What are your views of the punishment system? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

What are your views of the punishment system?

dean3988 Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
E.g, say a criminal murders, do you think it is right for them to be put to death?

eye for an eye?

or make them live in prison?
dean3988 Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
Options

All Comments

(62) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
personally I think that the death sentence should be brought in, eye for an eye
banned#2
this has been done a few times already, it never goes down to well (pardon the pun)

I personally hope it is never back, murder is taking someones life no matter how it is done only my opinion
#3
this will end well.....
































http://iwillknot.guitarideas.com/images/overhand_knot.jpg
#4
If the proof is conclusive, have them put to death, why burden the tax payer with these people
#5
sassie
this has been done a few times already, it never goes down to well (pardon the pun)

I personally hope it is never back, murder is taking someones life no matter how it is done only my opinion


Yeh cos letting someone who murdered someone live in a nice cell without any remorse is better than keeping him alive draining resources.

Kill the lot of them.
banned#6
deathtrap3000
Yeh cos letting someone who murdered someone live in a nice cell without any remorse is better than keeping him alive draining resources.

Kill the lot of them.


think you need a re-read there
#7
black gerbil1
this will end well.....
































http://iwillknot.guitarideas.com/images/overhand_knot.jpg


:x
#8
sassie
think you need a re-read there


ahaha yeh lol got a bit carried away there.
#9
lol :p
[mod]#10
Ok, so when someone is charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter would you say that they also should be killed? When then do you draw the line between which defence led to manslaughter as opposed to murder. Provocation? Diminished responsibilty? Suicide pact?

Its all too well saying that all murderers should be killed themselves but how often is it beyond doubt that someone was charged with murder and then convicted of murder. Would you then have to "cull" all those who have already been convicted of murder? You then open the floodgates for human rights cases etc...

We have a good legal system in this country. Although it might not seem very good, law is updated so often and never stands still it is amazing how people can keep track of what is going on.

This isnt aimed at the OP, or anyone else that has replied in this thread but too many people who arent educated on the subject dont ever look under the surface and only read what is put in the media. Its rubbish which is printed in the media like "children being able to divorce their parents" etc which bugs the hell out of me. It isnt true, it isnt informative and people think that everything that is published in the papers is true.

Bit of a tangent, but to conclude - no, the death sentence (in my opinion) isnt the way forward.
#11
I think I would just be happy if prisoners were forced to serve their entire sentence.

Good behaviour? Why reward them when they've committed a crime to get there in the first place?

Back OT, IMHO unless you've lost a loved one to a murderer you don't have any right or say in the matter. Personally I'm in favour, even if it's only used in the extreme cases where a violent murder or multiple murders have taken place.
#12
magicjay1986
Ok, so when someone is charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter would you say that they also should be killed? When then do you draw the line between which defence led to manslaughter as opposed to murder. Provocation? Diminished responsibilty? Suicide pact?

Its all too well saying that all murderers should be killed themselves but how often is it beyond doubt that someone was charged with murder and then convicted of murder. Would you then have to "cull" all those who have already been convicted of murder? You then open the floodgates for human rights cases etc...

We have a good legal system in this country. Although it might not seem very good, law is updated so often and never stands still it is amazing how people can keep track of what is going on.

This isnt aimed at the OP, or anyone else that has replied in this thread but too many people who arent educated on the subject dont ever look under the surface and only read what is put in the media. Its rubbish which is printed in the media like "children being able to divorce their parents" etc which bugs the hell out of me. It isnt true, it isnt informative and people think that everything that is published in the papers is true.

Bit of a tangent, but to conclude - no, the death sentence (in my opinion) isnt the way forward.


Xb0xGuru
I think I would just be happy if prisoners were forced to serve their entire sentence.

Good behaviour? Why reward them when they've committed a crime to get there in the first place?

Back OT, IMHO unless you've lost a loved one to a murderer you don't have any right or say in the matter. Personally I'm in favour, even if it's only used in the extreme cases where a violent murder or multiple murders have taken place.


both very good answers
#13
If a murderer is found guilty without a shadow of a doubt then i personally think they should be sentenced to death.
And a life sentence should mean LIFE without parole.
#14
Eye for an eye i say.

I remeber being told that in some country if they get caught shopliftin they chop off a finger? They should do that to.

