TargetTalk

Steady on Jose ..... You sound just like a Dalek ..... ;) ...... "EXTERMINATE , EXTERMINATE"

The UK is truly an extreme place nowadays: http://www.thelocal.se/7585/20070613/

Jose Rossy wrote:

_Axel_ wrote:Yes, a dull uninspiring enviroment, with authoriatian leaders is exactly what criminals need!

And most of all, punishment is the best deterrent!! History has showded it has worked great!!!

Typical soft, weak socialist-liberal drivel.

I agree with you on one thing: incarceration is not the best deterrent. Execution is. 0% recevidism rate.

How about this one?

Jose Rossy wrote:

Richard H wrote:]
The vast majority of criminals aren't on death row and didn't committ a violent crime, but the solution to lock'em up treat 'em like animals almost assures you that they will be better criminals and more likely to use violence to stop from going back when they do get out..

That is your opinion only.

Which part is "just my opinion"? Or do you think most criminals in prision are on death row? Or do you beleive that criminals in prision don't learn to become better criminals while in prision? Or do you think criminals don't become more hardened criminals in prision and are more likeley to resort to violence after release. So please enlighten us with your opinions on the matter.

I suggest you do a little research the FBI BSU has some very good reading on the subject. Besides more than just my opinion.

Jose Rossy wrote:The American system of justice has the MOST protection for the accused compared to any other in the world, bar none. I'd rather face the music in the US than any place else in the world.

Yea right tell that to the guys a Gitmo who can't get a trial and haven't actually been cahrged with anything. I suggest you study and learn what goes on in other countries before you make such absurd statements.

Jose Rossy wrote:Nothing is perfect. But again, I'll take the benefits of zero repeat offender rate offered by death over its drawbacks.

So you'd have your son put to death by accident just so there are no repeat offenders (rather than just have them serve life in prision w/o parole)? I'm gald you're not my dad?

Richard H wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:The American system of justice has the MOST protection for the accused compared to any other in the world, bar none. I'd rather face the music in the US than any place else in the world.

Yea right tell that to the guys a Gitmo who can't get a trial and haven't actually been cahrged with anything. I suggest you study and learn what goes on in other countries before you make such absurd statements.

None of the people in Gitmo are American citizens sent there on domestic criminal charges. All who are there were people detained in a war zone while acting in contravention to the Geneva Convention. None of the people there met the requirements to be classified as POWs and they never will be no matter how much the sheeple of the world bleat about this.

I think I know enough about other countries to still prefer my system of justice. What other nation has a system of law where the founding document limits the power of government and declares that the rights of man are inherent and not granted by the state? Case in point. Anyone possessing a FAC or SGC in the UK can have his home intruded by the police at will. If cops did that to my house here, I would retire tomorrow from the money I'd win in a civil rights violation lawsuit.

I think it is you who knows little of how the US justice system works. Not all judges and prosecutors in the US are elected. Federal ones are certainly not. And the election or appointment of judges at the state, county, and municipal levels is so varied with the huge number of jurisdictions we have that your blanket statement about how elected officials in the US justice system just play for the next election is ridiculous on its face. You can't even prove what percentage of prosecutions in this country are motivated by re-election considerations.

As for hardened criminals who don’t rehabilitate, we have come to the conclusion that personal security is an individual, not collective responsibility. That's why in the overwhelming majority of states any law abiding adult citizen can arm himself and go about his business in public.

Hey, if our laws and foreign policy torque you off so much, don’t ever set foot here.

My text in italics.

Richard H wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:The American system of justice has the MOST protection for the accused compared to any other in the world, bar none. I'd rather face the music in the US than any place else in the world.

Yea right tell that to the guys a Gitmo who can't get a trial and haven't actually been cahrged with anything. I suggest you study and learn what goes on in other countries before you make such absurd statements.

The only reason you (and others) say that is because you see them as common criminals. I'll be the first to admit that the U.S. government made a mistake . . . however, the mistake was in creating a new category for those held in Gitmo and calling them "unlawful combatants" in an effort to bother trying to give them some semblance of a trial. This was a BIG mistake, because if you tell the world the "bad guys are going to be brought to justice and will stand trial for their crimes," they expect a common criminal trial with all of the rights and privileges they see on TV when they watch Law and Order. This just isn't possible. Just imagine issuing a subpoena for a soldier currently in combat zone to be a witness, or dealing with the chain of custody issues for evidence collected during a firefight, or the fact that classified information or informants, the revealing of which would put lives in imminent danger, led to the detention of the accused. This was a dumb decision. The result of this is that, while several of the people detained might have information of value, they themselves aren't worth going through the effort of putting on trial. Meanwhile, the big fish who are worth putting on trial, we'd just as soon kill (see Zarqawi).

