With so much recent talk about anti-social behaviour in city centres on Friday and Saturday nights and how it can be reduced has one option been excluded from the debate? Namely, public flogging.

This isn't a thread about the morality or otherwise of flogging but rather whether or not it would prove a sufficient deterant. These young men (and occasionally women) seem to enjoy inflicting pain on others so why not give them a taste of their own medicine and see how they like it. My guess is that they wouldn't like it at all and if it were public enough there would be a sufficient deterant.

What do you think?

I'd love to see a public flogging of young men, violent or otherwise....

:heyhey:

Originally posted by msbehavin
I'd love see a public flogging of young men, violent or otherwise....

:heyhey:

:rolleyes: U can't say anything nowdays ;)

i think thats daft- why not bring back the death sentance for murderers while your at it.

Those kind of punishments belong in the past, we need to find new ways to deter young people from doing these things, not publicly humiliate and torture them.

Yeah , well , it was in the past when we had a lot less crime.

I think the question was specifically about the deterant factor rather thanwhether it was a too cruel or not.

I suspect it would be a deterant. I don't generally suport the death penelty though as it is too final if a mistake is made. Flogging is different and I can see a case for it.

Originally posted by msbehavin
I'd love see a public flogging of young men, violent or otherwise....

:heyhey:

But would you buy one? And what's the going rate for a pasty, talentless waste of space nowadays?

Originally posted by Fareast
Yeah , well , it was in the past when we had a lot less crime.

Only when viewed thrugh VERY rose coloured specs!

Originally posted by Fareast
Yeah , well , it was in the past when we had a lot less crime.

LOL - when ? How far back are we going ?

So, when exactly was this when there was less crime?

In the Middle Ages, with wars raging backwards and forwards across Europe?

In the English Civil War when brother killed brother?

In the 19th century when people got hung for stealing loaves of bread to feed their children?

I'm racking my memory hard, trying to think.... :loopy:

StarSparkle

Originally posted by Fareast
Yeah , well , it was in the past when we had a lot less crime. I like the way some people say that in their day you could leave the door open forgetting that they never had anything worth stealing. There is more crime now - we have become victims of our own sucess

Unless you do the job properly and really gave them something to remember it wouldn't work.

In many cases it is also difficult to identify the difference between innocence and guilt

I think it would be a much better deterant to fine people arrested for the amount it costs in police time to the tax payer.

I.e. 2 people fighting in street.
Cost of damage to property = £60
Cost of 5 police time to arrest and detaine = £500
Cost of 2 more police for crown control = £200
Cost of fuel and misc = £30

Total Fine: £790 between the two of them.

Fine can grow for each reminder sent and cost of legal fees.

If they don't pay they get locked up & have possessions seized to pay for cost of fine etc.

Do this with everyone... pretty soon people wont be able to afford to go out and get into trouble!

Wouldn't it only exacerbate the problem - from my non trained eye it seems that some of the problems with violence and anti-social behaviour seem to stem from the fact that violence is routinely presented as a valid solution to any problem (don't like a particular dictator then just invade and remove him) and is also presented as entertainment (I'm routinely nauseated by the level of violence in films and more by the way it is presented - i.e. as a good thing not a bad thing). Untill violence is seen as a bad thing and we stop glorifying the lives of the criminal and violent then any steps taken will be at best sticking plasters...

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I think it would be a much better deterant to fine people arrested for the amount it costs in police time to the tax payer.


Do this with everyone... pretty soon people wont be able to afford to go out and get into trouble!

agree with this one, but do people think there's really that much in a place like Sheffield? Down West Street and Division street is always seem drunken but never violent.

Although different places like say where i'm from the Ghetto as we called it Burton On Trent need armed police with a licence to kill!

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I think it would be a much better deterant to fine people arrested for the amount it costs in police time to the tax payer.

I.e. 2 people fighting in street.
Cost of damage to property = £60
Cost of 5 police time to arrest and detaine = £500
Cost of 2 more police for crown control = £200
Cost of fuel and misc = £30

Total Fine: £790 between the two of them.

Fine can grow for each reminder sent and cost of legal fees.

If they don't pay they get locked up & have possessions seized to pay for cost of fine etc.

Do this with everyone... pretty soon people wont be able to afford to go out and get into trouble! the only problem is that most trouble makers don't pay fines - the figures are quite frightening

No kind of 'punishment' or 'justice' as it is often called will EVER deter a person from a crime they are seriously intending to commit. Their reasoning behind their actions far outweights any kind of reproach they may receive for committing a crime. Not even that...many crimes are so impromptu that no thought is given to the consequences which could be a result of their actions. Flogging ??? In which century are you living ?????

What about this one,

3 strikes and your out.

Cause 3 incidents involving police in town centres and an automatic jail sentenance will result irrespective of charges made?

If you have not been charged then how can anyone say you have caused an incident ?

Originally posted by Fragonard
If you have not been charged then how can anyone say you have caused an incident ?

