Perhaps she should sit around a table with them to discuss why THEY felt the need to rob her?

I was kind of hoping there'd be nothing interesting on here so that I could get on with work.....

I guess I'd call myself a liberal, but the reason for that isn't namby-pambyism....it's more to do with blame/free-will issues. For instance, if you were like those men in EVERY respect : genes, brain states, upbringing, environmental factors, everything... you would have done exactly what they did.

Thats, without wanting to sound to scientific, is complete cack

No, that's not what I said, Cornelius.

I did not

Is this a two minute argument or did you buy the full half hour??

In this case, the two blokes who can attack a 91 year old half blind woman in her own home are beyond redemption. One alone maybe but if they colluded, there's no mitigation. Sod the background, they made the decision. Jointly. Throw the key away.

Next.

I wouldn't necessarily rule out throwing the key away, if that was the best solution available to society, after consideration. But I'd still say that free will is a highly debatable concept.

OK the two men could have chosen not to attack this particular old lady, at this particular time, but if that's how they're wired they'd have done something similar sooner or later

Free will my barse

In addition they may have done something similar soon or later, ah well thats OK then

Who said it was OK?
If you don't want to think about this, then don't. But if so, why bother joining in?

I have thought about it and it is a weak argument to day they may have done it sooner or later, to ME it is almost apologizing for their actions

It is a premeditated crime of the worst kind against a vulnerable member of society, no wringing of hands or psycho babble can detract from the fact that the two of them should be made to pay for this crime with the loss of liberty for a long time

Talbot I couldn't agree more that they should have their liberty removed....I've said that already

As for the other bits, perhaps we should just agree to differ. You don't refute an argument by saying it's hand-wringing or psycho-babble.

I used to think I was a liberal, now probably marginally to the left of Facist

How about caning them in the centre circle at Vic Park at 10 minutes to three on a matchday- their crime having been announced to the crowd, so plenty of jeering etc. - and no I'm not joking or taking the piss, I'm deadly serious, sick of all this pandering to the criminals, young thugs roaming the streets terrorising people, etc. etc. It's time something was done - and I don't mean handing out fucking asbo's for them to brag about

Someone once asked me, on these boards, "do you speak to your students like that" (or words to that effect)?

The answer is no, but then this isn't a seminar room or lecture theatre. The more I think about it, however, said questioner is sitting in a glass house.

I sometimes think these 'discussions' get a little heated, but can you imagine what the debate would be like on rivals......

I don't care what the discussion is like on rivals. I don't post there for good reason...

But the drugs message is all wrong isn't it?? I daresay that there's a smattering of people on here that have dabbled in drugs but to my knowledge none of us ever felt the need to smack an old lady about so we could buy a teenth??

It needs saying that if you get hooked on stuff you can't afford you won't just end up backlit in a doorway on some poster, you'll end up in the system for the foreseeable future with a day filled with probation officers, blood and urine checks, sharing a cell with a predatory homosexual and probably still have some part time doorman chasing you for the money you still owe. And you'll be unemployable, possibly diseased, friendless and living on benefits, shopping in shit places like Netto, estranged from your family, hated in the community and homeless.

And if you still want to do it, get on with it, the agencies have all closed and you're on your own, and it's open season on thieving addicts.

Sorted.

funny thing is kev...with all the drugs info, warnings and general education on the subject now, there's still fools who try it......

I don't think you'll find anyone here excusing an attack; we just disagree as to the most viable solution.

Quite. And as Chip said, it's more comfortable to see things in black and white than to address the issues.

Terrorists for example.....why the death penalty,necessarily, Cornelius?
To make it all the easier for Israel to go on bashing your nation?

For all you know, the old lady you mentioned might be someone who herself neglected/abused a child and therefore contributed to the state of mind of a law-breaker

yes, I think I see now the tenor of the debate. I'll pop back to rivals then

Still no debate, Cornelius? Nothing changed there, then.

It many senses it has made it worse. Most worryingly of all, it has been interpreted as a war on race.

Not for a minute spud, but if the message gets home early enough, they might just consider what they're about to embark on. I'm talking prevention, not cure. A friendly bobby giving a cosy chat in the school doesn't carry enough impact. A good look at a blood vomiting, shaking, pasty, half dead, boil ridden, skin and bone, cold turkey sufferer or the like, might.

And not giving pop 'starts' like keith doherty press space would be a massive help, in my opinion like!

where's this idea come from that lefties and liberals take the criminal's side when barbaric and disgusting crimes are committed? just last week i was reading a load of twaddle from some right-wing idiots about how everyone who opposed the Iraq war (that one where we were lied to and fear was manufactured to justify going in) is a fascist sympathiser who rejoices in suicide bombings. It's complete nonsense - the biggest straw man in modern discussion.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the majority of people, liberal or otherwise, wouldn't condone the harshest of punishments for thugs like those that beat up 91 year old women in her home - stopping short at the death sentence, which is misguided as a punishment for anything. Personally I like the idea of hard forced labour, cos it's productive and disciplined. Yet when I hint that i have a liberal viewpoint, I get people assuming that I'm some hippy campaigning for more DVD players and day trips for prisoners or something. it's bollocks perpetrated by the right-wingers, who undoubtably are so insecure about their own viewpoints that they have to fabricate swathes of other people's arguments to feel better about themselves.

The difference I see between the liberal viewpoint on crime, and the traditional conservative views, are that the liberals look to identify the root cause of problems, which inevitably will entail seeing things from offender's point of view. This is when progress is made. The right-wing preference is that old-fashioned justice is dished out, and more and more people are shunted from society, alienated and disenfranchised. the problem with this, based entirely on what we see in this country with our eyes, is that is doesn't fucking work.

The main reason why the 'liberal' card is played , again in my humble opinion, because of the need to see things from the offenders side, when quite often, the victim is more or less let to look after their own problems

The trouble with the right wingers is one day they're saying "String em up!"
and the next "Hanging's too good for em!"

i wish they'd make their minds up

Once again, you assume what the argument will be from those "of the left". There is nothing inconsistent in calling for both offenders rights and victims rights; it's not a zero sum game. Indeed, this is what restorative justice is all about, but you chose to not engage with the idea, but instead to simply engage in sarcasm.

Sorry but what the feck was sacrcastic about my last comment, it was my point of view,as was the fact I really do believe that the vicitim is more or less pushed to one side

I meant this:



Are you trying to tell me that this wasn't a sarcastic dig at a post of mine in an earlier thread? Given the next post was:



A direct quote from that thread, I think it a reasonable conclusion of mine, don't you?

Just the usual, being an argumentative bastad.

the victim is pushed to one side by whom?

look at it rationally - you can only resolve problems if you learn about them.

you can't learn much from a victim, as they're more-or-less randomly targeted.

you can learn from the criminals- they are the ones committing the crimes, so have the best understanding as to what makes them do it (and equally what would make them stop)

this means more attention needs paying to criminals. this does not equate to treating the criminals more leniently. Nor does it equate to disregarding or 'pushing aside' the victims. As Marxy said, the two viewpoints are by no means mutually exclusive.

It's a meaningless and unhelpful point of view to take.

I can only go from experience of a the victim from past experience

It's a meaningless and unhelpful point of view to take.[/quote]

See, that is YOUR point of view, it DOESNT make mine unhelp or pointless

And it's the experience of most victims, me included! I agree with your concern for victims - It's one of the things I've atually published on, but I don't think that means that we can't look to the offender as well.

I suspect that next time I'm at a match, I'll have to buy you and the Cat a pint!

I don't know if you've noticed, but, ...we've had legions of social workers, probation officers, in fact the whole spectrum of the criminal psychology industry studying the views of the criminal for years and where exactly are we......? What have they learnt?...because whatever these pearls of wisdom the criminal fraternity have to impart, I see no practical benefits as yet.
Your theory as such may have sounded new and refeshing as an introduction to sociology when spouted by some dungaree clad harridan with unwashed hair and smelling of cats to a group of eager students in the 70's ...but the worlds a wiser and more cynical place nowadays and quite frankly the intellectual ramblings of some smackhead burglar and his philosophising of the reasons for his crimnal activities are of zero concern to me.

