's illegal in international law.
pensive hamster
May 16, 2013, 12:00:20 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 4:27 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> pensive hamster wrote:
> > On May 16, 2:03 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:42:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
> >>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
> >>>> You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable
> >>>> for those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering
> >>>> is.
>
> >>> Electric shocks aren't that painful
>
> >> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
> >> groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>
> > Satisfying to whom, Norman?
>
> To victims of crime,
Are you a victim of crime?
> pensive hamster wrote:
> > On May 16, 2:03 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:42:11 +0100, "Norman Wells"
> >>> <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
> >>>> You may ascribe it to that, but I don't. Prison is always tolerable
> >>>> for those with a mentality to withstand it. I don't think Tasering
> >>>> is.
>
> >>> Electric shocks aren't that painful
>
> >> I think those who have been Tasered might disagree. They do seem to
> >> groan a lot, which is rather satisfying.
>
> > Satisfying to whom, Norman?
>
> To victims of crime,
>to society in general who might be victims of
> crime, and to anyone who thinks little shits should be punished with
> something they really don't like rather than treated like delicate
> little flowers.
delicate little flowers? Or is that just in Normworld?
Bill
May 16, 2013, 12:11:06 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:50:10 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>Anyway, I don't regard it as torture but as a judicial process.
Everyone else does...
wrote:
>Anyway, I don't regard it as torture but as a judicial process.
Bill
May 16, 2013, 12:14:58 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:53:46 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
European Convention on Human Rights, article 3, which is enshrined in
English law.
also the UN's Intentional Declaration of Human Rights, article 5.
English law.
also the UN's Intentional Declaration of Human Rights, article 5.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 12:19:44 PM5/16/13
to
Jon Ribbens
May 16, 2013, 12:19:41 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> As usual, you are entirely wrong. The United Nations Convention
>> against Torture most certainly applies in this country, and no
>> we cannot get a "derogation" - the very idea is nonsensical.
>> The European Convention on Human Rights obviously applies here
>> as well, and no we cannot get a derogation from that either.
>
> Of course we can if we want to, or we can leave the convention. We are
> a sovereign state, and can do as we like.
We can't get a derogation, because for the Convention against Torture
>> As usual, you are entirely wrong. The United Nations Convention
>> against Torture most certainly applies in this country, and no
>> we cannot get a "derogation" - the very idea is nonsensical.
>> The European Convention on Human Rights obviously applies here
>> as well, and no we cannot get a derogation from that either.
>
> Of course we can if we want to, or we can leave the convention. We are
> a sovereign state, and can do as we like.
the very concept makes no sense, and for the ECHR the clause
permitting derogations does not allow derogation from the clause
prohibiting torture.
We "could" indeed leave both treaties completely, for some highly
theoretical definition of the word "could", but in practice it simply
will not happen.
> Anyway, I don't regard it as torture but as a judicial process. If it
> were torture, then the police wouldn't be allowed to do it even in
> pursuit of their duties, would they?
pain on them.
>> Wrong again. The Convention against Torture defines torture as
>> follows: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical
>> or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
>> ... punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
>> suspected of having committed".
>
> Oh, it's not 'severe', so come off it!
severe you imagine the pain to be! Your modest proposal is to cause
criminals to cease their criminal behaviour because they are terrified
of being punished with mild pain, is it?
> And if you think it is torture, then you'd better be getting the UN
> to stop the police using it in all of the many countries where they do.
tasers to inflict pain on people?
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 12:26:18 PM5/16/13
to
Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> As usual, you are entirely wrong. The United Nations Convention
>>> against Torture most certainly applies in this country, and no
>>> we cannot get a "derogation" - the very idea is nonsensical.
>>> The European Convention on Human Rights obviously applies here
>>> as well, and no we cannot get a derogation from that either.
>>
>> Of course we can if we want to, or we can leave the convention. We
>> are a sovereign state, and can do as we like.
>
> We can't get a derogation, because for the Convention against Torture
> the very concept makes no sense, and for the ECHR the clause
> permitting derogations does not allow derogation from the clause
> prohibiting torture.
>
> We "could" indeed leave both treaties completely, for some highly
> theoretical definition of the word "could", but in practice it simply
> will not happen.
>
>> Anyway, I don't regard it as torture but as a judicial process. If
>> it were torture, then the police wouldn't be allowed to do it even in
>> pursuit of their duties, would they?
>
> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to inflict
> pain on them.