Whilst its not always conclusive in which case obiously wouldn't count as a strike CCTV in many cases shows dangerous intent and guilt. Officers on the scene also.

Originally posted by miniminch
the only problem is that most trouble makers don't pay fines - the figures are quite frightening
That's when they get locked up and possessions taken away.
The fine will remain AFTER the jail term so if they don't pay... by by they go again for another stretch.

OR make thenm work off the fine by clearing up mess made in the streets, litter picking, getting rid of graffiti etc etc

Public flogging for young men! Gosh! This is straight out of The Feudal Times and Reactionary Herald. It is all well and good giving people 'a taste of their own medicine', but there isn't the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that measures like this would work. The Japanese were terribly good at 'flogging young men', many of them from Britain, in their prison camps of World War Two. What was the result of all this 'flogging' [and much worse]? The answer is, a greater debasement of the Japanese military and a greater determination on behalf of those flogged to avenge themselves. After floggings and beatings, attempts at sabotage and escape increased, rather than decreased. May I suggest that 'flogging' might just have the same effect upon our angry, unwanted young 'hoodies'. Like the ASBO, the 'flogging' might just become a badge of honour. Not, of course, that this ludicrous medieval punishment will ever come about.

In my opinion..there are no such things as deterents anyway. Does the warning on a packet of cigarettes put people off smoking ? NO. Does the death penalty stop people committing murder ? NO. If deterents did work then there would be no smoking and no crime. AT ALL. EVER! Deterent ? There isn't any such thing.

As far as being a deterant goes, think the example set by the Isle of Man until about 20/30 years ago is valid.

Youths were given the birch for appropriate misbehaviour. Not sure what constituted an offence punishable with the birch but the youths I recall being interviewed on TV at the time all said that no way would they be risk getting it again.

Public flogging, no way. Primitive and barbaric.

Harsh physical punishment for someone who has committed a violet offence? Why the hell not.

On the other hand we could always send them to Majorca for a couple of weeks, that'll stop 'em

Youths on TV...they say anything. There is no evidence to suggest that they have not gone on partake in other tomfooleries. As there is no evidence to suggest that they have.

Two weeks in Majorca would stop me, in fact it would stop me altogether. I cannot think of anywhere more hideous, surrounded by lager-guzzling oafs, half-naked louts and whores. If I want that I go to my local Conservative Club.

Originally posted by msbehavin
I'd love see a public flogging of young men, violent or otherwise....

:heyhey:

She's at it again!

I liked the idea of putting pictures up of the little oiks in public places.

The Talaban used to publicly humiliate criminals. They used to parade them through town and make them shave their hair off. In fact, they had the best crime deterent rate in the world.

Originally posted by PhilipB
As far as being a deterant goes, think the example set by the Isle of Man until about 20/30 years ago is valid.

Youths were given the birch for appropriate misbehaviour. Not sure what constituted an offence punishable with the birch but the youths I recall being interviewed on TV at the time all said that no way would they be risk getting it again.

Public flogging, no way. Primitive and barbaric.

Harsh physical punishment for someone who has committed a violet offence? Why the hell not.


Isn't this proof that it can never be a deterrent? It demonstrates that it may prevent youths reoffending but it didn't stop their appropriate misbehaviour initially, did it?

The fact that we have had corporal punishment since the dawn of civilisation until quite recently proves, to me, that it can never work as a deterrent. If it had been so successful, then we would not have had crimes committed until after corporal punishment was abolished.

i have not read through all the posts as its late and i am very tired but heres my two pennies worth!

i do not think it would act as a detterent, nowadays people crave the attention, always trying to get in the public eye and this is perfect chance to do that.
i think though things need to toughen up and in prisons they should have nothing but a cell and possibly books but prisons nowadays are like butlins holidays (i would rather go to prison!!!)

Originally posted by Fragonard
No kind of 'punishment' or 'justice' as it is often called will EVER deter a person from a crime they are seriously intending to commit. Their reasoning behind their actions far outweights any kind of reproach they may receive for committing a crime. Not even that...many crimes are so impromptu that no thought is given to the consequences which could be a result of their actions. Flogging ??? In which century are you living ????? :loopy: Well that's alright then..... Colse all the prisons and let them get on with it :roll:

Yes , punishments were very barbaric in 19th. century Britain------but then we either had no organised police force or a very small , primitive one until the 1880's.
It's difficult to say how much crime there was then vis-a-vis now , because of the lack of statistical evidence.
As soon as a police force was fairly well-established and whilst corporal and capital punishment were still in place , Britain was a fairly crime-free society.Almost anyone concerned seriously with sociology denies that crimes , particularly crimes of violence , have sharply increased over the past few decades.
I think it's stupid to say that , "well, people didn't have anything worth stealing in the 20's and 30's ".The middle classes actually became better off in the '30's , partly due to deflation. Even though everyone was poorer , there were still obvious differences between rich and poor.
To talk about civil wars and wars in the Middle Ages is piffle and irrelevant ; we are talking about everyday civilian life. Have we had less people killed in 20th. century wars , incidentally ?
The , "Isle of Man " factor is , at least worth considering. The crime rates started soaring in the late '50's and '60's , precisely when corporal punishment was beginning to be phased out and the last hanging was in 1964.
Don't people think it odd , if crime is NOT increasing , that successive governments never say that , overall crime is falling under their admin. , only that it is increasig less than under , "the other lot ". Surely if crime was going down , someone would have claimed credit for it by now.