New question but on topic - If they brought back public hangings - would you go watch?
banned#15
moschino
If a murderer is found guilty without a shadow of a doubt then i personally think they should be sentenced to death.
And a life sentence should mean LIFE without parole.


All convictions are supposed to be without any doubt, how do you make the distinction between definately guilty and maybe guilty?
[mod]#16
colinsunderland
All convictions are supposed to be without any doubt, how do you make the distinction between definately guilty and maybe guilty?


My point exactly in my last post. It is impossible.
banned#17
Xb0xGuru
I think I would just be happy if prisoners were forced to serve their entire sentence.

Good behaviour? Why reward them when they've committed a crime to get there in the first place?

Rehabilitation?
On top of that, its a method of control in prisons, and after release. As a judge is fully aware of how long someone will be inside, changing the rules wouldn't make a difference. At the moment if a judge thinks someone should be in jail for 4 month, he gives him a 12 month sentence. If the rules were changed, he would get a 4 month sentence.
#18
One question I'd like to ask. Would the death penalty stop the ever growing murders that happen daily on our streets? I just think that there is to many loopholes now in todays justice system that are sided with the scum who carry out these horrific doings.
#19
colinsunderland
Rehabilitation?
On top of that, its a method of control in prisons, and after release. As a judge is fully aware of how long someone will be inside, changing the rules wouldn't make a difference. At the moment if a judge thinks someone should be in jail for 4 month, he gives him a 12 month sentence. If the rules were changed, he would get a 4 month sentence.


Sorry if this is a little OT...

Detention should be more about punishment than rehabilitation.

You've either committed multiple crimes or something pretty serious to deserve a custodial sentence. In the cases where violent crimes are concerned, you try explaining to the victim that the person who brutally beat them for their mobile phone/wallet/etc is actually getting more counselling and support than you, and because they've been a good boy inside they'll be out in half the time because of it. Worst of all, they're paying for their rehab (as a taxpayer). The felon gets let out of prison and then goes and attacks someone else, proving the rehab has failed. Why then bother to try and go through the rehab programme again and put even more innocent people in danger? The prison service has a public duty to ensure that violent criminals are not released to re-offend and they fail at almost every turn.

Don't get me started on conditions in prisons either - with the exception of being detained against their will, they live better than most of the homeless on our streets.
banned#20
Xb0xGuru
Sorry if this is a little OT...

Detention should be more about punishment than rehabilitation.

So you are happy for offenders to go out and commit more crimes as they had no rehabilitaion?

You've either committed multiple crimes or something pretty serious to deserve a custodial sentence.

Like selling copy dvd's for example? Thats a pretty blinkered view, not everyone inside is what you describe at all.

In the cases where violent crimes are concerned, you try explaining to the victim that the person who brutally beat them for their mobile phone/wallet/etc is actually getting more counselling and support than you, and because they've been a good boy inside they'll be out in half the time because of it. Worst of all, they're paying for their rehab (as a taxpayer).

I think you will find thats a bit of a myth. Most prisoners serving less than a couple of years get either very little or no counselling and support. Even after that its very hit and miss, the 'support' they tend to get is to go on offending behaviour courses and anger management courses, which are pretty bad really. As for the early release, what exactly is the difference between telling the victim 'he got 12 months, but will be out in 4' and 'he got 4 months', which is what would happen.
Every prison in the country could easily be taken over by the inmates if there were no other methods of control, you would have to at least quadruple the amount of prison officers to have some feeling of control.

The felon gets let out of prison and then goes and attacks someone else, proving the rehab has failed. Why then bother to try and go through the rehab programme again and put even more innocent people in danger?

Because the rehabilitation system in most prisons is rubbish, but everyone (apart from a few) will be released one day. Are you saying there shouldn't be any rehabilitation so when the 87000 people currently in jail are released they go out and do it again? Rehabilitation works when it's done properly, as has been proven in the few rehabilitation jails in the country.

The prison service has a public duty to ensure that violent criminals are not released to re-offend and they fail at almost every turn.

The prison service don't decide release dates, the justice system does.

Don't get me started on conditions in prisons either - with the exception of being detained against their will, they live better than most of the homeless on our streets.


Have you seen inside a prison?
#21
I have mixed feelings about this one
1st my faith prohibits me from killing/supporting/condoning taking a life (including suicide). Only God can take your life. AND unless there is strong evidence you cant risk killing the wrong person and is not news that often the wrong people get sent to prison because of police blunders or political pressure
2ndly if someone intentionally and maliciously killed my children I would find it very hard not to harm them myself so dont know if my faith would withold me from doign that or not. Hopefully I will never find out!

