MrSmith Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 But you're assuming that crimes are based on relationships..which I very much doubt. The indicators are that conjugal rights are a positive in the same way education is a positive..Why do you feel one is less important than the other? Some criminals had a good education; more education is unlikely to rehabilitate them. Some criminals had a poor education, educating them may help to rehabilitate them. Some criminals had a loving relationship which didn’t stop them committing crime, so keeping it is unlikely to rehabilitate them. Some criminals had no relationship and nothing to lose, so helping them to form a relationship and giving them something to lose would maybe stop them reoffending, but that would involve rewarding them for their crime and would be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I just don't arrive at the same automatic conclusions that you do. And that's one of my most charming characteristics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's not what I think, it's the evidence available. Totally irrelevant as an argument as I could counter it with equally positive experiences I've personally witnessed. One lad who works for me as an example. What was his situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Some criminals had a good education; more education is unlikely to rehabilitate them. Some criminals had a poor education, educating them may help to rehabilitate them. Some criminals had a loving relationship which didn’t stop them committing crime, so keeping it is unlikely to rehabilitate them. Some criminals had no relationship and nothing to lose, so helping them to form a relationship and giving them something to lose would maybe stop them reoffending, but that would involve rewarding them for their crime and would be wrong. It's all very clear now, society as a whole could benefit but seems as an individual the benefits to society are far outweighed by your need to punish. It isn't about Mr Smith, it's about us all as a collective. It isn't a reward, otherwise everyone would be committing crimes to get a bit. They are locked behind bars..that's the punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's all very clear now, society as a whole could benefit but seems as an individual the benefits to society are far outweighed by your need to punish. It isn't about Mr Smith, it's about us all as a collective. It isn't a reward, otherwise everyone would be committing crimes to get a bit. They are locked behind bars..that's the punishment. What are you talking about; our society sends criminals to prison as a punishment. What would you do give them all a million quid and tell them not to be naughty again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Where will this all end? If denying conjugal visits to criminals is against their human rights, then isn't keeping criminals locked up also against human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 And that's one of my most charming characteristics It is an endearing quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Well if you could draw yourself out from the 1920's for a second, it's possible that the mother is quite able to bring the child up alone. With a massive contribution from the tax-payer. Yeh, lets pay for the criminals stay in the nick,and throw in extra to look after their sprog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 With a massive contribution from the tax-payer. Yeh, lets pay for the criminals stay in the nick,and throw in extra to look after their sprog. Yet another one that assumes the girlfiend or wife on the outside can only be a chav on the make, a benefit scrounger never once considering that they may have an income of their own and are oblivious to what their partner has been getting up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yet another one that assumes the girlfiend or wife on the outside can only be a chav on the make, a benefit scrounger never once considering that they may have an income of their own and are oblivious to what their partner has been getting up to. I'll accept that point, but please see post #46. If denying them conjugal visits is against the criminals human right, then why bother locking them up in the first place? Isn't that also against the criminals human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.