Max
The whole idea of a deterrent is that it's supposed to stop people re-offending or going on to commit a series of crimes.
No-one is denying that crime never existed in the days of corporal/capital punishment. The , "first-timers " had obviously not experienced the punishment.
What is being suggested is that harsh physical punisment often pulls people up with a shock and they don't carry on committing crimes of violence. Again , there will always be the hard core of dead-heads. How much time or money should we spend on them ? A desert island or a labour camp sounds the best solution for incurable sadists and thugs in my opinion but maybe you have a better suggestion ?

Originally posted by Fareast
Yes , punishments were very barbaric in 19th. century Britain------but then we either had no organised police force or a very small , primitive one until the 1880's.
It's difficult to say how much crime there was then vis-a-vis now , because of the lack of statistical evidence.
As soon as a police force was fairly well-established and whilst corporal and capital punishment were still in place , Britain was a fairly crime-free society.Almost anyone concerned seriously with sociology denies that crimes , particularly crimes of violence , have sharply increased over the past few decades.
I think it's stupid to say that , "well, people didn't have anything worth stealing in the 20's and 30's ".The middle classes actually became better off in the '30's , partly due to deflation. Even though everyone was poorer , there were still obvious differences between rich and poor.
To talk about civil wars and wars in the Middle Ages is piffle and irrelevant ; we are talking about everyday civilian life. Have we had less people killed in 20th. century wars , incidentally ?
The , "Isle of Man " factor is , at least worth considering. The crime rates started soaring in the late '50's and '60's , precisely when corporal punishment was beginning to be phased out and the last hanging was in 1964.
Don't people think it odd , if crime is NOT increasing , that successive governments never say that , overall crime is falling under their admin. , only that it is increasig less than under , "the other lot ". Surely if crime was going down , someone would have claimed credit for it by now.

funny that, the last set of crime figures from both independant and police statistics show that overall crime fell by something like 10% but violent crime rose within this figure by about 4%.

I think it would be worth introducing on a trial basis for say a year or two to see what difference, if any, it made to the types of offences described.

Remember, it is not being suggested for ecconomic crime but violent crime so the fact that there is more worth stealing now is irrelivent.

Also, although not strickly a deterant, you have to consider what the victims of the criminals would prefer, fines, prison, or flogging. It may be that the victims would gain more satisfaction and a greater sense of justice being done and seen to be done with this public flogging idea. You can't or shouldn't exclude the victims from the equasion.

Well , there have been , "blips " in the crime statistics and to make it more confusing , nowadays they use two methods of measuring crime.
However , I still maintain that anyone who seriously suggested that life is as safe today as it was in the '50's , for example , is living in , "Cloud Cuckoo Land ".
Also , we're presumably meant to be only concerned with violent crime . Does anyone say that violent crime's gone down since corporal /capiotal punishment 's been abolished ?

Victims of crime should not be able to decide on the punishment for the perpetrator of the crime. Too emotional. Let's leave it to system we have in place!

Fragonard ,

What's wrong with emotion ?
Is it any a less valid reaction than an intellectual reaction ?
One of the main problems affecting our society , is that the victims of crime have no say , whatsoever , in the way their assailants are dealt with . So , if a thug can afford a top-class barrister he /she is much more likely to get a lesser sentence than a poverty-stricken thug ? Is that o.k ?
It would be much fairer for the judge to listen , directly to the victims , after the guilty verdict , see what they think and then decide on the sentence. This is not letting the victim decide the sentence -----but to have a considerable influence on the sentence. Why don'y we ask people what they think ? The government ARE supposed to be listening to us , after all.

If this were the case then you could have two identical crimes but each with a different punishment depending on the feeling of the victims. That is also very unfair. You need to be consistent. Victims who have, justifiably, become emtional will not be thinking at all clearly and may want some sort of ultimate justice...in fact, it is more likely to be revenge.

it was put to use in the isle of man until the court of human rights put a stop to it , http://www.corpun.com/manx.htm

might b worth a trial run for perhaps a year

Fragonard ,

We already have differences in sentencing for identical crimes , partly because there's no real national sentencing policy and partly , as I mentioned previously , a rich thug can afford a better barrister. Why else do you think people pay for expensive barristers ? An act of charity ?
An intelligent , experienced judge , after talking to the victims , should be able to get a good idea of what individual victims suffered. The time it takes for the whole process , I would guess that a lot of the , "heat " has gone out of the situation and the victims would just tell the truth and hope for justice.

