devonwoody
Established Member
I've got the feeling I'm winning this discussion only around 10 members have put up negative answers to mine, and over 240 persons have looked at thread and that leaves 230 ish that dont disagree.
OK here goes
- Thread starter devonwoody
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
karl":3q1jepf9 said:
Karl do you believe all that Harry Potter stuff?
Its all a bit too far fetched for me. I mean I can understand the wizards and the flying car but come on a ginger kid with two mates.
Now thats taking it a bit far. :lol:
I probably remember as many of the quoted miscarriages as anybody else on this forum.
At one time death was the only penalty in English law for murder, now we have the opposite! IMO both were/are wrong!
Some years ago a man was ordered by his local council to knock down the large structure he had erected on his allotment, he refused and police and workmen were brought in to see to its removal.
In front of the TV cameras the man shot dead the council rep.
Anyone else remember it?
The chap pleaded not guilty!
Millions of witnesses, should he not have paid for his crime with his own life?
Roy.
At one time death was the only penalty in English law for murder, now we have the opposite! IMO both were/are wrong!
Some years ago a man was ordered by his local council to knock down the large structure he had erected on his allotment, he refused and police and workmen were brought in to see to its removal.
In front of the TV cameras the man shot dead the council rep.
Anyone else remember it?
The chap pleaded not guilty!
Millions of witnesses, should he not have paid for his crime with his own life?
Roy.
StevieB
Established Member
Hmm, can see this thread getting locked before long!
Alcohol is the single biggest drug problem in the UK, and if it were 'discovered' today would immediately be a class A drug. It is also the single biggest expense in terms of treatment cost to the NHS, not only from the Friday night special turning up in A&E but from liver failure, kidney failure, obesity and long term diabetic complications as well.
As to the issue of free and legalised drugs, I think it is simplistic to suggest it would lead to drops in crime rates and antisocial behaviour. Where do you draw the line? Free heroin and cocaine? Free cannabis? Free paracetamol? Free anabolic steroids? Why make recreational drugs free and not Interferon beta for cancer patients or tamoxifen and cisplatin for breast cancer patients?
We are currently experiencing a debate over cheap alcohol leading to increased use and abuse. If drugs were free and legal dont you think the useage would increase? Quite apart from the legal implications of making something freely available that WILL kill or seriously damage health, would you really want a population on drugs legally?! Its not so easy to tell if someone is high on drugs as compared to having drunk several pints. Would you let your spouse/child in a taxi with a driver high on legal drugs? Would you be able to tell if he was high? Increase supply and you increase uptake, quite possibly with unforseen consequences. Increased death rates and medical complications among them.
I am afraid I just cannot agree with the make drugs free to reduce crime argument, sorry.
Steve.
Alcohol is the single biggest drug problem in the UK, and if it were 'discovered' today would immediately be a class A drug. It is also the single biggest expense in terms of treatment cost to the NHS, not only from the Friday night special turning up in A&E but from liver failure, kidney failure, obesity and long term diabetic complications as well.
As to the issue of free and legalised drugs, I think it is simplistic to suggest it would lead to drops in crime rates and antisocial behaviour. Where do you draw the line? Free heroin and cocaine? Free cannabis? Free paracetamol? Free anabolic steroids? Why make recreational drugs free and not Interferon beta for cancer patients or tamoxifen and cisplatin for breast cancer patients?
We are currently experiencing a debate over cheap alcohol leading to increased use and abuse. If drugs were free and legal dont you think the useage would increase? Quite apart from the legal implications of making something freely available that WILL kill or seriously damage health, would you really want a population on drugs legally?! Its not so easy to tell if someone is high on drugs as compared to having drunk several pints. Would you let your spouse/child in a taxi with a driver high on legal drugs? Would you be able to tell if he was high? Increase supply and you increase uptake, quite possibly with unforseen consequences. Increased death rates and medical complications among them.
I am afraid I just cannot agree with the make drugs free to reduce crime argument, sorry.
Steve.
StevieB
Established Member
No it doesn't, it leave 230 that have not commented. Whether they agree or disagree cannot be assumed from the fact they havent posted.
Steve
devonwoody
Established Member
Digit":2iiur4uj said:
I wonder how many appeals he has launched with the connivance of the legal profession whose only thought on that case could be for them to make some money.
RogerS
Established Member
You raise some interesting points.
Where is your evidence to support this claim? How much money is 'lost' to the country as a result of crimes committed to find the money to feed a drugs habit?
Probably yes to all the above although I'm not sure how many grannies get bashed over the head to fund a paracetamol habit. Don't patients get Tamoxifen on the NHS?
StevieB":4e6sncjw said:
Where is your evidence to support this claim? How much money is 'lost' to the country as a result of crimes committed to find the money to feed a drugs habit?
StevieB":4e6sncjw said:
Probably yes to all the above although I'm not sure how many grannies get bashed over the head to fund a paracetamol habit. Don't patients get Tamoxifen on the NHS?
Whether you have free-issue drugs or not - a driver can still be high on drugs. Your statement that 'increase supply and you increase uptake' is not necessarily true.StevieB":4e6sncjw said:
devonwoody
Established Member
I surrender on that one., but I did say connivance, those that are not conivening please forgive me.
StevieB
Established Member
Hi Roger,
Evidence comes from a number of sources, including the media:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3537257.stm
government reports
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/nhs.pdf
Verbal report from a police chief inspector (regarding alcohol as a class A drug) I spoke to at a meeting
and the fact that I currently work in a stroke / cardiovascular research unit and see the cases of alcohol related death and disability on a daily basis.
As to how much money is lost through drug related crime, I wouldn't know, but my point was not that we would save more from reduced crime compared to increased NHS costs, it was that I do not think it is as simple as a linear statement such as free drugs = reduced crime = a good idea to provide free drugs.
Regarding the cost of drugs, the more expensive ones such as interferon beta and cisplatin are health trust dependent due to their cost. This was the fuss about postcode lottery for treatment when a cancer patient was denied a drug due to the road she lived in - if she had lived down the road she would be in a different healthcare trust and which would have paid for the treatment. If as you suggest we are to make all these free, who would ultimately pick up the cost? Certainly not the pharmaceutical companies, it would be us through taxes. your point about grannies being mugged for a paracetamol habit is spurious, I was asking whether all drugs should be free and where the line was drawn, not suggesting that free paracetamol would lead to a crime epidemic.
Regarding the increase supply and you increase demand argument, I still feel this is true. If people want something and you discount it, demand goes up. If it didn't shops would not offer 3 for 2 on items or have sales. Make something free and it becomes a commodity that lots of people will want/take just because it is free. It removes one of the barriers to accessing the item. This is as true for drugs as anything else.
Society is bound by rules and convention. If it was not the result would be anarchy. Only by obeying the rules is anarchy avoided. Take away the rules so that suddenly it is OK to do something and people will do that thing. Whether its being openly gay, walking on the grass, taking drugs or anything else. Once the stigma of the action is removed then it becomes acceptable and more common. As it becomes more common it becomes more mainstream and soon becomes the norm. As a crude example take the use of the word 'crap'. a few years ago it was considered swearing. Then Gerald Ratner used it to describe his products and it hit the mainstream media in an uncensored form. Now its useage is not considered swearing and it's useage has increased. By removing the taboo / rule / convention of not using the word its useage has gone up. Sure, not everyone uses it and some never will. It is the same with drugs. Increase acceptability by taking away the stigma (my parents would be mortified if I told them I was a drug addict currently, it still carries huge stigma), increase availability by making them free and useage will increase.
I guess my whole feeling on the issue is that its not as simple as free drugs = reduced crime = a good thing.
Steve.
Evidence comes from a number of sources, including the media:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3537257.stm
government reports
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/nhs.pdf
Verbal report from a police chief inspector (regarding alcohol as a class A drug) I spoke to at a meeting
and the fact that I currently work in a stroke / cardiovascular research unit and see the cases of alcohol related death and disability on a daily basis.
As to how much money is lost through drug related crime, I wouldn't know, but my point was not that we would save more from reduced crime compared to increased NHS costs, it was that I do not think it is as simple as a linear statement such as free drugs = reduced crime = a good idea to provide free drugs.
Regarding the cost of drugs, the more expensive ones such as interferon beta and cisplatin are health trust dependent due to their cost. This was the fuss about postcode lottery for treatment when a cancer patient was denied a drug due to the road she lived in - if she had lived down the road she would be in a different healthcare trust and which would have paid for the treatment. If as you suggest we are to make all these free, who would ultimately pick up the cost? Certainly not the pharmaceutical companies, it would be us through taxes. your point about grannies being mugged for a paracetamol habit is spurious, I was asking whether all drugs should be free and where the line was drawn, not suggesting that free paracetamol would lead to a crime epidemic.