Instead, they should be treated according to the articles of the Third Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. The detainees should be considered enemy "prisoners of war." They are terrorists in a war on terror. They should not be expected to, and should never, stand trial. This would mean they should not be granted the right to a trial, much less a writ of habeas corpus. They should be kept at Gitmo, as per Article 19 ("Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.") The media should not be granted access to the prisoners of war . . . in fact, it is specifically prohibited to allow the media to have access to prisoners of war (Article 13, protection against "insults and public curiosity.") And, they should be held until "after the cessation of active hostilities," as per Article 118.

moi wrote:My text in italics.

Richard H wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:The American system of justice has the MOST protection for the accused compared to any other in the world, bar none. I'd rather face the music in the US than any place else in the world.

Yea right tell that to the guys a Gitmo who can't get a trial and haven't actually been cahrged with anything. I suggest you study and learn what goes on in other countries before you make such absurd statements.

The only reason you (and others) say that is because you see them as common criminals. I'll be the first to admit that the U.S. government made a mistake . . . however, the mistake was in creating a new category for those held in Gitmo and calling them "unlawful combatants" in an effort to bother trying to give them some semblance of a trial. This was a BIG mistake, because if you tell the world the "bad guys are going to be brought to justice and will stand trial for their crimes," they expect a common criminal trial with all of the rights and privileges they see on TV when they watch Law and Order. This just isn't possible. Just imagine issuing a subpoena for a soldier currently in combat zone to be a witness, or dealing with the chain of custody issues for evidence collected during a firefight, or the fact that classified information or informants, the revealing of which would put lives in imminent danger, led to the detention of the accused. This was a dumb decision. The result of this is that, while several of the people detained might have information of value, they themselves aren't worth going through the effort of putting on trial. Meanwhile, the big fish who are worth putting on trial, we'd just as soon kill (see Zarqawi).

Instead, they should be treated according to the articles of the Third Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. The detainees should be considered enemy "prisoners of war." They are terrorists in a war on terror. They should not be expected to, and should never, stand trial. This would mean they should not be granted the right to a trial, much less a writ of habeas corpus. They should be kept at Gitmo, as per Article 19 ("Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.") The media should not be granted access to the prisoners of war . . . in fact, it is specifically prohibited to allow the media to have access to prisoners of war (Article 13, protection against "insults and public curiosity.") And, they should be held until "after the cessation of active hostilities," as per Article 118.

The term made up by the US government is "Illegal Enemy Combatants"

They are unlawful combatants because they don't have protections under the Third Geneva Convention because they do not fit any of the categories under Article 4. They all had hearings regarding their status (some say they were a mockery) but 38 were released. That being said if the individual is not a citizen of a neutral country or one of the cobiligerent nations (Afganistan or Iraq) he must be afforded his rights under the Fourth Geneva convention which are to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.

There is also a very good reason they are kept at Gitmo. Gitmo is under US control but is not the US and a court ruling from th 50's found that the courts do not have jurisdiction over enemy aliens held outside the US.

The big problem is the fact that some in the US want it both ways,

1. We are a nation of laws and everybody is protected by the constitution

and

2. These people (they are people) should rot in hell and not be afforded any due process.

My question is if theses people are so bad and they have enough proof to round them up and detain them indefinately, why do you think a jury made up of your American peers wouldn't see it that way and incarcerate them after a proper trial. If you trust your system so much what's there to be afraid of?

That all being said this is now way way off topic if you want ot further discuss and debate it ( I love to debate I'll even change sides with you if you like) feel free to PM me and sign up so that I can respond back.

Jose Rossy wrote:

Richard H wrote:

Jose Rossy wrote:The American system of justice has the MOST protection for the accused compared to any other in the world, bar none. I'd rather face the music in the US than any place else in the world.

Yea right tell that to the guys a Gitmo who can't get a trial and haven't actually been cahrged with anything. I suggest you study and learn what goes on in other countries before you make such absurd statements.

None of the people in Gitmo are American citizens sent there on domestic criminal charges. All who are there were people detained in a war zone while acting in contravention to the Geneva Convention. None of the people there met the requirements to be classified as POWs and they never will be no matter how much the sheeple of the world bleat about this.

I think I know enough about other countries to still prefer my system of justice. What other nation has a system of law where the founding document limits the power of government and declares that the rights of man are inherent and not granted by the state? Case in point. Anyone possessing a FAC or SGC in the UK can have his home intruded by the police at will. If cops did that to my house here, I would retire tomorrow from the money I'd win in a civil rights violation lawsuit.