What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> As usual, you are entirely wrong. The United Nations Convention
>>> against Torture most certainly applies in this country, and no
>>> we cannot get a "derogation" - the very idea is nonsensical.
>>> The European Convention on Human Rights obviously applies here
>>> as well, and no we cannot get a derogation from that either.
>>
>> Of course we can if we want to, or we can leave the convention. We
>> are a sovereign state, and can do as we like.
>
> We can't get a derogation, because for the Convention against Torture
> the very concept makes no sense, and for the ECHR the clause
> permitting derogations does not allow derogation from the clause
> prohibiting torture.
>
> We "could" indeed leave both treaties completely, for some highly
> theoretical definition of the word "could", but in practice it simply
> will not happen.
>
>> Anyway, I don't regard it as torture but as a judicial process. If
>> it were torture, then the police wouldn't be allowed to do it even in
>> pursuit of their duties, would they?
>
> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to inflict
> pain on them.
punishment but allowing police use?
>>> Wrong again. The Convention against Torture defines torture as
>>> follows: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
>>> physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such
>>> purposes as ... punishing him for an act he or a third person has
>>> committed or is suspected of having committed".
>>
>> Oh, it's not 'severe', so come off it!
>
> Make your mind up - you're the one who's been gloating about how
> severe you imagine the pain to be! Your modest proposal is to cause
> criminals to cease their criminal behaviour because they are terrified
> of being punished with mild pain, is it?
>
>> And if you think it is torture, then you'd better be getting the UN
>> to stop the police using it in all of the many countries where they
>> do.
>
> In what countries do you think that the police are permitted to use
> tasers to inflict pain on people?
Jon Ribbens
May 16, 2013, 12:31:33 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to inflict
>> pain on them.
>
> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
> punishment but allowing police use?
The United Nations Convention against Torture, and the European
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to inflict
>> pain on them.
>
> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
> punishment but allowing police use?
Convention on Human Rights, as I have already explained to you.
Try reading Article 1 paragraph 1 of the former, for example,
it explains it quite clearly and explicitly. Or indeed, try
looking up the word "torture" in a good dictionary.
>> In what countries do you think that the police are permitted to use
>> tasers to inflict pain on people?
>
> Wherever they use them for any purpose of course. It's what Tasers do.
logic, but you're not this stupid. If someone is attacking me and, in
self defence, I punch them in the face, I am not "torturing" them, but
if I then tie them down so they no longer pose any threat to anyone
and continue punching them in the face, then that is torture. This
should be obvious even to you.
Bill
May 16, 2013, 1:09:49 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:19:44 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR#Article_3_-_torture
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 1:40:57 PM5/16/13
to
Inflicting pain as such is not banned by either Convention, nor is it
illegal.
I'm afraid you'll have to find something else.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 1:50:03 PM5/16/13
to
Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to
>>> inflict pain on them.
>>
>> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
>> punishment but allowing police use?
>
> The United Nations Convention against Torture, and the European
> Convention on Human Rights, as I have already explained to you.
> Try reading Article 1 paragraph 1 of the former, for example,
> it explains it quite clearly and explicitly. Or indeed, try
> looking up the word "torture" in a good dictionary.
No need. I'll quote directly from Part 1, Article 1:
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to
>>> inflict pain on them.
>>
>> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
>> punishment but allowing police use?
>
> The United Nations Convention against Torture, and the European
> Convention on Human Rights, as I have already explained to you.
> Try reading Article 1 paragraph 1 of the former, for example,
> it explains it quite clearly and explicitly. Or indeed, try
> looking up the word "torture" in a good dictionary.
"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions."
It quite clearly allows lawful sanctions to include inflicting pain.
>>> In what countries do you think that the police are permitted to use
>>> tasers to inflict pain on people?
>>
>> Wherever they use them for any purpose of course. It's what Tasers
>> do.
>
> Come on Norman, your arguments often suffer from a complete dearth of
> logic, but you're not this stupid. If someone is attacking me and, in
> self defence, I punch them in the face, I am not "torturing" them, but
> if I then tie them down so they no longer pose any threat to anyone
> and continue punching them in the face, then that is torture. This
> should be obvious even to you.
is all it is.
Where is it all set out that it can be used in certain circumstances but
not others?
Bill
May 16, 2013, 1:51:57 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:40:57 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
Why?
It's a daft idea and isn't going to happen.
It's a daft idea and isn't going to happen.