Public flogging would reduce incivilities, there isn't really an argument there. Should we as a society use this method to control incivilities? No not really, it's a bit Saudi Arabian for my liking.

What I would like to see is public nude whipping of girls that have been deemed too pretty, of sexy. That would get my vote. If Labour put that in their manifesto I might consider voting for them.

On the other hand maybe not.

Originally posted by Fareast
Max
The whole idea of a deterrent is that it's supposed to stop people re-offending or going on to commit a series of crimes.


Not according to my dictionary:

deterrent: to prevent or discourage someone from doing something by making it difficult for them to do it or by threatening bad results if they do it

So it would appear that corporal punishment as a deterrent hadn't worked during the aeons it was practised so why should it's re-introduction now be any more successful?

how can violence solve violence?

Originally posted by Fareast
Fragonard ,

We already have differences in sentencing for identical crimes , partly because there's no real national sentencing policy and partly , as I mentioned previously , a rich thug can afford a better barrister. Why else do you think people pay for expensive barristers ? An act of charity ?
An intelligent , experienced judge , after talking to the victims , should be able to get a good idea of what individual victims suffered. The time it takes for the whole process , I would guess that a lot of the , "heat " has gone out of the situation and the victims would just tell the truth and hope for justice.

A good barrister affects the guilty/not guilty verdict, which is decided by a jury.
The sentence is decided by the judge with very little external influence if any. Allowing emotional victims a say adds nothing to the process except possibly a feeling of revenge, which isn't part of the justice system.
This is just a case of society saying that since it's bigger and stronger than these people it's okay for it to inflict violence on them. How does that message look in comparison to the message sent by laws outlawing the use of violence on other people, it looks hypocritical to me.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think it would be worth introducing on a trial basis for say a year or two to see what difference, if any, it made to the types of offences described.



And if after a trial period it was shown that public flogging was not making a difference to certain types of offences, why not start amputating limbs? And if that doesn't work, why not take corporal punishment to it's logical conclusion - and bring back the death penalty?

It is despairing to realise that there are remnants of the flogging and hanging brigade who are still around in the C21st.

Originally posted by redrobbo
And if after a trial period it was shown that public flogging was not making a difference to certain types of offences, why not start amputating limbs? And if that doesn't work, why not take corporal punishment to it's logical conclusion - and bring back the death penalty?

So..... what do you suggest then?

What will be a suitable deterrent?

Most people don't want a prison in their back yard, nor for violent criminals to be treated with kid gloves.

Sorry not read all the threads but my suggestion....

Make em naked, and put them in stocks on Devonshire Green every Sunday morning.....I would be there will a basket of tomatos....:heyhey:

I think MsB would also be there with a camera!!

:thumbsup:

Max

Yes , crime did exist when we had corporal and /or capital punishment and no-one is denying that its re-introduction would get rid of violent crime , like waving a magic wand---------but what is being argued is that there was LESS violent crime and that there is more violent crime in Britain , since capital/corporal punishment was abolished.
Its all very well being pedantic over exactly what , "deterrent " means but I think a lot of young men were scared to inflict violence because they knew what could be in store for them and a lot of First Timers stopped after their first taste of corporal punishment and so their . In principle , in all cases you are using physical means to prevent a worse resultpotential crimes were , "nipped in the bud ".
The general principle that violence can't prevent violence , I think , is totally mistaken. Would you not , "violently " push a child out of the way of a runaway lorry ? If the French had been , "violent " towards Hitler when he re-occupied the Saarland [?] , it may have resulted in his downfall. Would that have been a bad thing ? In the same way , judicious violence inflicted on thugs seemed , in the past , to have had the over-all effect of keeping violent behaviour and crimes down.In each case , the principle is that of using forceful action to try to prevent a more serious situation. The action is not always , "nice " or pretty to look at but if it works and the alternative patently does not , what do we do ? Just stand there and wring our hands ?

p.s. In my last posting , in the first para. some of the words have got shifted about somehow------sorry ! Can mods. move it round ?

There was nothing pedantic about pointing out the meaning of the word deterrent. The thrust of your initial argument was that the deterrent was to stop people reoffending, I was merely indicating that it doesn't seem to have stopped people committing their first crime throughout history.

Re-offending rates are difficult to calculate and I have not read any reports that they are on the increase due to the relaxation of forms punishment.

As to violent crime being more prevelant today I think it is more reported than it ever was and therefore people's perception is that it is on the increase rather than that it is, in fact, on the increase.

exactly as max said, the changes we see are down to reporting.

For example, in the early 1900's I doubt there are more than 1 or 2 recorded cases of someone abusing their wife. Does that mean that it never happened, or does it mean that attitudes were very different and that it was not something to report, and indeed that nothing would have been done if it was reported?

Pushing a child out of the way of something is a disingenous argument. The action is not violent, you are not attempting to hurt the child.
Caning a child for bad behaviour would be more appropriate, and that's now illegal and generally discredited as an effective means of instilling discipline.