In the case of pedo's crimes Poland is just pushing through Parlament a law to force chemical castration which I fully agree to the least. They could also add a huge PEDO tattoo on their face to warn others and chopping their hands off!
banned#22
I wouldn't have too much of a problem with the death penalty if there were some way in every case of being able to prove guilt 100%.
However people still get convicted and their convictions overturned. You can release someone from jail, however you can't bring them back to life.
#23
Well, my feelings are this:- usually those who are persistent (list of previous) offenders from low income backgrounds getaway more with lighter punishments hence the list of previous without or very little custodial time. Now when it comes to offenders from wealthier social backgrounds fines are handed out in abundance because they can get the money from them, whereas with an offender in the benefit system its pointless to fine, so probation and a slapped wrist is handed out. The social status of the offender does appear to determine in some respect the punishment that you're handed which can be disproportionate to the crime that has been committed. Its an unjust system just from that view point, where exactly the same crime can be committed by 2 different people but the punishment can be different depending on your social background or income alone.
banned#24
Alfonse
Well, my feelings are this:- usually those who are persistent (list of previous) offenders from low income backgrounds getaway more with lighter punishments hence the list of previous without or very little custodial time. Now when it comes to offenders from wealthier social backgrounds fines are handed out in abundance because they can get the money from them, whereas with an offender in the benefit system its pointless to fine, so probation and a slapped wrist is handed out. The social status of the offender does appear to determine in some respect the punishment that you're handed which can be disproportionate to the crime that has been committed. Its an unjust system just from that view point, where exactly the same crime can be committed by 2 different people but the punishment can be different depending on your social background or income alone.


Thats assuming they even get to court if they are rich and famous, as pointed out by a magistrate here

The singer George Michael, a man of somewhat exotic habits with a taste for illicit drugs and cottaging has been arrested again in the unglamorous surroundings of a public toilet. Police decided to caution him, despite his previous convictions for drug-related offences.
Meanwhile in the North-East a footballer was arrested for assaulting a woman. Guess what? Police decided to caution him.
When I am in court next week, I shall probably see scruffs from the local estate charged with Class A possession. If they have previous, they will very probably get a community order involving a drug treatment element. I am also very likely to see someone charged with assault in one of its many variants. No caution for him. But then he isn't famous is he?
Justice belongs in a court open to the public in front of an impartial and independent bench that has sworn to do justice "without fear or favour, affection or ill-will", not behind closed doors in a police station.
banned#25
No I don't think the death penalty should be brought back, too many innocent people have died this way in the past and no doubt many more innocents would be put to death.

And why is an executioner allowed to murder a murderer! :?
#26
churchy2704

And why is an executioner allowed to murder a murderer! :?


That's also like saying why is a Doctor or Surgeon allowed to play God, surely they should let people die if that is the will of God and not interfere.
#27
Difficult one. I don't think the death penalty should be brought back purely down to the fact that someone that's innocent will end up being killed, somewhere along the line, be it 10 years from bringing the death penatly back or 50 years, but it would happen I'm sure.

I think the first step would be to take away all of the luxuries inside prisons at the moment. Why on earth have they got plasma tv's in there, games consoles, top notch gyms and the like. Someone who I really dislike currently has a boyfriend in prison and is always on about how amazing it is in there. It's not like being punished at all. Perhaps if sentences were also kicked back into touch, ie, murder really does mean life, if you're given a 10 year sentence then you actually stay in for 10 years and so on, then people might start to think that prison is actually a big deal, it is a punishment and they won't be out in a few months.

I do think that a lot harsher action should be taken on paedophiles, perhaps they should be given life for any child abuse related offence, as they will continually be a threat to society as it's not something that just 'goes away'. And I certainly don't think any money should be spent on giving them new identities and homes etc when they come out, like the 2 boys that killed little Jamie Bulger.
#28
I always thought a custodial sentence should be about depriving people of those things the rest of us take for granted.....tv, xbox, etc. But it seems that there is no shortage of these items inside.

What also gets my goat is the sentences handed out. Those 2 old codgers who defrauded their insurance company (along with banks, the biggest crooks in the world) by claiming on the fella's life insurance following his alledged demise after going to sea in a canoe get 6 and a half years. A vicar with over 56000 images of child porn gets half of that. Now a crime is a crime, but really, I know as a taxpayer, I know which of the 3 should be locked up and have the key thrown away and it isn't the old codgers.

