SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:

GWW wrote:I would like to see common usage of GPS technology for convicted/strongly suspected arsonists, as well as paedophiles.

as an alternative to jail? i.e instead of getting 10 years you might get 5 years then 15 years of wearing the bracelet? wouldnt mind it, if it is shown to work, not sure if it is or not tbh.

GWW wrote:Laws should also be changed so that theres a presumption against bail for certain offences, and there should be restrictions on, and better guidelines for issuing suspended sentences.

for most serious crimes or for repeat offenders it would be pretty hard to get bail as it is i would think, some people might know more about that than me though. i dont have an issue with suspended sentences, provided it is for low level first time offending, but it does seem that some people can still get a suspended sentence even though it is their 95234523rd drink driving charge, which is wrong

Sorry, no, I just meant, a focus on preventative options, so as to try to avoid serious crimes, thereby not having to jail people for 30 years.

You couldn't strap a bracelet on them without a prior conviction, so it could drop reoffending but isn't going to stop the first one is it?

Gozu wrote:Absolutely not, it's barbaric and isn't a deterrent.

Can you please further add to these comments and explain how it isn't a deterrent?

scoob wrote:

Gozu wrote:Absolutely not, it's barbaric and isn't a deterrent.

Can you please further add to these comments and explain how it isn't a deterrent?

i'm 100% sure they will not re-offend

The argument is that its not a deterrent to others; statistically though the re-offending rate of the actual person who receives the death penalty, is 0%.

It is a strange statement... is jail not an deterrent? Yet a penalty that is harsher than jail - the harshest penalty is not a deterrent.

As I asked Gozu - I am interested in how he explains it.

Regarding cost to taxpayer, it's been demonstrated that the overall cost of being on death row exceeds the cost of that that same person being sentenced to life without parole. The substantial cost increase cannot even be justified as the deterrence aspect is completely speculative.

Here is a brilliant paper examining the situation in Colorado:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

Footy Chick wrote:Prisons should be returned to places of punishment and hard laboor, not lavish cells with computer games and tellies in their rooms. Prisoners have too many rights.

Going to prison is the punishment. You don't go to prison to receive more punishment. Although I would consider the daily threat of violence or worse a kind of punishment.

I wouldn't consider prison to be lavish. So they have TV's, they have books, but they don't have much else. They can't go and watch cricket live, they can't go and play football, the can't go walk their dog, play with their kids, go to a pub and have a bet, have a few drinks, pick upchicks etc etc.

They have no life. If one's life closely resembles that of a prisoner, it's not the prison system that needs re-evaluating.

The bigger point is that the majority of prisoners eventually leave prison. If you make prison barbaric, you dehumanise the prisoner and risk turning non-violent criminals into violent citizens when they re-enter society.

Q. wrote:Regarding cost to taxpayer, it's been demonstrated that the overall cost of being on death row exceeds the cost of that that same person being sentenced to life without parole. The substantial cost increase cannot even be justified as the deterrence aspect is completely speculative.

Here is a brilliant paper examining the situation in Colorado:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

Is that only in the USA?

What is the difference say in Indonesia or Thailand?

Q - I definitely see your point and I agree that those in minimum security and lesser crimes should be in rehab/training programs in readiness for their eventual release.

I'm talking your Martin Bryants, Snowtown killers and Mr Von Einemn...basically anyone with "Never to be released" plastered on their records. If we're going to pay to keep this scum alive - they should be working for the priviledge at no cost to pay back their debt to society if society deems we have to keep them alive.

scoob wrote:

Gozu wrote:Absolutely not, it's barbaric and isn't a deterrent.

Can you please further add to these comments and explain how it isn't a deterrent?

USA.

Gozu wrote:

scoob wrote:

Gozu wrote:Absolutely not, it's barbaric and isn't a deterrent.

Can you please further add to these comments and explain how it isn't a deterrent?

USA.

o.....k.....

If you can't explain it don't worry about it.

Q. wrote:
The bigger point is that the majority of prisoners eventually leave prison. If you make prison barbaric, you dehumanise the prisoner and risk turning non-violent criminals into violent citizens when they re-enter society.

Just an interesting point re: this too

If you go right back to Australia's early years - our convict years - thousands of criminals were forced to do hard time and labor with no pay - and if you read documents from Pt Arthur, many of these convicts were pardoned and freed and most went onto live normal and sometimes very successful lives. (ok, so they didn't have telly then but..LOL)

Anyhoo, how much money would our Government save if we had convicts building the other half of the expressway. I'd rather see a convict do an honest days work than see a bloody governement worker lean on his shovel all day and get paid shitloads to do it. That and I bet a convict would feel a lot more satisfaction from that than sitting in a 4m x 2m cell for 18 hours a day

scoob wrote:

Gozu wrote:

scoob wrote:

Gozu wrote:Absolutely not, it's barbaric and isn't a deterrent.

Can you please further add to these comments and explain how it isn't a deterrent?

USA.

o.....k.....

If you can't explain it don't worry about it.

Can't explain what? You should be old enough to know the US has the death penalty how well does that work in stopping murders & other violent crime?

Footy Chick wrote:Q - I definitely see your point and I agree that those in minimum security and lesser crimes should be in rehab/training programs in readiness for their eventual release.

I'm talking your Martin Bryants, Snowtown killers and Mr Von Einemn...basically anyone with "Never to be released" plastered on their records. If we're going to pay to keep this scum alive - they should be working for the priviledge at no cost to pay back their debt to society if society deems we have to keep them alive.

Thats exactly my point! Well said!

Gozu wrote:

scoob wrote:

Gozu wrote:

scoob wrote:
Can you please further add to these comments and explain how it isn't a deterrent?

USA.

o.....k.....

If you can't explain it don't worry about it.

Can't explain what? You should be old enough to know the US has the death penalty how well does that work in stopping murders & other violent crime?

So what you are saying is that there would be less murders and violent crime if they abolished the death penalty?

If jail is used as a deterrent then I can't see how you can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

They also have extremely easy access to weapons.

scoob wrote:

Q. wrote:Regarding cost to taxpayer, it's been demonstrated that the overall cost of being on death row exceeds the cost of that that same person being sentenced to life without parole. The substantial cost increase cannot even be justified as the deterrence aspect is completely speculative.

Here is a brilliant paper examining the situation in Colorado:

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

Is that only in the USA?

What is the difference say in Indonesia or Thailand?

Capital cases in Western countries involve a long and complex judicial process in an attempt to minimise the chance of murdering someone who is innocent.

Not sure what the difference in cost is for developing nations, but I get the feeling the appeals process is a pretty short one.

scoob wrote:So what you are saying is that there would be less murders and violent crime if they abolished the death penalty?

If jail is used as a deterrent then I can't see how you can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

If incarceration is a deterrent then why do people still commit crimes?

Because their gang leaders tell them too - even while they're still inside. In America anyway...