Originally posted by max
There was nothing pedantic about pointing out the meaning of the word deterrent. The thrust of your initial argument was that the deterrent was to stop people reoffending, I was merely indicating that it doesn't seem to have stopped people committing their first crime throughout history.


And what exactly was your point? Do you have a solution to stopping first-time offences? If so, get thee on the phone to Charlie Clarke, because the poor love hasn't got a clue himself. If you don't have a solution then you probably were being just a little bit up yourself and, well, pedantic. I thought posts were supposed to move the argument onwards...

Originally posted by joyphil
I thought posts were supposed to move the argument onwards...

And this post did exactly that I suppose?

I made the point earlier that corporal punishment has never been a deterrent, it was practised for 10's of thousands of years prior to be being abolished and we have not seen the huge increase in violent crime that was predicted.

As to how we can increase public responsibility, one way could be to bring back authority figures and show respect for them. If we had park keepers and bus conductors, for instance. The visibility of someone in authority may have a deterrent effect. That, and the respect of these figures by the media. Look at the way traffic wardens are treated by the media. Is it any wonder they get abused and attacked in the street?

Splendid. That's more like it. You're utterly right, we do need these figures of authority. We are in this odd hinterland where the Churches, which for so long assumed the mantle of telling us how we should behave in order to work as a society, has no customers. It's a time when hopefully organised religion gets back to doing what it originally did, which was put people in touch with positive energy. Hopefully also somebody can take on the role of deciding society's most benificial behavioural patterns. We see the stirring of this in the Govberment's pontifications about anti-social behaviour.

Trouble is the govt needs a little more credibility in order to not set people sneering openly at its ASBOS and its pompousness. How can we take behavioural advice from a group of proven moral bankrupts? is the logic. In addition to local figures of authority this nation needs a Mandela or a Ghandhi, a secular messiah. I'd love to nominate somebody but I just don't think Bob Geldof quite cuts the mustard, however much the Press is deifying the feller at the moment. Any nominees, anyone?

Oh and my last post, Max, at least moved you to come up with answers - very good ones at that - rather than just snit.

Originally posted by Abdul
So..... what do you suggest then?

What will be a suitable deterrent?

Most people don't want a prison in their back yard, nor for violent criminals to be treated with kid gloves.

Hi Abdul -

If I knew the answers to anti-social behaviour, I'd have made a fortune by selling my ideas to governments around the world.

But I do not believe that flogging, or any other form of corporal punishment, acts as a deterrent. Just as hanging was never a deterrent for acts of murder.

I agree with your sentiments that most people do not want to treat violent criminals with kid gloves, and, IMO, nor are more prisons the answer.

I am a firm believer in restorative punishment and restitution. I think that there needs to be greater flexibility in the criminal justice system to allow the punishment to fit the crime. I think this is preferable than fixed penalties, as it would allow the courts to take greater account of the victim, and ensure that convicted criminals faced up to their responsibilities as citizens by making good the harm they inflict on individuals (restitution) and society at large (restorative punishment).

Red

I think what Cyclone and Max said is partly true. It's quite probable that many acts of domestic violence went unreported in earlier days because it was regarded almost as a non-crime by many people and even by the police. I suppose another aspect is that people didn't want their domestic problems to be made public , in many cases.
However , we could go round in circles for ever because , again , even today , I guess that many domestic crimes go unreported , so it seems a pretty fruitless excercise.How do we know how many cases are NOT reported , in 1901 or 2005 ?
As for non-domestic crimes , especially the one we're talking about , young men committing violent crime , it seems from reports in the press , on T.V. and even on S.F. that a lot of people don't bother reporting crimes , in general , as they think the police are , nowadays , less effective or are overwhelmed by crime. Admittedly , in the old days , people couldn't just pick up a 'phone but in cases of violent crime or murder or unlawful deaths , most of these come to public notice one way or another. I don't see the reasoning behind the argument that years ago , people didn't bother to report violent crime. If anything they were perhaps MORE likely to do so , as the police had better clear up rates then and there was more confidence in the police.
It's pretty astounding in fact that some people seem to hate to admit that violence /violent crime has increased in the past 30 years . Perhaps there's a huge conspiracy amongst all the agencies involved to lie about it for some reason.?
I admit that one is not deliberately inflicting violence on a child , by pushing them roughly out of the way of a runaway lorry , but never-the -less , it IS a violent act and it brings home sharply to a child the deadly danger they were in. In the case of a young thug , you are inflicting judicial violence on him/her to sharply bring home the fact that they ought no longer to go around chinning , stabbing or otherwise maiming people-----once is more than enough.

Is it not possible that violent punishment such as flogging or the death penalty invokes additional violence against the victim. even as far as murder in order to silence them.