The sentence handed out should be the sentence served!
#29
colinsunderland
So you are happy for offenders to go out and commit more crimes as they had no rehabilitaion?.

If a repeat offender's been put away for 12 months and gets out in 4, what possible benefit could any rehab programme be they know full well they'll be out in 16 weeks?

colinsunderland

Like selling copy dvd's for example? Thats a pretty blinkered view, not everyone inside is what you describe at all.

You would have to sell an awful amount to pirated goods to get a full-on custodial sentence as opposed to a suspended sentence. If you're getting put away for any length of time due to piracy, you probably deserve it.

colinsunderland

I think you will find thats a bit of a myth. Most prisoners serving less than a couple of years get either very little or no counselling and support. Even after that its very hit and miss, the 'support' they tend to get is to go on offending behaviour courses and anger management courses, which are pretty bad really.

It's not - most victims get zero support and hardly any compensation (if at all). Prisoners get free accommodation, free food, free TV, free facilities on top of whatever courses they are obliged to attend. I'd say the support given to offenders far outweighs that of the victim.


colinsunderland

As for the early release, what exactly is the difference between telling the victim 'he got 12 months, but will be out in 4' and 'he got 4 months', which is what would happen.
Every prison in the country could easily be taken over by the inmates if there were no other methods of control, you would have to at least quadruple the amount of prison officers to have some feeling of control.

For starters, sentences passed by magistrates and judges would need to be literal. 12 months means 12 months. Life means life. Then the task of deciding fair terms could be dealt with properly and it would be understood by all exactly how long an offender would be detained. I think you'd find in these circumstances the baseline would not be the good 'behaviour' number but more towards the proper term.

Prisoners riot all the time, you just don't hear about it all that often. It's normally dealt with quite quickly by taking away luxuries (TV, games, etc) and I've been told first hand by persistent offenders how easy it is in prison. One was actually brewing his own alcohol in his cell using fruit and veg brought to him during visits.

As for control - bring back national service. Make them train every day to learn discipline, respect and self control. Those who refuse or run away are dealt with in the same way as those at war - shot. Give them a basic diet of necessary food to survive. Train them to be soldiers so they can defend the country they live in. Not only will this give them the necessary skills to be a decent human being, but a sense of purpose too.
banned#30
so train all 16 yr olds to go out and kill, errrrmmm aint that exactly the sort of people you are protesting about
banned#31
Xb0xGuru
If a repeat offender's been put away for 12 months and gets out in 4, what possible benefit could any rehab programme be they know full well they'll be out in 16 weeks?


at the moment if they are put away for 2-3 years they get no real support so it doesn't really make a difference. However proper rehabilitation jails do work, they are the ones that are focussed on rehabilitation only. Mainly having inmates in who get a job, and hopefully continue in that job on release.

It's not - most victims get zero support and hardly any compensation (if at all). Prisoners get free accommodation, free food, free TV, free facilities on top of whatever courses they are obliged to attend. I'd say the support given to offenders far outweighs that of the victim.


Victim support leaflets are handed out to almost all victims of crime. If the 'victim' doesn't take them up on the offer of help then that is their fault.
In cell TV isn't free.
As for the free accomodation etc, what do you propose? Charge them? How would you do that when the vast majority in jail have no money.
However, I don't agree with the human rights court when they said prisoners on work out schemes can't be charged board (which is what they used to do)

For starters, sentences passed by magistrates and judges would need to be literal. 12 months means 12 months. Life means life. Then the task of deciding fair terms could be dealt with properly and it would be understood by all exactly how long an offender would be detained. I think you'd find in these circumstances the baseline would not be the good 'behaviour' number but more towards the proper term.


The early release scheme is practised in most countries and is proven to work. What I don't agree with is all the extras. For example end of custoody allows people to be released 18 days early. The tagging scheme (HDC). Just because prisons are full it shouldn't mean people are released even earlier. In some ways the early release scheme is in tatters anyway as far as control is concerned, again due to a stupid human rughts court decision. In the past, if you did something wrong you would have to go and see the governor, and chances are you would 'lose' 3/7/10/14 days. Governors cannot do that any more, and if they want to give days then they have to take the inmate to an outside court. Thats ridiculous.

Prisoners riot all the time, you just don't hear about it all that often.


No they don't, there are fights between inmates fairly regulary, but not riots.

It's normally dealt with quite quickly by taking away luxuries (TV, games, etc) and I've been told first hand by persistent offenders how easy it is in prison. One was actually brewing his own alcohol in his cell using fruit and veg brought to him during visits.


I didn't say it wasn't easy, but it does depend on your definition of easy. No jail in England allows fruit and veg brought in from the outside. They do usually get an apple or pear for supper, and they will have been saving them up to brew up with.Although tv's are available to a lot of prisoners, very few have games or anything. They aren't even allowed freeview boxes.

As for control - bring back national service. Make them train every day to learn discipline, respect and self control. Those who refuse or run away are dealt with in the same way as those at war - shot. Give them a basic diet of necessary food to survive. Train them to be soldiers so they can defend the country they live in. Not only will this give them the necessary skills to be a decent human being, but a sense of purpose too.


So train violent thugs, murderers, child molesters etc how to use a gun? Yes that will keep the law abiding people happy! Forgetting that (as you probably didn't mean it with guns), thats how detention centres in the 80's were, they didn't work, so why would they now?
Most prisoners are already on a basic diet, what do you think they eat? They are fed on under £1 per day (about 70p if I remember correctly), for 4 meals, they have hardly likely to be living in luxury on that!

People think prison is a life of luxury, everyone has 42" plasma's on the wall in their cell, porn on demand, sky, wii's, ps3's, top quality gyms, mobile phones, computers with internet access, top quality food etc etc. They are wrong.
#32
I've snipped up to this as I pretty much agree on what you've written :)

colinsunderland

So train violent thugs, murderers, child molesters etc how to use a gun? Yes that will keep the law abiding people happy! Forgetting that (as you probably didn't mean it with guns), thats how detention centres in the 80's were, they didn't work, so why would they now?

Yup, you're right - I wasn't even hinting on giving them a weapon. However, there's a flip side to this: If you firmly believe that with the right support, all prisoners can be rehabilitated to a state where they're allowed to be fully integrated back into society, surely those who choose a career in the armed forces will be trained to use a gun eventually. Are you going to trust an ex-offender with a gun in any circumstance? If you are, then the above suggestion of national service would still apply - it's amazing how much you learn about yourself when you have to train every day. Wasn't the detention centres in the 80's just borstals? Not really the same thing at all - I was thinking along the lines of a boot camp.

colinsunderland

People think prison is a life of luxury, everyone has 42" plasma's on the wall in their cell, porn on demand, sky, wii's, ps3's, top quality gyms, mobile phones, computers with internet access, top quality food etc etc. They are wrong.


Compared to the level that some of our poorest families have to survive at in this country (and not even getting into the homeless), it IS luxury.
banned#33
Xb0xGuru
I've snipped up to this as I pretty much agree on what you've written :)

:thumbsup:

Yup, you're right - I wasn't even hinting on giving them a weapon. However, there's a flip side to this: If you firmly believe that with the right support, all prisoners can be rehabilitated to a state where they're allowed to be fully integrated back into society, surely those who choose a career in the armed forces will be trained to use a gun eventually. Are you going to trust an ex-offender with a gun in any circumstance? If you are, then the above suggestion of national service would still apply - it's amazing how much you learn about yourself when you have to train every day. Wasn't the detention centres in the 80's just borstals? Not really the same thing at all - I was thinking along the lines of a boot camp.

I don't think all prisoners can be rehabilitated at all, but I do think a lot can. A start would be offering support to get them off drugs, and not releasing anyone until they show they have been off drugs for a certain time. For that the whole prison service would need a major make over so I can't see it happening in my lifetime.
For example, someone goes into jail on cannabis, likes a smoke etc. Cannabis stays in your system 28 days. So if you smoke weed inside and get a drugs test 2 weeks later you will get caught. However coke/smack etc stay in for less than 48 hours, and if you drink a lot of water, sometimes cannot be detected 24 hours later. As a result, a lot of people who smoke cannabis when they go in, go to harder drugs to avoid being caught. Then come out smackheads, and commit more crimes to get their fix. That is not helping anyone (not that I'm saying cannabis inside is ok, it isn't), and something should be done to stop it.
Prisons like Kirk Levington have active work out programmes and their reoffending rate is vastly lower than other prisons. It isn't zero, but if you can stop an extra 30 out of every 100 criminals re-offending then surely thats a good thing?

