Here's my re-appraisal of my previous post, and the comments that followed.
JamesRichards said:
Crims cost money, I think that cost should be the bare minimum.
A fact, every breath they take in incarceration costs money in institutional costs. I stand by my opinion that it should be kept to a minimum.
JamesRichards said:
Death penalty may be more expensive now, I'd make it a hell of a lot cheaper.
It is, primarily the cost of incarceration on Death Row as highlighted above, and the associated appeals. Appeals are necessary only if the evidence, old or new warrants re-appraisal. I certainly think that the period of appeal on Death Row should be reduced, you may feel free to disagree. I also feel that once a death sentence is passed the state prosecution should keep the case open to pursue and evaluate such alternative evidence promptly (less time meaning less cost, as above), rather than leaving it to the victims defence to do so. If the state is to take life then it has a duty to view all evidence.
JamesRichards said:
I don't even believe in the cost of bullets being spent on them.
Which I then went on to contradict...
JamesRichards said:
"The cons are rioting? A few thousand rounds of 5.56mm will put a stop to that."
:doh For executions, hanging is best, literally as cheap as old rope. Riots in a prison are already dealt with well, however a riot in a budget prison, would pose a risk of escape due to the limited structural security. Firing on the rioters would be necessary as an emergency response if they were about to break through the wire.
JamesRichards said:
New prisons too expensive Gordon Brown says, F*** off Gordon, I could build a perfectly serviceable, temporary prison for a few thousand, running costs only what I feed them and a modest electricity bill.
Gordon has said it. It is indeed ludicrous, and the following low-budget, temporary alternative is a sound and workable policy, far more preferable to early release on convicts.
JamesRichards said:
Nazi style, baby. Nazi, style.
I rescind this comment, it's in bad taste and frankly, it does my argument no good anyway.
JamesRichards said:
True, convict labour is free, and I believe its use should increase. As an environmentalist I'd quite like to see them working landfill sites sorting all the waste to retrieve all the recycleables that are going to waste.
JamesRichards said:
Crime is anti-social and committed against society. Your rights are enschrined in the law of the society, turn to crime and you forfeit the rights of a free citizen because you have chosen not to live within law-abiding society and instead to attack and exploit it. Criminals are inferior citizens, if they should be acknowledged as citizens at all, you cannot consider them equals, it is insulting to those who abide by the law. For example, I'm a man, to call a convicted rapist a man is an insult to me as it places him equally with me. He is a lesser man than I am because of the crime he has willfully chosen to commit. Egotistical I know, but ask anyone if they would consider a rapist better, worse or an equal to themselves. All men may have been created as equals, but they should be judged by the actions they choose to take, and some will prove to be inferior, that's perfectly natural.
JamesRichards said:
Murderers, Rapists, Pedophiles, Violent Offenders, all off the street = Priceless.
I doubt even the Very Liberal would contest this, but just in case: People who commit crimes must be punished in order to maintain the rule of law. The alternative to a society governed by law is a individualistic pre-civilized society, where each person kills or is killed in a darwinian nightmare of survival of the fittest. You can kill them, work them, incarcerate them, try to reform them (usually while incarcerated) but you cannot just release them unpunished. A liberal once said;
"If prison worked, we'd only have one and it would be empty." but they were stupid. Punishment is not designed to prevent crime, it cannot do so, a well managed society that confronts social problems can limit the likelihood of crime but not prevent it. Punishment is necessary to punish those who transgress, it thus exists as a permanently reactive policy to control behaviour the broader society deems to be
'unnacceptable'.
JamesRichards said:
As a socialist I'm really hard on crime, it is after all committed against society, specifically law-abiding, tax-paying society. If you are not tough on crime I'd argue you can have little claim to being a socialist.
Yes, this is a point I'm happy with and stand by. Socialism is perceived to be left wing politics and traditionally identifies itself as such. I believe that it is a fault, a true socialist (a term I'm coining) should accept ideas from all the political theories because they are all suitable for certain issues. In my case for example, I support a right wing conservative stance on crime, a liberal stance on personal rights and freedoms of citizens (except criminals of course), an environmentalist stance on the environment (common sense really) and so on.
millsy said:
Why is it that every guy with your stance on crime does a 180 when they are falsely accused of a crime?
You specify falsely accused, I've no reason to fear false accusation due to the process of law prior to administration of punishment. When convicted of a crime I accept my punishment, that's why I pay my speed camera fines, because I'm a good citizen who accepts the rule of law.
millsy said:
So you get a fair trial because you're innocent, but the others, well they're guilty already, so they can have your "cheap" version of the justice system?
As I've stated its a cheap prison, a form of incarceration to meet the requirements of a prison population overflow. A
'justice system' has more components than just that, as it should. If
'they'have been for=und guilty then they will accept the punishment handed out by the incumbent political leadership depending upon it's stance on crime, be that common sense, or liberal foolishness.
That's a much better more clarified post. Please continue to post your own thoughts.