On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:35:11 +0000, Tony Polson wrote:

Yes, there is a strange logic in putting people with no self
discipline into a career where they will never be able to learn it.
This is of course the most likely reason why ex-service personnel are
so strongly over-represented in the prison population, and in almost
every other accepted measure of social dysfunction.

The odd thing is that although your post seems to have been written with
a sardonic tone, it describes all of the ex-service personnel with whom
I am most closely acquainted. One in particular is lost without someone
telling him what to do. *He* might not register among the socially
dysfunctional, but he drove his wife to an alcoholism-related death and
his adolescent daughters certainly do. To be honest, I really wish I
wasn't in a position to share that anecdote.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/c402455.html
(Thumbnail index to British Metro, Light and Miniature Rail and Trams)

In article
"James Christie" writes:

In message , Charles Ellson
may have written...
In article net.com
"Roger T." writes:

snip
Funny, when we used to beat the crap outta kids who did this sort of thing,
kids didn't do this sort of thing.

Oh yes they did, as you'll find by studying old newspaper reports. The
difference nowadays is that the population is higher so that factor
by itself tends to increase the amount of offenders even if the rate
stays stationary. Claims by parts of the press that "this sort of thing
never used to happen in the past [when our lot was in power]" are
nearly always contradicted by the the same newspaper's archives.

That's a rather sweeping and misleading generalisation. The population
of my area has actually gone down over the past few decades, and is
still going down, yet there is a massive rate of vandalism. How can you
explain that?

Too small a sample to base a reliable stistic upon ? Had the neds moved
out instead then you might be living in a comparative oasis of
peace and tranquility. There always have, and maybe always will be
areas where crime is concentrated or absent but most forms of anti-social
behaviour which "never used to happen" turn out to be age-old problems
when older information sources are examined. The trick used by the
sections of the media who wish to colour things their way is to quote
raw figures of X% increase in the number of commissions of an offence
rather than the more representative figure of commissions per 1000
of population. Typically, the headlines might scream "5 times as many
insert offence are committed compared to 50 years ago" while totally
forgetting that the town is now ten times the size it was then.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Mrs Redboots wrote:

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 28 Feb 2005:

"Aaron Borbora" typed

Sorry for the long and rambling post, it's the product of a brain
overworked by adrenergic transmission, embryology, molecular DNA all
in 1 day!

A DAY! LOOOXURY! In my day, we touched on those subjects in a MORNING!

A MORNING? You don't know you're born... in MY day, we had to get it
done before breakfast, AND go for a six-mile run....

Before BREAKFAST? Kids today! When i was a lad, we had to get it done
YESTERDAY!

tom

--
When I see a man on a bicycle I have hope for the human race. -- H. G. Wells

In article , Pyromancer
writes
People who say we shouldn't in any way punish wrongdoers are, IMHO, a
major part of the problem. Convicted criminal should have all their
human rights suspended for the duration of their sentences. Rights come
with responsibilities, and those who abdicate their responsibilities
should also lose their rights.

That's nonsense. By that logic, an old lady convicted of taking a tin of
beans without paying should be tortured in prison.

The concept of human rights does *not* preclude punishment. However:
- Some rights (right to life, right not to be tortured) are absolute,
and should apply to everyone regardless of status.
- The fact that someone is being punished does not mean that your other
actions should not be proportionate. Someone in prison is being
confined as a punishment and/or for the public safety, not to act as
a punchbag (physically or mentally) for psychopaths (whether in
uniform or not).

I am *not* saying that we should not punish wrongdoers. But we should
apply the appropriate punishment, and only the appropriate punishment,
in a consistent manner.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Clive D. W.
Feather breathed:
In article , Pyromancer
writes

People who say we shouldn't in any way punish wrongdoers are, IMHO, a
major part of the problem. Convicted criminal should have all their
human rights suspended for the duration of their sentences. Rights come
with responsibilities, and those who abdicate their responsibilities
should also lose their rights.

That's nonsense. By that logic, an old lady convicted of taking a tin
of beans without paying should be tortured in prison.

Now you are talking nonsense. Old women nicking tins of beans are
unlikely to end up in prison anyway, and even if they somehow did,
torture would be out as it wouldn't be proportional to the crime
committed. Fairness, justice and proportionality do not depend on
anyone having or not having rights. Animals do not have rights, yet we
still impose rules of fair treatment on those who handle animals.

The concept of human rights does *not* preclude punishment. However:
- Some rights (right to life, right not to be tortured) are absolute,
and should apply to everyone regardless of status.

Sorry, but I disagree. Those who rape and murder multiple victims
deserve neither life nor rights. Those who hurl lumps of concrete at
trains and busses to the severe risk of injury transport staff and
members of the public deserve at the very least a public flogging and
confiscation of a large proportion of their personal wealth.

True justice requires an element of vengeance - so the victims (or their
relatives) can feel that the state has used its strength to inflict real
and serious suffering on the evildoers who harmed them.

- The fact that someone is being punished does not mean that your other
actions should not be proportionate. Someone in prison is being
confined as a punishment and/or for the public safety, not to act as
a punchbag (physically or mentally) for psychopaths (whether in
uniform or not).

Agreed - thuggish prison guards are the bane of any fair justice system
(see numerous worked examples across the world) - but so are cushy
prisons where the inmates get better medical care and better food than
poor but honest people living outside.

I am *not* saying that we should not punish wrongdoers. But we should
apply the appropriate punishment, and only the appropriate punishment,
in a consistent manner.

I'd agree with you completely there. Though I suspect we have very
wildly differing views on what counts as "appropriate".

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.

"Pyromancer" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but I disagree. Those who rape and murder multiple victims
deserve neither life nor rights. Those who hurl lumps of concrete at
trains and busses to the severe risk of injury transport staff and
members of the public deserve at the very least a public flogging and
confiscation of a large proportion of their personal wealth.

Humans are fallable and imperfect, as is the justice system. Your extreme
penalties would inevitably fall on those who were ultimately innocent - and
you could be one of them, remember. What makes us different from rapists
and murderers is that we have a uncomprimsiming respect for human life and
the quality of it, including theirs. Of course they should lose their
liberty, but not their life, nor their basic rights.

True justice requires an element of vengeance - so the victims (or their
relatives) can feel that the state has used its strength to inflict real
and serious suffering on the evildoers who harmed them.

Vengeance is an ugly, medieval concept. Where is your human compassion?
Where is your forgiveness? Where is the scope for rehabilitation?

- The fact that someone is being punished does not mean that your other
actions should not be proportionate. Someone in prison is being
confined as a punishment and/or for the public safety, not to act as
a punchbag (physically or mentally) for psychopaths (whether in
uniform or not).

Agreed - thuggish prison guards are the bane of any fair justice system
(see numerous worked examples across the world) - but so are cushy
prisons where the inmates get better medical care and better food than
poor but honest people living outside.

You should find out more about the justice and penal system in this country
rather than reading The Sun/Mail or wherever else you get this. I suspect
your views would be somewhat different if you did.

I am *not* saying that we should not punish wrongdoers. But we should
apply the appropriate punishment, and only the appropriate punishment,
in a consistent manner.

I'd agree with you completely there. Though I suspect we have very
wildly differing views on what counts as "appropriate".

You believe in almost limitless pain, suffering and torture for those who
are found guilty of breaking your rules. That sends a chill down my spine.
A human being with no humanity.

Rich

Kat wrote:
Nick Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:44:10 -0800, "Roger T."
wrote:



They are a product and reflection of our society and of their
parents.
They're not going to to be the offspring of wealthy, attentive
parents, I
wager, but the offspring of the those parents who couldn't give a
damn
(and have probably never talked to them nicely in their life).
We need
more information before we can draw any conclusions about how to
deal with
it... but actually catching the culprits would be a good start!

It's societies fault. It's their parent's fault. It's the
environment's
fault. It's the school system's fault. It's everybody's and
everything's
bloody fault but it's not their fault.

With attitudes like that, no wonder many kids are like they are.

Funny, when we used to beat the crap outta kids who did this sort
of thing,
kids didn't do this sort of thing.

I've a feeling that there's a correlation in there somewhere.

You should try reading some contemporary reports from the 1940s,
both
during and after WW2. Vandalism and hooliganism did miraculously
appear some time in the 1980s.

I expect there's a NOT missing from your last paragraph.

Yes. Obviously my recent bout of 'flu is still affecting my typing
(!).

I'm old enough to remember Teddy-Boys ripping up seats in the local
cinema.... and later, of course the sea-side battles between Mods and
Rockers.

Careful, Kat, you'll actually be disclosing your age next! Seriously,
though, I think what we can say is that kids generally are as good/bad
as they've always been, except perhaps that the minority who are the
latter are maybe worse by a few notches.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Rich
Mallard breathed:
"Pyromancer" wrote in message
.. .

Sorry, but I disagree. Those who rape and murder multiple victims
deserve neither life nor rights. Those who hurl lumps of concrete at
trains and busses to the severe risk of injury transport staff and
members of the public deserve at the very least a public flogging and
confiscation of a large proportion of their personal wealth.

Humans are fallable and imperfect, as is the justice system. Your extreme
penalties would inevitably fall on those who were ultimately innocent - and
you could be one of them, remember.

I could also be a victim of a thug who was allowed to go free, in fact
on several occasions I have been a victim of railway vandals, once when
a lad of 10 or so hurled a half-brick at the 303 I was sitting in from
about 3' away as we departed Bogston, and twice between Leeds and
Sheffield when the trains I was on hit obstructions on the line.

I had eye contact with the brick-thrower for several seconds after the
bang. He was scowling, annoyed that he'd missed his target. His aim
was bad and the brick had hit the window pillar by my head, instead of
the window by my face. Had it struck three inches ahead, or had the 303
accelerated fractionally slower, it would have come through the window
and hit me in the face. I don't know what a half-brick driving shards
of glass would do in those circumstances, but I doubt it'd be pretty.

What makes us different from rapists
and murderers is that we have a uncomprimsiming respect for human life and
the quality of it, including theirs. Of course they should lose their
liberty, but not their life, nor their basic rights.

Why not? Why "of course"? Honestly, I've never been able to understand
why we are so fussy about the "rights" of those who have committed
terrible crimes and inflicted horror and misery on innocent people -
shouldn't the care be with the victims?

True justice requires an element of vengeance - so the victims (or their
relatives) can feel that the state has used its strength to inflict real
and serious suffering on the evildoers who harmed them.

Vengeance is an ugly, medieval concept.

Indeed. Shattered families and slaughtered victims are also ugly
concepts, sadly not confined to the medieval age.

Where is your human compassion?

With the victims.

Where is your forgiveness?

With those who genuinely show remorse and atone for (or at the very
least, never repeat) their crimes.

Where is the scope for rehabilitation?

That depends on the crime and the criminal. Someone who rapes once may,
perhaps, be rehabilitated. Twice, and I'd have grave doubts. Three
times or more? Anything short of execution is leniency gone mad, and a
sure sentence of torture, misery and suffering to whatever victim he (or
she, though that is rare) next selects.

Agreed - thuggish prison guards are the bane of any fair justice system
(see numerous worked examples across the world) - but so are cushy
prisons where the inmates get better medical care and better food than
poor but honest people living outside.

You should find out more about the justice and penal system in this country
rather than reading The Sun/Mail or wherever else you get this. I suspect
your views would be somewhat different if you did.

I don't read newspapers, but I do know that we now have the concept that
if someone is "in the state's hands", the state has a duty to maintain
what's regarded as a good life regime for that person. I feel this
tilts things too far in favour of the criminal.

You believe in almost limitless pain, suffering and torture for those who
are found guilty of breaking your rules.

Utter nonsense. I believe in penalties that inflict a proportionate
degree of suffering on the perpetrators of crime, forcing them to pay
for their actions, nothing more. Note "proportionate". No-one's
suggesting flogging old ladies for stealing tins of beans, or executing
brick-throwing yobs. And as was already said, these things need to be
done consistently and fairly.

The rules aren't mine, they are society's in general, and we all should
abide by them. It's not that difficult, most of the time, to tell right
from wrong, or work out whether a given course of action is dangerous
(to self or to others) or not. It's certainly obvious to anyone that
putting bricks through the windows of passenger trains isn't going to
improve things for those inside.

That sends a chill down my spine.
A human being with no humanity.

You exaggerate just a little!

I watched "The Green Mile" the other night. Ok, it's fiction, but it
shows both the horror of the electric chair, and the humanity of (most
of) the guards in the prison. And yes, it's also an object lesson in
how fallible justice systems and blind prejudice could send an innocent
man to his death. I cried at the ending.

I would not ever want to see a system like that implemented. And (as I
already knew, but the film re-enforced) the electric chair is an utter
abomination who's continued existence is a blight on all civilised
people. But I still believe that serial rapists and serial murders
should be executed, humanely. And that people who throw bricks at
trains should suffer a short, but painful and frightening penalty.

Of course, until detection is improved such that the perpetrators are
more likely to be caught than to get away, any penalty is irrelevant. On
that I suspect we both agree.

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.

In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
I am *not* saying that we should not punish wrongdoers. But we should
apply the appropriate punishment, and only the appropriate punishment,
in a consistent manner.
Tell that to the Magistrate in Devon who sentenced an 80 year old woman
to a fortnight in jail for failure to pay her T.V. licence, then I might
accept your "appropriate punishment".
--
Clive.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:17:27 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:



Don't tarnish all youths with the same brush. How often do you read in
the paper "a group of under-18s took the bus normally with no
commotion"? Just because one bunch of idiots caused chaos doesn't mean
that all teenagers are automatically guilty. I'll think you'll find that
most teenagers today still actually know that mugging pensioners is wrong!

Mate of mine drives a school bus regularly.
His philosophy is that teenagers are naturally loud and
boisterous and sometimes a little daft but on the whole most of them
get on his bus without any malicious intent.
Has built up a such rapport with them that it is not unknown for a
couple of youngsters to ask for the broom and dust pan he carries so
that the evidence of a bunfight ( with real buns) can removed before
anything has to be said.

Admittedly the same chap is on the same run day after day so it is
probably easier to achieve such a situation than a driver of a stage
bus that happens to collect a large influx of pupils at school
chuckout time.

G.harman