Jon Ribbens
May 16, 2013, 2:24:50 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to
>>>> inflict pain on them.
>>>
>>> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
>>> punishment but allowing police use?
>>
>> The United Nations Convention against Torture, and the European
>> Convention on Human Rights, as I have already explained to you.
>> Try reading Article 1 paragraph 1 of the former, for example,
>> it explains it quite clearly and explicitly. Or indeed, try
>> looking up the word "torture" in a good dictionary.
>
> No need. I'll quote directly from Part 1, Article 1:
>
> "It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
> incidental to lawful sanctions."
>
> It quite clearly allows lawful sanctions to include inflicting pain.
Oh dear. We're straight back to Norman's Bizarro World where black
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to
>>>> inflict pain on them.
>>>
>>> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
>>> punishment but allowing police use?
>>
>> The United Nations Convention against Torture, and the European
>> Convention on Human Rights, as I have already explained to you.
>> Try reading Article 1 paragraph 1 of the former, for example,
>> it explains it quite clearly and explicitly. Or indeed, try
>> looking up the word "torture" in a good dictionary.
>
> No need. I'll quote directly from Part 1, Article 1:
>
> "It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
> incidental to lawful sanctions."
>
> It quite clearly allows lawful sanctions to include inflicting pain.
equals white. That sentence is the one that means that tasering a
violent criminal in order to subdue and arrest them is not torture.
It does not mean that tasering a prisoner in order to punish them
is not torture.
>> Come on Norman, your arguments often suffer from a complete dearth of
>> logic, but you're not this stupid. If someone is attacking me and, in
>> self defence, I punch them in the face, I am not "torturing" them, but
>> if I then tie them down so they no longer pose any threat to anyone
>> and continue punching them in the face, then that is torture. This
>> should be obvious even to you.
>
> What I asked for was the legal basis for this 'opinion' of yours, which
> is all it is.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 3:04:14 PM5/16/13
to
Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to
>>>>> inflict pain on them.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
>>>> punishment but allowing police use?
>>>
>>> The United Nations Convention against Torture, and the European
>>> Convention on Human Rights, as I have already explained to you.
>>> Try reading Article 1 paragraph 1 of the former, for example,
>>> it explains it quite clearly and explicitly. Or indeed, try
>>> looking up the word "torture" in a good dictionary.
>>
>> No need. I'll quote directly from Part 1, Article 1:
>>
>> "It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent
>> in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
>>
>> It quite clearly allows lawful sanctions to include inflicting pain.
>
> Oh dear. We're straight back to Norman's Bizarro World where black
> equals white. That sentence is the one that means that tasering a
> violent criminal in order to subdue and arrest them is not torture.
> It does not mean that tasering a prisoner in order to punish them
> is not torture.
Oh, that's strange. I thought punishment was a lawful sanction.
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>> The police are indeed not allowed to taser people in order to
>>>>> inflict pain on them.
>>>>
>>>> What exactly allows that? What exactly prevents it being used as a
>>>> punishment but allowing police use?
>>>
>>> The United Nations Convention against Torture, and the European
>>> Convention on Human Rights, as I have already explained to you.
>>> Try reading Article 1 paragraph 1 of the former, for example,
>>> it explains it quite clearly and explicitly. Or indeed, try
>>> looking up the word "torture" in a good dictionary.
>>
>> No need. I'll quote directly from Part 1, Article 1:
>>
>> "It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent
>> in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
>>
>> It quite clearly allows lawful sanctions to include inflicting pain.
>
> Oh dear. We're straight back to Norman's Bizarro World where black
> equals white. That sentence is the one that means that tasering a
> violent criminal in order to subdue and arrest them is not torture.
> It does not mean that tasering a prisoner in order to punish them
> is not torture.
Is it not?
>>> Come on Norman, your arguments often suffer from a complete dearth
>>> of logic, but you're not this stupid. If someone is attacking me
>>> and, in self defence, I punch them in the face, I am not
>>> "torturing" them, but if I then tie them down so they no longer
>>> pose any threat to anyone and continue punching them in the face,
>>> then that is torture. This should be obvious even to you.
>>
>> What I asked for was the legal basis for this 'opinion' of yours,
>> which is all it is.
>
> I have already provided it several times.
actually say what you imagine they say. They don't therefore support
your argument, and in fact reveal it to be a complete sham.
pensive hamster
May 16, 2013, 3:49:00 PM5/16/13
to
what they say is partly a matter of opinion (and also of established
precedence or practice).
