Low conviction rates have nothing to do with not having a “harsh” justice system. Victims of sexual assault are put off reporting offences through fear they won’t be believed or through fear of repercussions. Much of the time there is a lack of physical evidence which reduces it to the word of the alleged victim vs the word of the alleged accused and the willingness of the court to believe the alleged victim.

 

Yes, that was the factor I was hinting at.

The main problem is the low overall conviction rate of rapists, surely?

All I can say to that, is that no-one has ever asked *me* to take part in such a survey... :thinking:

I haven't taken part in such a survey either but that doesn't make it any less valid. The point is that people are basing their "we need tougher sentencing" views on a false premise.

I haven't taken part in such a survey either but that doesn't make it any less valid. The point is that people are basing their "we need tougher sentencing" views on a false premise.

 

Would 'false premise' mean 'Daily Mail editorial' in this context? :rolleyes:

Edited August 6, 20186 yr by vidcapper

Would 'false premise' mean 'Daily Mail editorial' in this context? :rolleyes:

 

No, just general ignorance, I would guess.

 

I was asked to take part in a phone poll of many issues last week. I asked how long it would take, they said 30 minutes, so I said nah!

 

I'm guessing polls get skewed by fragile lonely old people desperate to talk to someone on the phone and everyone else being too busy.......

No, just general ignorance, I would guess.

 

I was asked to take part in a phone poll of many issues last week. I asked how long it would take, they said 30 minutes, so I said nah!

 

I'm guessing polls get skewed by fragile lonely old people desperate to talk to someone on the phone and everyone else being too busy.......

 

What % of people even have/use landlines nowadays, anyway?

Edited August 7, 20186 yr by vidcapper

Would 'false premise' mean 'Daily Mail editorial' in this context? :rolleyes:

No, I mean "false" as in not true. We can do without any Trumpian rewriting of the dictionary here.

No, I mean "false" as in not true. We can do without any Trumpian rewriting of the dictionary here.

 

What I really don't understand is why almost everyone here is so resistant to punishing criminals more harshly - at least those who refuse to be rehabilitated? :huh:

Because the law favours the rich x

Because the law favours the rich x

 

non sequitur - the rich have more to lose than the poor, so they should be keener on harsher punishments...

non sequitur - the rich have more to lose than the poor, so they should be keener on harsher punishments...

 

Nope, not a non sequitur, it is the BASIS OF HOW THE LAW WORKS!!

 

 

But as long as vidcapper gets to use some fancy words eh!

 

What I really don't understand is why almost everyone here is so resistant to punishing criminals more harshly - at least those who refuse to be rehabilitated? :huh:

 

Nope, not a non sequitur, it is the BASIS OF HOW THE LAW WORKS!!

But as long as vidcapper gets to use some fancy words eh!

 

We seem to have drifted away from my original point, above.

 

What on earth does person's money have to do with their attitudes on the punishment of criminals?

We seem to have drifted away from my original point, above.

 

What on earth does person's money have to do with their attitudes on the punishment of criminals?

 

Because rich folk who embezzle millions and millions get away with repaying it, or a minor sentence, and someone who's got no money & homeless and steals some food goes to prison. Sentences should be based on amounts stolen. 1 month in prison per thousand pounds with a maximum sentence of 10 or 20 years, dont really care which as long as no time off for good behaviour. That should sort rich crooks or big crooks out and clear out half of Parliament.....

Because rich folk who embezzle millions and millions get away with repaying it, or a minor sentence, and someone who's got no money & homeless and steals some food goes to prison. Sentences should be based on amounts stolen. 1 month in prison per thousand pounds with a maximum sentence of 10 or 20 years, dont really care which as long as no time off for good behaviour. That should sort rich crooks or big crooks out and clear out half of Parliament.....

 

This.

 

Plus bail. Plus being able to buy the best lawyers.

Because rich folk who embezzle millions and millions get away with repaying it, or a minor sentence, and someone who's got no money & homeless and steals some food goes to prison. Sentences should be based on amounts stolen. 1 month in prison per thousand pounds with a maximum sentence of 10 or 20 years, dont really care which as long as no time off for good behaviour. That should sort rich crooks or big crooks out and clear out half of Parliament.....

 

It's not just about amount of money, though - what about the psychological effect on the victims? What about addicts who steal to feed their habit, rather than to avoid starving?

It's not just about amount of money, though - what about the psychological effect on the victims? What about addicts who steal to feed their habit, rather than to avoid starving?

 

Addiction should not be a crime. What they need is rehabilitation, not punishment to perpetuate the circle!

Rumours flying of an early election

 

Mad May has learnt precisely NOWT :rofl:

 

She is hoping this anti-semitism smear campaign will be enough, but nope. If the fake polls had Tories winning 90% of the seats last time, and the North East loooooool, then imagine how much more of a gain and bump Labour will have during THIS campaign!

Addiction should not be a crime. What they need is rehabilitation, not punishment to perpetuate the circle!

 

Oh, I agree - but what if they either refuse rehab, or it fails, and they turn back to crime?

 

We can't just let them continue their crime spree, just because we may feel sympathy for their condition...

 

 

Rumours flying of an early election

 

Mad May has learnt precisely NOWT :rofl:

 

She is hoping this anti-semitism smear campaign will be enough, but nope. If the fake polls had Tories winning 90% of the seats last time, and the North East loooooool, then imagine how much more of a gain and bump Labour will have during THIS campaign!

 

It's inconceivable that the Tories would run such a bad campaign again, and they certainly wouldn't be complacent this time.

 

Personally, I cannot see one happening before 29/3/19, when Brexit becomes legally irreversible - and probably not for a while after that.

It's not just about amount of money, though - what about the psychological effect on the victims? What about addicts who steal to feed their habit, rather than to avoid starving?

 

shops dont have psychological effects to deal with. Insurance deals with it. Circumstances can be taken into account - use of violence is a crime in itself. The banking crisis crooks produced worldwide life-changing effects in millions. They got away with it.

It's inconceivable that the Tories would run such a bad campaign again, and they certainly wouldn't be complacent this time.

 

Personally, I cannot see one happening before 29/3/19, when Brexit becomes legally irreversible - and probably not for a while after that.

It would not be “legally irreversible”. We would be legally entirely to apply to rejoin the EU again on 30/3/19