Crime and Punishment

[badger]

A little while ago we had a thread on Capital Punishment and many orgers were very much in favour, both of CP and other dire punishments in some cases. Now we have a thread about Sharia law which in some interpretations advocates capital punishment and other dire …….

What made me think of this was an item on the radio this morning about the situation in Iran where apparently many people are in favour of extreme punishments because they say they work as a deterrent, e.g. if you see someone with their hand cut off you are less likely to steal because you realise that’s what will happen to you. I suspect this makes Iran a rather more law abiding society than ours even if for the wrong reasons.

So do we assume that those in favour of extreme punishment would actually rather like to have at least some aspects of Sharia law? Would the threat of mutilation or death reduce crime? It’s not the kind of society I want but obviously others would.

Many children are brought up with no respect for anyone or anything including the Law and the message they get from the media reinforces this. Is there some middle way?

[NickInTheNorth]

The only aspects of sharia law that it was suggested might be appropriately introduced are civil matters pertaining to marriage / divorce / and finance. Also only for use within the muslim community through the choice of all parties involved.

So stop trying to pretend that anything else is on the agenda.

[scotsboy]

Its not the kind of system I would endorse, but to be honest the fact that thieves would lose their hands and murderers their heads would not affect me, so I really have no problem.........it is actually the system I live under at the moment..........and I do feel a lot safer walking the streets here than in certain areas of the UK.

[orkneylass]

How can you possibly have a country in which more than one legal system is operating?

[scotsboy]

How can you possibly have a country in which more than one legal system is operating?

Is there not one law for the rich and another for the rest of us?

[orkneylass]

Is there not one law for the rich and another for the rest of us?


No. You may be able to take more risks or get a better quality of representation if you have more money, but the law remains the same.

[NickInTheNorth]

There has been a jewish court operating in the UK for years without any problem.

It is in reality the same as any other arbitration system. any parties looking for a decision of the alternative tribunal would a) agree to it's hearing a case and b) agree to abide by it's decision.

Additionally the alternative tibunal's decision would not be a strictly legal decision, so a divorce would not be effective in British law, only in countries which recognise the supremacy of sharia law.

[scotsboy]

No. You may be able to take more risks or get a better quality of representation if you have more money, but the law remains the same.

I was of course being facetious, Orkneylass.

[percy toboggan]

We do have something to learn from muslim countries.
In terms of crime and punishment we here in the UK have gone flabby and focus more on the pepretrator than the victim.

We have no need of 'sharia' law to instill fear into persistent miscreants and violent offenders...we need politicians and Judges with courage and vision...who live in the real world. We need more places of correction and detention.We need a Police Force with the tools to come down hard on the feral, the feckless and the utterly unrepentant. We can do all of this without calling for the incorporation of foreign, alien laws.Why would we do that? Have we become so bereft....?

[percy toboggan]

Is there not one law for the rich and another for the rest of us?

Recourse to the law is becoming the preserve of the wealthy, and the utterly skint - the rest of us have been priced out of it.

[badger]

The only aspects of sharia law that it was suggested might be appropriately introduced are civil matters pertaining to marriage / divorce / and finance. Also only for use within the muslim community through the choice of all parties involved.

So stop trying to pretend that anything else is on the agenda.

I'm not - in fact you've said what I've been saying all through the other thread. I'm not talking about that discussion here - I simply referred to it as we had been talking about Sharia law and Capital Punishment and the item on the radio seemed to bring the two together.

I'm afraid I agree with scotsboy on levels of justice for rich and poor even if the suggestion wasn't serious. The Law may be the same for all, but in practice justice isn't - if you either can't afford a good lawyer or dare not risk losing and paying costs, chances are you won't go to court.

[karia]

[quote=percy toboggan;337989.we need politicians and Judges with courage and vision...who live in the real world. We need more places of correction and detention.[/quote]

You think that judges with courage and vision should advocate for more places of correction and detention then?

What do you think should be on the curriculum...?

[Yoda the flump]

Hang em all - thats what I say!

[scorrie]

A little while ago we had a thread on Capital Punishment and many orgers were very much in favour, both of CP and other dire punishments in some cases. Now we have a thread about Sharia law which in some interpretations advocates capital punishment and other dire …….

What made me think of this was an item on the radio this morning about the situation in Iran where apparently many people are in favour of extreme punishments because they say they work as a deterrent, e.g. if you see someone with their hand cut off you are less likely to steal because you realise that’s what will happen to you. I suspect this makes Iran a rather more law abiding society than ours even if for the wrong reasons.

So do we assume that those in favour of extreme punishment would actually rather like to have at least some aspects of Sharia law? Would the threat of mutilation or death reduce crime? It’s not the kind of society I want but obviously others would.

Many children are brought up with no respect for anyone or anything including the Law and the message they get from the media reinforces this. Is there some middle way?

The one good thing about Capital Punishment is that murderers commit no further crimes. I am not sure that I could advocate Capital Punishment (for several reasons) but, if someone has willingly taken another's life, it seems as if it might be a justifiable punishment.

[karia]

The one good thing about Capital Punishment is that murderers commit no further crimes. I am not sure that I could advocate Capital Punishment (for several reasons) but, if someone has willingly taken another's life, it seems as if it might be a justifiable punishment.

Does that not make the sanctioned 'life takers'..murderers also?

How many murders are a case of someone 'willingly taking anothers life' without any other factors?


Kill everyone and no further crimes would be committed scorrie..too easy pal!

[Yoda the flump]

Kill everyone and no further crimes would be committed scorrie..too easy pal!

And er sorry..... who would commit the crimes if everyone was killed?

[karia]

And er sorry..... who would commit the crimes if everyone was killed?

You've got the point then!:roll:

[j4bberw0ck]

One of the better things about the legal system in this country is that at least we have judges, independent of politicians, who are capable of making judgments about the relative severity of a crime. So, for instance, someone who kills "in a moment of madness", "under great provocation", "in exceptional circumstances" might be treated differently to someone who planned every detail, meticulously. And it's absolutely right that that's the way it works.

Heaven help us if it comes down to the media or the public to decide how a guilty verdict should be sentenced. Then it really will be the law of the jungle; which newspaper can outdo the other calling for ever more vicious sentences? Which group of people can sob and wail and publicly lament loudly enough to persuade the hopelessly gullible that the sentence should be more harsh?

All very well calling for harsh sentences, but the fact is that most murder wasn't intended. Should people who didn't intend to kill be treated the same as a serial killer, or someone who plans a murder?

Is forgiveness and rehabilitation dead where there was no intent?

[TBH]

Lord Carmont didn't need to threaten people with amputation when he practically eradicated the razor gangs of the fifties.

[Rheghead]

All very well calling for harsh sentences, but the fact is that most murder wasn't intended. Should people who didn't intend to kill be treated the same as a serial killer, or someone who plans a murder?


Murder is only murder when there is intention to kill, otherwise it is manslaughter. Intention even for a split second is still intention. So yes, I think people who commit manslaughter should be treated differently from murderers.

[TBH]

Derek Bentley was hanged but committed no murder or manslaughter.