I suspect that next time I'm at a match, I'll have to buy you and the Cat a pint![/quote]

Mr Marx, do you feel the need to buy placatory drinks every time you win arguments?!
I think you should examine this issue.....

Mr Marx, do you feel the need to buy placatory drinks every time you win arguments?!
I think you should examine this issue.....[/quote]

Is it hard to slap one's own back?

How the feck did he win the 'argument'?, I didnt realise the goal was to 'win' the argument, little silly dumb old me without such insights into social well being and care thought it was a discussion

Is it hard to slap one's own back?

How the feck did he win the 'argument'?, I didnt realise the goal was to 'win' the argument, little silly dumb old me without such insights into social well being and care thought it was a discussion

[/quote]

It is a discussion, Talbot....I meant 'argument' in the sense of 'debate'.
Also, it was rather obviously intended as a joke

dont you think that the legal profession have made a mess of this through the innocent till proved business
despite some people caught red handed they can go to court and in some cases come away laughing
ok it might be their right but it still sticks in my craw when a lawyer is getting paid for getting someone off who we all know is guilty
and the state pay for the privelege
ok i am harping back to when i was a lad but in those days if you were caught out you took your medicine
this legal system that gets them off is only encouraging them to risk it again and again
only my humble opinion

Restorative justice has been around for a while, in a crappy diluted sense.
I worked at Sunderland Youth Offending Team six years ago when Referral Orders came out, which were supposed to be based upon resorative justice. This was for offenders convicted for the first time in court.
I've chaired loads of these things (did it for three years) and believe me, I have seen offenders shitting themselves completely when they knew their victim was turning up. It can work brilliantly.
Stand there and face someone going off it cos you've nicked their car, or been involved in it, and they can explain everything to do with finances and how disrupted their life has become. It is the best thing, if done correctly, to make offenders actually think of consequences.
Of course there are potential problems - revictimisation, victims wanting to kick offenders heads in etc...and its more likely to work in real communities - which dont exist very much anymore
But it can work very well indeed.

My mate lived on the Central in the early 90's and was once punched down the stairs outside his flat because he wouldnt sign on for the bloke in the flat opposite

Is it hard to slap one's own back?

How the feck did he win the 'argument'?, I didnt realise the goal was to 'win' the argument, little silly dumb old me without such insights into social well being and care thought it was a discussion

[/quote]

The suggestion was made to try and take some of the heat out of this. Having met Dibbs, and sharing a pint with him, I think I sort of know where he's coming from. I suspect that with you, while I often interpret your posts as unduly confrontational, I'd probably think differently if I met you?

Anyway, front page of today's Guardian Society insert:

"Facing the consequences: New research shows that bringing criminals in contact with victims deters re-offending more than prison, but will Government support match its rhetoric?"

Too much student debt to be rich. As for class, I don't really fit in anywhere now. I'm not sure if my part of Brum is suburbia, but it's defo not the central! The car had it's door crow bared off the other week; does this count?

Come on then dibbs; this is from the real world, not an academic with his head in the clouds!

(Cheers Mr BWH; I'd love to talk to you about this sometime!)

I've taken to 'stroking my beard' and nodding 'sagely', in a 'pondering' sort of way recently, probably because it is a new addition to my 50 year old features. Does this make me a lily livered liberal too?
My 16 year old son asks to borrow it on occasions when he feels the need to 'ponder' on the intricacies of his A level studies. He seems to find it very benificial.

God it's breaking out everywhere, smugness. The beard stroking classes got angry in their youth and advocated the destruction of the class system and have replaced it with their own version where they gather in groups in freetrade coffee bars or real ale pubs and lamnet the state of society ....much like the people they wished to rid the world of ..arise the bearded classes, ...... plus cest change

i've never had any money, me. i'm a street kid. i hardly even wash.

if i was middle class and/or financially secure I don't think I'd be half as arsed about social justice as I am.