DC's in the 80's were like a boot camp, very heavily focussed on respect, work, education and physical exercise. For example, out on parade at 6am every morning, if your boots didn't shine so the officer could see his face in them you were punished, which I presume is the type of thing you meant?
Not like borstal which were based on fear and violence.

Compared to the level that some of our poorest families have to survive at in this country (and not even getting into the homeless), it IS luxury.


I agree, but you can't base prisons on what other sectors of the population are like. As I said, what do you propose instead? Charge them board (how would they pay?)
#34
Good points - I definitely agree with the hard drugs thing as I've heard it all too often people going in on weed and coming out on crack.

colinsunderland
:thumbsup:
I agree, but you can't base prisons on what other sectors of the population are like. As I said, what do you propose instead? Charge them board (how would they pay?)


I think it's irrelevent either way. The fact that law breakers get to live better than ANY sector of the 'honest' (I know we're not all saints!) population leaves a bitter taste in the mouth for most.

Why not make them work (under guard)? There are plenty of minimum wage jobs out there which require little skill which we have a problem in filling as people don't want to do them. Let them not only earn a wage while they are inside but pay their way too. You could even garnish their wages and make them pay compensation to their victim(s) with it.

I'd just like to apologise to the OP for going completely OT - sorry!!!
banned#35
Xb0xGuru
I think it's irrelevent either way. The fact that law breakers get to live better than ANY sector of the 'honest' (I know we're not all saints!) population leaves a bitter taste in the mouth for most.

Why not make them work (under guard)? There are plenty of minimum wage jobs out there which require little skill which we have a problem in filling as people don't want to do them. Let them not only earn a wage while they are inside but pay their way too. You could even garnish their wages and make them pay compensation to their victim(s) with it.


Well if there are that many jobs out there begging for people to do them then why are there so many poor and homeless people ;-)

You couldn't do that for every prisoner, you would need a prison officer for each one Cat C or above. It already happens in open prisons, like Kirk Levington that I mentioned above. They have to pay a victim surcharge out of their wages. They used to have to pay board too, until, as mentioned above, the human rights court stepped in.
So basically, your idea of what could be done is already in practice :thumbsup:
The other problems you get are
1. People shouting 'its terrible, prisoners taking all our jobs'
2. People shouting 'it's terrible, they should be in jail'
3. People shouting 'it's terrible, I'm not working near a prisoner'

Like for example here

"It is surprising that prisoners seem to be getting work ahead of other people. I know a lot of men who have applied and been told there's no work.



You could argue some prisoners also contribute to their upkeep by work done in prison. Some work in laundries to wash prison clothes, and some do outside contracts, which the prison obviously gets an income for. Durham jail makes football nets, does IT contracting (mainly data entry), and various other outside work. If you live in west yorkshire and eat mushrooms, theres a good chance they have been grown and picked at wealstun prison, who supply a lot of supermarkets in the area, sainsburys, lidl and aldi are 3 i know. All those jobs bring in an income for the prison.
#36
Harder jail sentences imo, no holiday camp with gym and pool tables, im talking pure hard graft breaking rocks with hammers for 16 hours a day, and water and plain rice/pasta (cheapest possible) for food only
banned#37
kungfu
Harder jail sentences imo, no holiday camp with gym and pool tables, im talking pure hard graft breaking rocks with hammers for 16 hours a day, and water and plain rice/pasta (cheapest possible) for food only


So old women would be expected to break rocks all day? Yeah that would work.
Or in your world is only only fit young men who go to jail?
#38
colinsunderland
So old women would be expected to break rocks all day? Yeah that would work.
Or in your world is only only fit young men who go to jail?


Dont do the crime if you cant do the time mate :thumbsup:
#39
kungfu
Dont do the crime if you cant do the time mate :thumbsup:


I agree. Maybe not about the old women smashing up rocks, but I think people in prison should be made to work for the majority of the day. Maybe if prison was seen as punishment and hard work then people would be more bothered about being sent there
#40
Charlie&Lola
I agree. Maybe not about the old women smashing up rocks, but I think people in prison should be made to work for the majority of the day. Maybe if prison was seen as punishment and hard work then people would be more bothered about being sent there


Cheers, jails are fuller than ever, aint that a clue that its not much of a deterrant

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!