FatBastad wrote:
So you critisise my opinion but offer no solution yourself?
Er, no, I just suggested that it wasn't based on sound evidence
FatBastad wrote:
I bet you have spelks permanently up your arse, the amount of times you sit on the fence.
Nice! I think you'll find that I just won't given you a sound bite answer - it doesn't mean I don't have opinions, I'm just not spouting them willy nilly without thinking.
FatBastad wrote:
You cant govern the country by thinking about issues, you have to make choices/decisions.
And you have to make them quick.
Er, no. That's the Blair way: do you agree with him on this?
You actually make decisions in a considered manner, and not by jumping on the latest crisis or fad. You don't decide how to build a bridge the minute you see the need for one; you ask important questions such as will this idea work, how will we implement it, will it be cost effective? If you don't do these things you make massive mistakes. See the current criminal justice process for evidence of short term thinking and the problems it causes.
FatBastad wrote:
So..........just tell us what you think?
I've been doing this all along. Just because you don't like my answers, it doesn't mean that they're not valid!
FatBastad wrote:
If someone robs your close relative(elderly), and physically harms them, what should be their punishment?
If someone robs your close relative(elderly), without physically harming them, what should be their punishment?
I'll indulge you on this one. The long answer first - it depends on your sentencing aims. For instance, are you interested in denunciation, rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence or reparation? And are you aware of the pitfalls of each aim? Is each aim justified or even achievable? i.e., you need to think about what you're doing.
The answer you desire - I'd want a restorative process whereby victim (and supporters) and offender come face to face and attempt to agree on a solution (and that can include custody). The evidence suggests that, if properly implemented, it has more chance of benefiting EVERYONE in the process.
Now comes the liberal accusations and the like I guess. Bring 'em on... (but give me the
evidence that suggests your approach would be better given that I've given an opinion.