I think it is you who knows little of how the US justice system works. Not all judges and prosecutors in the US are elected. Federal ones are certainly not. And the election or appointment of judges at the state, county, and municipal levels is so varied with the huge number of jurisdictions we have that your blanket statement about how elected officials in the US justice system just play for the next election is ridiculous on its face. You can't even prove what percentage of prosecutions in this country are motivated by re-election considerations.

As for hardened criminals who don’t rehabilitate, we have come to the conclusion that personal security is an individual, not collective responsibility. That's why in the overwhelming majority of states any law abiding adult citizen can arm himself and go about his business in public.

Hey, if our laws and foreign policy torque you off so much, don’t ever set foot here.

I go to the US all the time because the vast majority of people there are very nice and its a nice country, just like many others around the world, but I don't think its perfect nor do I think any other country is perfect. I don't have to make myself feel better by putting down everyone else in the world either.

The only person who seems "torqued off" is you, who can't seem to handle when someone disagrees with his views.

By the way your laws and Forgein Policy really don't bother me that much at all. I just disagree with individuals who demonstrate that they really don't have any clue about the rest of the world yet feel compelled to crap all over everyone else.

Richard H wrote: The term made up by the US government is "Illegal Enemy Combatants"

They are unlawful combatants because they don't have protections under the Third Geneva Convention because they do not fit any of the categories under Article 4. They all had hearings regarding their status (some say they were a mockery) but 38 were released. That being said if the individual is not a citizen of a neutral country or one of the cobiligerent nations (Afganistan or Iraq) he must be afforded his rights under the Fourth Geneva convention which are to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.

There is also a very good reason they are kept at Gitmo. Gitmo is under US control but is not the US and a court ruling from th 50's found that the courts do not have jurisdiction over enemy aliens held outside the US.

The big problem is the fact that some in the US want it both ways,

1. We are a nation of laws and everybody is protected by the constitution

and

2. These people (they are people) should rot in hell and not be afforded any due process.

My question is if theses people are so bad and they have enough proof to round them up and detain them indefinately, why do you think a jury made up of your American peers wouldn't see it that way and incarcerate them after a proper trial. If you trust your system so much what's there to be afraid of?

That all being said this is now way way off topic if you want ot further discuss and debate it ( I love to debate I'll even change sides with you if you like) feel free to PM me and sign up so that I can respond back.

Actually, the U.S. government has bandied about several terms.

Arguably, they do fall under one or more of the definitions in Article 4 of GCIII.
In Afghanistan, Article 4, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2 works. Some of the Taliban have taken to wearing distinctive articles of clothing identifying them as Taliban. Not conducting operations in accordance with the laws of war only means that they lose the protection of not standing trial should the detaining country choose to try them.
If not subparagraph 2, arguably subparagraph 6 could apply.

But, even if you say they fall under GCIV, Article 5 clearly applies and the same courses of action I described above would be appropriate. While Article 5 does say "in case of trial . . ." it does not mandate a trial; they should still be held till the end of active hostilities . . . whenever that is.

Why would a U.S. jury not necessarily find them guilty? Lack of evidence. See the problems I cited regarding difficulties with subpoenas, chain of custody, collection of evidence, etc. in a war zone. I trust the system, I just think it shouldn't apply.

How many German and Japanese POWs received trials in the U.S. and argued for a writ of habeas corpus? Are you saying they should have too?

Why do you insist that they should be treated as common criminals?

Sorry, due to personal reasons, I cannot sign up right now.

Folks, we are getting way, way off topic, I hope all UK shooters will sign on.

Richard, remember what you said about the Special Olympic and winning an argument on the internet?

Tony C.

Richard H., WTH makes you think I know nothing about the rest of the world.

I am willing to be that I am better travelled than you.

Like most Americans, I could not care less about the ROW's opinion on anything that is a part of our internal affairs like crime and punishment.

It looks good but is Bull . We had a petition also for pay as you drive motoring, over a million people petitioned. Afterwards gov said yes, great response, but it wont have any bearing on what they choose to do. It is a public relations exercise to fool the UK public into thinking they can actually have an influence on what Government is doing. If they do decide to relax the pistol laws for the olympics it will be to look good to overseas and nothing to do with shooters rights over here. Our Home Secretary has the authority to suspend or alter this piece of legislation with out recourse to parliament but has failed to do so. Did you realise that the maximum sentance for possession of a pistol is 5 years, the maximum for mace or cs spray or a stun gun is 10 years. Where is the logic in that??? It seems that our government dont want its citizens to defend themselves. The law says if there is an escape route one should flee rather than stand your ground, great
Where self defence and weapons are concerned there is no such thing as logic when it comes to the UK governments way of thimking.

One last lookee see of DNA evidence to make sure the right guy is sitting there and then strap them down and push it in.

DNA Evidence is highly fallible, easy to mix up and VERY easy for a corrupt state to engineer after the event.
"Please give us a blood sample sir, oh dear we seem to have found your DNA at the scene of the crime, how would you like to go?"

The death penalty seems to have no deterrent value so what exactly is the point?
By all means lock them up for life, make them work for their keep and run prisons on a shoestring. There is no reason they should cost too much.

Hi Folks
UMMMM is it me or are we on the wrong thread here regards crime and punishment? OK the crime side is related to the petition, oh yeah I signed that (No 200) before I posted this, and that is where we should concentrate our efforts. So please Mr Administrator drop this thread into a new slot (Crime and punishment, Hang ‘em high, Vivisectionists of the world unite, Human genetic trials, whatever) but leave the strictly petition signing request where it is.

Just to prove that I am human, or at least closely related, I have personal ideas regarding crime & punishment.
What seems to be missing in both the US and the UK is the realisation that policing in both countries is by consent. The ordinary citizen agrees to allow themselves to be policed and to obey the rules. Sounds OK but just as an example if every motorist who gets a speeding ticket says “No thank you. I do not wish to pay the fixed penalty without the benefit of a trial.” The entire court system will collapse in about 24 hours. Not just the traffic side of it, the whole edifice of the alleged justice system.
On the other hand criminals, by definition, don’t care about the legal system and don’t agree to be bound by it. They just do what they want to and the chances are that they will get away with it. So when we do catch them why don’t we put them on a nice little island somewhere and leave them to work out their own society? I believe that Gruinard Island is still available.
Yes there would need to be shelter and the ability to produce their own food, but since they have chosen to live without regard to the laws of society they should not reap its benefits
Target Bunny.

Getting back to the original subject...

The UK's a bit silly isn't it? I emigrated to New Zealand...

JamesH wrote: The death penalty seems to have no deterrent value so what exactly is the point?

Punishment and a 0% rate of recividism. That's the point.

Continuing to stray even further off the boards charter . . .

It is very difficult to assess the effects of the death penalty against the behavior of criminially insane/violent people (by definition). Any study on the subject is fraught with methodological caveats and hedged conclusions.

And yet we feel free to claim that the "death penalty has no deterrent effect on crime."

Are we talking about death penalty *laws* or actual death penalties? Are we talking about all crimes, or just crimes subject to the enforcement of the death penalty? The results differ widely! E.g., while it is true that unenforced death penalty laws have no effect on crimes of all types, it is equally true that enforced death penalty laws do have a significant effect on crimes subject to the penalty!

D'OH!

Recent studies in the USA (which take into account time periods where the death penalty is actually enforced, not just enacted and ignored) have shown, after correcting for many other factors known to have an effect (gun ownership, intensity of policing, demographics, etc.) have actually shown both a statistically (we know it's not random) and practically (it actually has an impact) significant deterrent effect on violent crimes (those subject to the death penalty).

So the old chestnut "There is no deterrent effect of the death penalty," which was always a weak stretch, has some more evidence to refute it.

These findings were somewhat moderated by the "in for a penny, in for a pound" effect (where violent repeat offender criminals [almost exclusively] take more risks to avoid capture in states with death penalties). Like my homestate of Texas, there is at least anecdotal evidence that some violent criminals, when in the conduct of [another] violent crime subject to the death penalty, have claimed that they take greater risks [putting more lives in danger] in order to avoid capture- because they know Texas actually enforces it's death penalty. Some will actually flee to Mexico (yep, just like in the old western movies!), which has no death penalty (well, at least formally) and will not extradite violent criminals back to the US if they will potentially face the death penalty. Inter-national studies are of course the most difficult to draw conclusions from; nobody would argue that Mexico (with no death penalty) has less violent crime than similar southern US states that do . . .

Note that in each case (see above paragraph) those individuals (caught in Texas) were indeed caught, and will never kill again.

Back to the matter at hand: Does the death penalty have a deterrent effect on crimes subject to the death penalty? Yes, at least in the USA. Your mileage may vary for countries that have no violent crime, like the UK, Japan, France, Australia, etc.

There is also the obvious fact that yes, post-execution the killer never kills again.

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote:Your mileage may vary for countries that have no violent crime, like the UK,..............

You must be joking Steve (but I don't want to get even further off-topic).

Sorry David forgot to put the tongue-in-cheek smiley in the text!

Steve Swartz

(apropos of nothing had an involved discussion this morning on the differences between sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek, irony, metaphor, and simile in language over this morning's coffee . . . so I should have known better!)