On 23/03/2016 18:47, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:37:15 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:26:06 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:22:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:16:39 -0000, Bod
wrote:

On 23/03/2016 14:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:55:41 -0000, Aardvark

wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:14:20 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

Oren Wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:53:08 +0000 (GMT+00:00), Aardvark
wrote:

In your country they all seem to use weapons. Our criminals
hardly
ever do.

3 of 5 convicted felons surveyed, using guns. say would not
target a
person if they thought the intended victim had a gun. They
prey
upon
the weak, not the well armed. Fact.


In this country they generally don't use weapons and prey on
those
they *hope* are weak.

That's why the criminals have chocolate delivered to their
cells and
placed on the pillows.


People are sent to prison *as* punishment in this country, not
*for* punishment. Such is the case in all civilised
countries.

Those two statements mean precisely the same to me. What is the
difference?

Sent to prison *as punishment* ie: being deprived of your
liberty, but
not *for further punishment* ie; being deprived of your basic human
rights/ hard labour or any other extra punishment.
Being sent to prison IS your punishment.

Why jail someone in a nice way for 30 years instead of in a cruel
way
for 15 years?

Well?

Don't you find it absurd that in the UK, TV is a human right in
jail?

No.

Why do you want to be nice to someone who has committed a crime
serious
enough to be jailed?

Like for smoking weed or petty thieving etc?

Smoking weed shouldn't be illegal, but that's beside the point.

If you're in jail, the law has decided you are bad. You are to be
punished. Why lock you up, but then give you luxuries? Those are
opposites. All you're doing with the luxuries is lessening the
punishment. Why not lessen it instead by shortening the sentence,
saving money on jail time and on luxuries? The person receives the same
effective punishment, but has more of their (hopefully corrected) life
ahead of them.

Say a prisoner gets half the original sentence, then he's locked up for
say 4 years instead of 8 and you deny him any pleasure (tv etc).
Locked up for 23 a day,that will turn that prisoner into either a loony
or a very angry and violent person and the wardens will have a hell of a
time with him/her.
Think about it.

No, it'll make him think about what he's done.

And imagine it was you. You've maybe had a rougher time for 4 years,
but it's only 4 years. The next 4 years you are free instead of being
locked up. I'd take the 4 without TV.

Fortunately civilised countries treat their prisoners with respect.

--
Bod