> They don't therefore support
> your argument, and in fact reveal it to be a complete sham.
The quoted section above, from Part 1, Article 1, says that torture:
" ... does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
You interpret that as meaning that: "It quite clearly allows lawful
sanctions to include inflicting pain. "
Which seems to me to be a specious and twisted interpretation. It
seems to me that the Convention is saying that lawful sanctions which
incidentally give rise to pain or suffering are OK. But only if the
pain or suffering arise only incidentally *from* the lawful sanction
(eg. from a fine or imprisonment, etc).
That is not the same as saying that it is OK if the lawful sanction
*is* the direct infliction of pain or suffering, as you claim.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 5:39:06 PM5/16/13
to
It clearly allows pain or suffering 'arising only from' lawful
sanctions.
It also clearly allows pain or suffering 'inherent in' lawful sanctions.
Jon Ribbens
May 16, 2013, 7:23:49 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Oh dear. We're straight back to Norman's Bizarro World where black
>> equals white. That sentence is the one that means that tasering a
>> violent criminal in order to subdue and arrest them is not torture.
>> It does not mean that tasering a prisoner in order to punish them
>> is not torture.
>
> Oh, that's strange. I thought punishment was a lawful sanction.
>
> Is it not?
You are misinterpreting plain English, as you always do. But for the
> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> Oh dear. We're straight back to Norman's Bizarro World where black
>> equals white. That sentence is the one that means that tasering a
>> violent criminal in order to subdue and arrest them is not torture.
>> It does not mean that tasering a prisoner in order to punish them
>> is not torture.
>
> Oh, that's strange. I thought punishment was a lawful sanction.
>
> Is it not?
sake of argument, let's follow you for a moment into your Bizarro World,
where the laws of physics, logic and man may be reversed or suspended
at any moment depending on the Whim of Norman. In this crazy world of
yours, where the Convention against Torture does not prohibit, er,
torture, what *does* it prohibit?
> No. What you've done is refer to various Conventions, but they don't
> actually say what you imagine they say. They don't therefore support
> your argument, and in fact reveal it to be a complete sham.
invented as an epic joke, or whether a real human being actually can
have such a total lack of sense of irony.
Norman Wells
May 17, 2013, 4:05:37 AM5/17/13
to
Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> Oh dear. We're straight back to Norman's Bizarro World where black
>>> equals white. That sentence is the one that means that tasering a
>>> violent criminal in order to subdue and arrest them is not torture.
>>> It does not mean that tasering a prisoner in order to punish them
>>> is not torture.
>>
>> Oh, that's strange. I thought punishment was a lawful sanction.
>>
>> Is it not?
>
> You are misinterpreting plain English, as you always do. But for the
> sake of argument, let's follow you for a moment into your Bizarro
> World, where the laws of physics, logic and man may be reversed or
> suspended at any moment depending on the Whim of Norman. In this
> crazy world of yours, where the Convention against Torture does not
> prohibit, er, torture, what *does* it prohibit?
It prohibits the use of torture as it defines 'torture', of course. And
> On 2013-05-16, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> Oh dear. We're straight back to Norman's Bizarro World where black
>>> equals white. That sentence is the one that means that tasering a
>>> violent criminal in order to subdue and arrest them is not torture.
>>> It does not mean that tasering a prisoner in order to punish them
>>> is not torture.
>>
>> Oh, that's strange. I thought punishment was a lawful sanction.
>>
>> Is it not?
>
> You are misinterpreting plain English, as you always do. But for the
> sake of argument, let's follow you for a moment into your Bizarro
> World, where the laws of physics, logic and man may be reversed or
> suspended at any moment depending on the Whim of Norman. In this
> crazy world of yours, where the Convention against Torture does not
> prohibit, er, torture, what *does* it prohibit?
it goes out of its way specifically to exclude from that definition
"pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions".
It's perfectly clear to anyone with at least a rudimentary grasp of
lawful sanctions".
English. The law can prescribe pain or suffering as a sanction, ie a
penalty for misdeeds, without falling foul of the Convention.
>> No. What you've done is refer to various Conventions, but they don't
>> actually say what you imagine they say. They don't therefore support
>> your argument, and in fact reveal it to be a complete sham.
>
> I do hope we somehow find out one day whether you are a false persona
> invented as an epic joke, or whether a real human being actually can
> have such a total lack of sense of irony.
confetti and begin to comprehend what they say.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages