They've got their canes out again!

[treacle_sponge]

I think you should read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... on.justice

Yes, thank you for that, it's just reiterated my point, although I'm not sure why you posted that, since it's the opposite view to the ones you've stated. Unless you've been taking the mick?

[ksl]

I think you should read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... on.justice

Yes, thank you for that, it's just reiterated my point, although I'm not sure why you posted that, since it's the opposite view to the ones you've stated. Unless you've been taking the mick?

Doesn't everyone take the mick, when it comes to human rights and barbaric whipping? I'm a Brit myself raised on the Ryeland Estate in Lancaster. Quite infamous if you do a search on Mal Hussien's ordeal.

I have mixed feelings with it all to be honest and like every other human would probably bend to peer pressure too. Though I can tell you for fact that the beating i gave the lad that robbed my mother wasn't enough, and if we cross paths again he will get the same reminder, if he's still the coppers snitch and a junkie, protected by them hence he wasn't prosecuted.

I'm all for the cane in UK, that is for sure and like many ironic Countrymen, I would keep up the good banter providing it doesn't happen to me. Human Rights have gone too far in my opinion and are probably one of the causes of anti social behaviour cases.

Such a waste of life 17 young kids this year alone 27th Oct 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/2 ... -mill-hill

[sundaymorningstaple]

It's interesting that my mother and I had a similar discussion a couple of nights ago about this very thing. She also thought the system was very barbaric until she looked at it from a different (my) POV.

From where I sit, If we had more draconian laws in the US, Maybe we wouldn't have as high crime rates, drug problems or delinquency problems. I don't know. But, I do know this.... If you do the crime after all the warnings you get in Singapore from the moment you step off the airplane (actually while you are in the air before even landing) even before you get through immigration, then the punishment is warranted as you would have had to deliberately, with pre-meditation commit the crime (regardless of the nature of the crime). By making the punishment excessive, one would have to think twice about committing the crime. Therefore, no punishment is excessive if it accomplishes what it was designed to do - prevention of crime. It's only excessive when you "break the law". Solution? Don't break the law. Simple. Personally? I would like to see the US enact the same laws as are here.

Assuming of course that a criminal weighs the pros and cons of such a crime before committing it. I, personally, find it barbaric and a total disregard of human rights. Before someone else points out that the criminal (if he was rightly convicted, of course, since there is a 30% or so wrong conviction rates in the UK alone) has total disregard for his victims, surely a custodial sentence is enough, without stripping the person's sense of dignity?

From where I sit I don't think a rightly sentenced criminal deserves the granting of "human rights". (S)He forfeited those the minute he committed a crime against another human being. Therefore they do not deserve to be treated with human dignity, but with the same dignity they accorded the victim. I'm afraid I don't agree with you even the slightest here.

[treacle_sponge]

I think you should read this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... on.justice and this link http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic ... sc-30.html There is enough source information.

But you are right it is barbaric, mostly because many of these crimes are barbaric, my own mother was mugged on her doorstep own doorstep, she was 83 years old at the time, i have a front page clipping somewhere of the incident, just one of many incident she has had to deal with in what used to be a nice area. Problem is that most people don't give a toss, because it doesn't involve them, they can afford to live in a more controlled environment.

I wonder what happened to the human rights you preach. Barbarians are treated with barbaric methods, and i have no qualms whatsoever of doing the whipping myself at the time of the incidents, though you are right, that it shouldn't have to come to that. But crime pays in many countries these days and there will laways be animals to deal with.

The police need to be watched too, as they do frame anyone that fits the picture in UK, until the opposite is proved, if you have no witnesses to prove your innocence, then you are a target victim, for an early end to a crime, it doesn't matter to them if they can get away with it, some even get promoted for results and move up the chain of command.

Oh, you've edited your post after I've answered. No fair
Sorry to hear about your mam though, I hope she's alright now. Crime and punishment is an emotive subject, especially if you've been at the wrong end of it. We were robbed a couple of times, and I would have gladly skinned the culprit for the effect it had on our lad who was four at the time 'Mom, is the man coming back to take my toys' However, this is why we have laws, and the judicial system, because if it was left up to us, the punishment meted out would serve our sense of outrage, rather than to suit the crime. Vigilante mobs killing a robber for example, since when was the punishment for robbery, death?

I share your views about coppers though. It's got to the stage now where you can't even protest at being stopped, or refuse to divulge your identity. You'd be hauled off to the station, under some rubbish Act or another. Gone were the days when you could show them the prongs when you feel like it. Not that I ever did, of course...

[treacle_sponge]

Doesn't everyone take the mick, when it comes to human rights and barbaric whipping? I'm a Brit myself raised on the Ryeland Estate in Lancaster. Quite infamous if you do a search on Mal Hussien's ordeal.

I have mixed feelings with it all to be honest and like every other human would probably bend to peer pressure too. Though I can tell you for fact that the beating i gave the lad that robbed my mother wasn't enough, and if we cross paths again he will get the same reminder, if he's still the coppers snitch and a junkie, protected by them hence he wasn't prosecuted.

I'm all for the cane in UK, that is for sure and like many ironic Countrymen, I would keep up the good banter providing it doesn't happen to me. Human Rights have gone too far in my opinion and are probably one of the causes of anti social behaviour cases.

Such a waste of life 17 young kids this year alone 27th Oct 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/2 ... -mill-hill

Tend to wait a couple of months after their release before taking the mick, else they get a bit funny with you
My husband also came from a council estate (he's my bit of rough ), and the law of the land's a bit different there. You think with your fist, and you answer questions later. It's still the same in some places though, but I don't think caning's the answer.
I agree that sometimes the sentences are a joke, but I don't think making things tougher is going to prevent people from committing crimes. For one, the police don't help by criminalising everything, so what they would've ignored years ago, they would arrest you for it now, so some young people get a criminal record for the littlest thing. Most of all, it's the home life, where they don't get taught or shown any respect for other people and other people's property that's the problem.

[treacle_sponge]

From where I sit I don't think a rightly sentenced criminal deserves the granting of "human rights". (S)He forfeited those the minute he committed a crime against another human being. Therefore they do not deserve to be treated with human dignity, but with the same dignity they accorded the victim. I'm afraid I don't agree with you even the slightest here.

So it's an eye for an eye? Isn't the revoking of a person's freedom (and making them live in a 6 x 6 cell or whatever size) enough punishment without an assault on their person? There is a big difference between wanting justice and wanting revenge.

[x9200]

There is a big difference between wanting justice and wanting revenge.

Justice is not about legal procedures. It is about fairness. It does not need to be an eye for an eye but it should be fair. Jail sentence often does not fulfill this fairness criteria not only from the victims POV. In many many cases the victims suffer unfair from the hands of the offender and you know what is actually the true justice, true fairness? - when the offender also suffers unfair for what s/he committed. Only this would be often perceived as good enough, so perhaps just treating them fair is more than most of them deserves. Revenge is about anger. There is no anger in seeking some justice.
I think you are also a bit inconsequent - why jail sentence? It's also humiliating and undignifying, isn't it?

[treacle_sponge]

There is a big difference between wanting justice and wanting revenge.

Justice is not about legal procedures. It is about fairness. It does not need to be an eye for an eye but it should be fair. Jail sentence often does not fulfill this fairness criteria not only from the victims POV. In many many cases the victims suffer unfair from the hands of the offender and you know what is actually the true justice, true fairness? - when the offender also suffers unfair for what s/he committed. Only this would be often perceived as good enough, so perhaps just treating them fair is more than most of them deserves. Revenge is about anger. There is no anger in seeking some justice.
I think you are also a bit inconsequent - why jail sentence? It's also humiliating and undignifying, isn't it?

This is why we have judicial law. The legal procedures themselves do not equate justice I agree, but the laws, especially caselaws, are guidelines for sentencing. Fairness is a subjective term, isn't it? What is fairness, and what standards should we use to constitute what we would be satisfied with? What if the offender was a victim, and saw his actions as justifiable in the light of what he had suffered, where would it end?
In a civilised society, compensation for the victim is in monetary terms, which is where civil laws come into play. We can't revert back to the times where we cut off the foot or limbs of an offender (or his relative) as compensation.
I'm not being inconsequent by the way. I agree that a jail sentence is humiliating and undignified, and is enough by way of punishment without being whipped, which is the original argument. Caning is not a deterrent to crime.

[Strong Eagle]

Caning is not a deterrent to crime.

Sez who?

[treacle_sponge]

Caning is not a deterrent to crime.

Sez who?

Um, me? And every other country who has abolished corporal punishment as a crime deterrent because it doesn't work?

[x9200]

This is why we have judicial law. The legal procedures themselves do not equate justice I agree, but the laws, especially caselaws, are guidelines for sentencing. Fairness is a subjective term, isn't it? What is fairness, and what standards should we use to constitute what we would be satisfied with? What if the offender was a victim, and saw his actions as justifiable in the light of what he had suffered, where would it end?

Legal procedures are based on their common acceptance over the society and by this are also subjective. This is all about drawing a line. Yours is perhaps in a different place than mine but both are subjective.

In a civilised society, compensation for the victim is in monetary terms, which is where civil laws come into play. We can't revert back to the times where we cut off the foot or limbs of an offender (or his relative) as compensation.

Civilized society is just an empty phrase with the logic based on the said above principles of social acceptance. Here and now. Was different and will be different. It is simply relative as any subjective set of principles. Civil law is not even good enough to provide sustainability for the victim in case such is needed and the offender can not pay all the natural expenses arose from his/her actions. This would be a very frequent case and than what?

I'm not being inconsequent by the way. I agree that a jail sentence is humiliating and undignified, and is enough by way of punishment without being whipped, which is the original argument. Caning is not a deterrent to crime.

For any type of the punishment a combination of two factors is always necessary: the punishment has to be (1) inevitable and (2) adequately severe. This by the way is another argument against purely civil approach. Once the offender is bankrupt there would be completely no means to stop him for committing another crime.
For the caning thing, do you have any data supporting your claim?

[Wind In My Hair]

I don't think making things tougher is going to prevent people from committing crimes.

First of all, I like your sweet-sounding nick! Now down to business Let's take the toughest punishment available - the death penalty. Ignore all the arguments for and against and check out the pure statistics shown in graph 2. The murder rate mirrors the number of executions per year over a 50-year stretch. Feel like changing your mind?

And every other country who has abolished corporal punishment as a crime deterrent because it doesn't work?

Or because they bowed to political pressure from human rights activists? It is one thing to think corporal punishment is morally wrong, quite another to claim it doesn't work.

[treacle_sponge]

Legal procedures are based on their common acceptance over the society and by this are also subjective. This is all about drawing a line. Yours is perhaps in a different place than mine but both are subjective.


Of course they are, I'm not saying otherwise, but laws aren't. If something is a law, if you break it, it doesn't matter how much you sugarcoat it, you've still broken it. Legal procedures, on the other hand, are the details in between when the case goes to trial. It depends on so many other variables that are subjective. However, there are still strict guidelines that determine the outcome. What we were talking about is fairness within the justice system, and yes your line is in a different place to mine.

Civilized society is just an empty phrase with the logic based on the said above principles of social acceptance. Here and now. Was different and will be different. It is simply relative as any subjective set of principles. Civil law is not even good enough to provide sustainability for the victim in case such is needed and the offender can not pay all the natural expenses arose from his/her actions. This would be a very frequent case and than what?

Uh, aren't most phrases empty anyway? Abstract concepts are often built upon a set of principles that are agreed upon, but it doesn't undermine the validity of such concepts, surely? You might disagree on whether or not civil lawsuits bring enough compensation to satisfy the victims of crime, and I'm likely to agree with you, but since it is sometimes impossible to rectify the situation by any other means, monetary compensations are often the nearest possible solutions.

For any type of the punishment a combination of two factors is always necessary: the punishment has to be (1) inevitable and (2) adequately severe. This by the way is another argument against purely civil approach. Once the offender is bankrupt there would be completely no means to stop him for committing another crime.
For the caning thing, do you have any data supporting your claim

Adequately severe? Again, that is purely subjective. How severe are we talking? I don't understand what you mean when you say that once the offender is bankrupt there would be completely no means to stop him from committing another crime? The monetary compensations are not a deterrent, they are meant for the victim, not to stop someone from reoffending. As for the caning thing, just look at the crime statistics in Singapore. Is the country crime-free?

[EADG]

Barbaric.

[Wind In My Hair]

As for the caning thing, just look at the crime statistics in Singapore. Is the country crime-free?

No country is completely crime free, but Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. It didn't even make it onto this list of total crimes per capita by country. Incidentally, the UK and US (which I'm assuming you include among the countries that abolished corporal punishment because "it doesn't work") are among the top 10.