Well , Buck , if you believe that violent crime in America and Britain hasn't increased during the past 30 years , then I suppose , there isn't much point in physically punishing anyone. The whole argument centres around the fact that some of us think that violence of all kinds-----but especially by young males ----- HAS increased and since the rise co-incided with the abolition of physical punishment in schools and prisons and the abolition of capital punishment , we think there could well be a case for bringing physical punishment back.
I'm sure there are lots of people who believe that , basically , human beings are good , gentle , kind creatures and that if we appeal to their better nature , they will give up violence and start helping old ladies across the road. Unfortunately [ at least this is how it looks in Britain ] , as soon as the authorities begin to be gentle and understanding , the thugs come out of the woodwork , in the classroom and on the street and fill the power vacuum.
Does judicial violence damage people ? Well , if it did seriously damage children , millions of people who matured in the '50's and '60's would have been gibbering , neurotic wrecks. Not true ; in fact there seems to be more screwed -up people around today than ever there was , despite our touchy-feely approach to life.

I think its very interesting the way we view society as split into criminals and victims of crime. I think this is a somewhat futile way of viewing things.

I myself am neither a criminal (apart from the occasional puff, ooo take me away :) ) nor a victim of crime. Some people are most definitely both! For example drug addicts who have suffered parental abuse as a child, or someone who commits a murder as revenge for someone else murder. Obviously not everyone who commits crime is a victim of crime, but I think lots are.

A couple of things strike me.

The first is something my mother told me once from her time working in the Probation service.
Generally deterrents do not work because criminals by and large do not believe they will be caught.

The other thing, which I am surprised nobody has pointed out, is that the majority of violent crime is actually drunken youths bashing each other up.

Obviously sometimes innocent bystanders are targetted and in those cases a prison sentence for GBH would presumably be in order.

But in those cases where young men meet each other to beat each other up, deliberately and for entertainment - as they have done for years - we would be better off finding them a safe place to just get on with it and leaving them to it, really.

I dont see how flogging them would help - perhaps we could encourage them to flog each other instead?

Originally posted by kathythebean
I think its very interesting the way we view society as split into criminals and victims of crime. I think this is a somewhat futile way of viewing things.

I myself am neither a criminal (apart from the occasional puff, ooo take me away :) ) nor a victim of crime. Some people are most definitely both! For example drug addicts who have suffered parental abuse as a child, or someone who commits a murder as revenge for someone else murder. Obviously not everyone who commits crime is a victim of crime, but I think lots are.

for any given criminal act though there is at least a criminal committing it (put that spliff down, you're off to the clink).
There may also be a victim, obviously dependant on the crime.

This is how the criminal/victim categorisation is applied, it's for a specific act, not a general label for life.

Belle - There might be a few youths who do as you suggest. But the majority of violent crime (of which white men ages 18 - 24 are the most likely to be a victim) is not consensual. Drunken fighting (in my experience) is generally one person (or group) who went out with that intention choosing a victim or victims (generally people who least appear able to defend themselves, ie smaller/younger or extremely drunk) and then assaulting them.

If it was consensual violence (which is still illegal by the way) then it might be easier to just ignore it as everyone involved wishes to be so, but I don't think that's the case most of the time.

Originally posted by EdEd
how can violence solve violence?

With respect this is a bit of a glib statement that has not really been thought through.

as an extreme example, executing a killer will prevent him killing again so in such a case the use of violence against a guilty person prevents them being violent to another inocent one.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
With respect this is a bit of a glib statement that has not really been thought through.

as an extreme example, executing a killer will prevent him killing again so in such a case the use of violence against a guilty person prevents them being violent to another inocent one.

ah, but you haven't followed through on your own thoughts.

What happens then is that the brother of the executed person hunts down the family of the person murdered and the judge who sentenced the murderer and the hangman himself and murders them all.
He is in turn hung, and a viscous cycle of revenge ensues.

All this could have been avoided by not hanging the original person, but locking them away, which just as effectively stops them killing anyone else.

As you probably already know, there are death penalties in the US. It is up to each state to decide if it wants the death penalty or not. My state of Connecticut is the only New England one that does, and has just executed a serial killer for the first time in over 40 years, this was for the brutal killing of 8 young women back in the seventies. Southern states seem to carry them out frequently, with Texas by far the most frequent ( George Bush's state). Texas remains one of the most dangerous homicide states in the Union, so the deterrent does not work. In fact a rapist is like ly to kill to avoid detection.
I had a personal experience which colored my opinion on the death penalty. I was selected as a juror in the Chastity Wade case. She had murdered her 2 children because she was about to lose her boyfriend, which is a capital offence. I managed to get off on the excuse that at my age I was likely to fall asleep during the trial, which is considered contempt of court and jailable. But the real reason was I could not face the possibility of putting someone to death.
I'm sure there are those of you who will say I'm a wimp, but fortunately for you in the civilised UK, you do not have to face the possibility.

That is very interesting Buck. I certainly don't think you are a wimp!

I remeber from a module I did a while back that executions rise around election time, and also that in most southern states the death penalty is used more frequently for black-on-white crime than black-on-black or white-on-black. Have you noticed this in your own experience?

You're exactly right Kathy. Which all goes to prove that justice is not served. The Southern states have advanced some, they no longer lynch, but they still have a way to go. How can a murder be any less serious on the streets of New York than it is on the streets of Atlanta.

How about public floggings for young women too - mmmmmmm nice!

Whoops ........................wrong forum ;-)

How would people want to see the flogging carried out?
What about bringing back the birch for juveniles??

With so much recent talk about anti-social behaviour in city centres on Friday and Saturday nights and how it can be reduced has one option been excluded from the debate? Namely, public flogging.

This isn't a thread about the morality or otherwise of flogging but rather whether or not it would prove a sufficient deterant. These young men (and occasionally women) seem to enjoy inflicting pain on others so why not give them a taste of their own medicine and see how they like it. My guess is that they wouldn't like it at all and if it were public enough there would be a sufficient deterant.

What do you think?

You could have it on PPV on Gay TV

public flogging?

absolutely, chain up these aggro scumbags in the middle of town, and allow everyone to put the boot in repeatedly all weekend...

on sunday night, if they are still breathing, let em slither off...

public flogging?

absolutely, chain up these aggro scumbags in the middle of town, and allow everyone to put the boot in repeatedly all weekend...

on sunday night, if they are still breathing, let em slither off...

If I thought you were serious I'd bother to argue with you........

Are antisocial behaviour and weekend city-centre violence really that much of a problem though? Aren't they just the most recent tabloid bogeyman, and can be tied in quite neatly with "feral" teenagers wearing hoodies? :(

I live in a city centre and I'm quite regularly out after 10pm when I go to the cinema, yet I can't remember seeing any city-centre violence for several years. Even if it is, corporal punishment is a backward notion which 21st century UK society has moved on from. I don't see how hitting somebody with a big stick can teach someone that hitting someone else is wrong. :loopy:

So, when exactly was this when there was less crime?

In the Middle Ages, with wars raging backwards and forwards across Europe?

In the English Civil War when brother killed brother?

In the 19th century when people got hung for stealing loaves of bread to feed their children?

I'm racking my memory hard, trying to think.... :loopy:

StarSparkle
Perhaps try the 1940s-1960. And we had National Service back then which turned boys into men. Real men, not those who think ten thugs onto one hapless innocent who happened to be in the wronhg place is bravery worthy of a Victoria Cross, when it should be worthy of six strokes of the cane as in Singapore. And it is no surprise that you can venture into bars and walk the streets safely there without fear of being beaten up by seed-brained knuckledraggers.

So, when exactly was this when there was less crime?

In the Middle Ages, with wars raging backwards and forwards across Europe?

In the English Civil War when brother killed brother?

In the 19th century when people got hung for stealing loaves of bread to feed their children?

I'm racking my memory hard, trying to think.... :loopy:

StarSparkle
Perhaps try the 1940s-1960. And we had National Service back then which turned boys into men. Real men, not those who think ten thugs onto one hapless innocent who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is bravery worthy of a Victoria Cross, when it should be worthy of six strokes of the cane as in Singapore. And it is no surprise that you can venture into bars and walk the streets safely there without fear of being beaten up by seed-brained knuckledraggers.

Don't know if national service is all you big it up to be firecracker.

Some interesting info about suicide rates and negative effects on the country:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/peacetime_conscripts_03.shtml

With so much recent talk about anti-social behaviour in city centres on Friday and Saturday nights and how it can be reduced has one option been excluded from the debate? Namely, public flogging.

This isn't a thread about the morality or otherwise of flogging but rather whether or not it would prove a sufficient deterant. These young men (and occasionally women) seem to enjoy inflicting pain on others so why not give them a taste of their own medicine and see how they like it. My guess is that they wouldn't like it at all and if it were public enough there would be a sufficient deterant.

What do you think?

There's nothing occassional regarding incidents of violent disorder involving women my friend. A walk through town on any Friday or Saturday night will show you this. Not a week goes by when I have not witnessed a bitch fight between a group of pigs in dresses, all helped along with a dozen bottles or so of Smirnoff Ice.:hihi:

Yeah , well , it was in the past when we had a lot less crime.

Evidence for this please.

Why not bring back the death sentance for murderers while your at it.

Those kind of punishments belong in the past, we need to find new ways to deter young people from doing these things, not publicly humiliate and torture them.

No, maybe bringing back the death penalty would become a deterrent for the would be criminal of today.

If you commit murder- you deserve to drop in my opinion.

Maybe bringing back capital punishment would sort the gene pool out for us seeing as how nothing else seems to be working nowadays.

Hi Abdul -

If I knew the answers to anti-social behaviour, I'd have made a fortune by selling my ideas to governments around the world.

But I do not believe that flogging, or any other form of corporal punishment, acts as a deterrent. Just as hanging was never a deterrent for acts of murder.

I agree with your sentiments that most people do not want to treat violent criminals with kid gloves, and, IMO, nor are more prisons the answer.

I am a firm believer in restorative punishment and restitution. I think that there needs to be greater flexibility in the criminal justice system to allow the punishment to fit the crime. I think this is preferable than fixed penalties, as it would allow the courts to take greater account of the victim, and ensure that convicted criminals faced up to their responsibilities as citizens by making good the harm they inflict on individuals (restitution) and society at large (restorative punishment).

Red

And how is a murderer, such as Ian Huntley for example, going to make good the harm he has done?

He and his ilk want stringing up.:thumbsup:

And how is a murderer, such as Ian Huntley for example, going to make good the harm he has done?

He and his ilk want stringing up.:thumbsup:

No they don't.

No they don't.


Yes they do:thumbsup:

Yes they do:thumbsup:
No they don't.

Capital punishment is state sanctioned murder and thus immoral.
It has no deterrent value.
Innocent people die.
No - one has the right to take another persons life ; two wrongs don't make a right.

And quit the blimmin' thumbs up smiley would you? Since when has killing people been a jolly lark?

No they don't.

Capital punishment is state sanctioned murder and thus immoral.
It has no deterrent value.
Innocent people die.
No - one has the right to take another persons life ; two wrongs don't make a right.

And quit the blimmin' thumbs up smiley would you? Since when has killing people been a jolly lark?

I consider the state sanctioned killing of pedarists and child killers a necessity not a jolly lark old boy:thumbsup: ooops sorry:D

I consider the state sanctioned killing of peadarists and child killers a necessity not a jolly lark old boy:thumbsup: ooops sorry:D
What the hell's a peadarist? And why just whatever pea - thingy's and child killers? Why is it necesssary?

If I thought you were serious I'd bother to argue with you........

yeah im sure you would, we live in a country where sensible moral and ethical debate can take place freely across most/all subjects. And on that point my contribution does not hold any weight at all; it isnt an argument i would defend vehemently.

however, there are some cretinous idiots out there, and occasionally, i feel like the best way to deal with them is to stick em in the centre of town, and flog the living daylights out of them.

barbaric and 'uncivillised', morally suspect and flawed in all sorts of ways.

but to see the person who raped your wife, or robbed your home, or kidnapped your kids, getting the shoeing of a lifetime...a very small but curiously significant part of me finds the idea...appealing.

yeah im sure you would, we live in a country where sensible moral and ethical debate can take place freely across most/all subjects. And on that point my contribution does not hold any weight at all; it isnt an argument i would defend vehemently.

however, there are some cretinous idiots out there, and occasionally, i feel like the best way to deal with them is to stick em in the centre of town, and flog the living daylights out of them.

barbaric and 'uncivillised', morally suspect and flawed in all sorts of ways.

but to see the person who raped your wife, or robbed your home, or kidnapped your kids, getting the shoeing of a lifetime...a very small but curiously significant part of me finds the idea...appealing.
Fair do's John - it isn't always easy to "read" the true emotional intent behind posts. Liberal (almost) to the core as I am, I do confess to the very rare occasions when a revenge fantasy crosses my mind....but don't tell anyone(!)

What the hell's a peadarist? And why just whatever pea - thingy's and child killers? Why is it necesssary?

Oooops again sorry spelling mistake don't hang me:hihi:

Definition: Paedarast : a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a 'boy' as the passive partner.

What the hell's a peadarist? And why just whatever pea - thingy's and child killers? Why is it necesssary?
overload,overload,overload, halibut you must calm yourself down, just because some one challenges your opinion it isnt worth a heart attack,is it ?

overload,overload,overload, halibut you must calm yourself down, just because some one challenges your opinion it isnt worth a heart attack,is it ?

Yeah chill:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

It certainly isn't worth a heart attack is it guys.....ta for the concern. Consider me chilled. I'll go and pour a large one.

It certainly isn't worth a heart attack is it guys.....ta for the concern. Consider me chilled. I'll go and pour a large one.

Nice:cool:

time for a nice kebab methinks...

hey cheers halibut, im pretty much liberal myself but its just every now and then...ynkow:rolleyes:

i think ultimately its a debate which will not settle down, and its been ongoing as part of the larger capital punishment question.

it rest on these points for me:

can we prove beyond doubt

that person is responsible?
was and is in command of his/her faculties?
was unjustified in their attack?

further to those questions, can we establish whether that person is able to

feel sorrow and remorse
be rehabilitated

etc etc. if the answers were clear to these questions, we could reduce the constituent parts down to a few 'yes' or 'no' responses...but there are so many ambiguities within those crass few questions that we have to keep asking similar, related questions, governing the persons mental make-up, background and environment...

on the surface they appear 'yes' or 'no' questions, and my 'gut reaction' is to 'string em up', but a 'civilised' country does not operate on instinctual fantasies...so my knee-jerk voice is not the one in command, nor should it be!!