Regarding the increase supply and you increase demand argument, I still feel this is true. If people want something and you discount it, demand goes up. If it didn't shops would not offer 3 for 2 on items or have sales. Make something free and it becomes a commodity that lots of people will want/take just because it is free. It removes one of the barriers to accessing the item. This is as true for drugs as anything else.
Society is bound by rules and convention. If it was not the result would be anarchy. Only by obeying the rules is anarchy avoided. Take away the rules so that suddenly it is OK to do something and people will do that thing. Whether its being openly gay, walking on the grass, taking drugs or anything else. Once the stigma of the action is removed then it becomes acceptable and more common. As it becomes more common it becomes more mainstream and soon becomes the norm. As a crude example take the use of the word 'crap'. a few years ago it was considered swearing. Then Gerald Ratner used it to describe his products and it hit the mainstream media in an uncensored form. Now its useage is not considered swearing and it's useage has increased. By removing the taboo / rule / convention of not using the word its useage has gone up. Sure, not everyone uses it and some never will. It is the same with drugs. Increase acceptability by taking away the stigma (my parents would be mortified if I told them I was a drug addict currently, it still carries huge stigma), increase availability by making them free and useage will increase.
I guess my whole feeling on the issue is that its not as simple as free drugs = reduced crime = a good thing.
Steve.
devonwoody
Established Member
Nothing derogatory to anyone above but those that want to discuss drugs start their own thread. 
RogerS
Established Member
Slim":36dc5gtf said:
Very cogently put, Steve, and I can't argue against anything you say.
So back on topic........
StevieB
Established Member
OK, back on topic. DW, you seem to be advocating bringing back the death penalty, correct?
To me the death penalty serves only one main purpose, that of ensuring the crime committed cannot be perpetrated again. Use of the death penalty does nothing to bring back the murdered victim and does not really act as a deterrant. The flip side of not having the death penalty, to me at least, is that life should mean life. The inmate should also be made to work, whether that is sewing mail bags, breaking rocks or digging ditches is immaterial. To sentance someone to life but with allowance for release in 15 years, 10 for good behaviour, where they have a cell with luxuries in is not a punishment. Jail is a punishment, not a holiday camp.
As already stated, 100% proof is difficult to get. Its a question of where you draw the line. Lie detector tests are not infallible, scopolomine (WWII truth drug) and other medication is not infallible (and are currently illegal) and nor are juries. Especially where lawyers get clever with words. Scientific advances allow new techniques and new evidence to be questioned and even DNA evidence is a balance of probability and liklihood.
Much as headline grabbing trials such as Myra Hindley and Ian Huntley lead to calls for the death penalty, far more are based on questionable evidence and balance of probability that a clear cut open and shut case. for that reason alone the death penalty is currently considered unacceptable.
Toughen up sentencing, make crime punishable by life means a life hard labour, sure. Send them to military style boot camp and instill some purpose, no problem with that. But to take a life while there is even the faintest possibility of innocence is to condone legalised murder and leaves the judiciary no better, and some would say worse, than the wrongly convicted victim of capital punishment.
Steve.
To me the death penalty serves only one main purpose, that of ensuring the crime committed cannot be perpetrated again. Use of the death penalty does nothing to bring back the murdered victim and does not really act as a deterrant. The flip side of not having the death penalty, to me at least, is that life should mean life. The inmate should also be made to work, whether that is sewing mail bags, breaking rocks or digging ditches is immaterial. To sentance someone to life but with allowance for release in 15 years, 10 for good behaviour, where they have a cell with luxuries in is not a punishment. Jail is a punishment, not a holiday camp.
As already stated, 100% proof is difficult to get. Its a question of where you draw the line. Lie detector tests are not infallible, scopolomine (WWII truth drug) and other medication is not infallible (and are currently illegal) and nor are juries. Especially where lawyers get clever with words. Scientific advances allow new techniques and new evidence to be questioned and even DNA evidence is a balance of probability and liklihood.
Much as headline grabbing trials such as Myra Hindley and Ian Huntley lead to calls for the death penalty, far more are based on questionable evidence and balance of probability that a clear cut open and shut case. for that reason alone the death penalty is currently considered unacceptable.
Toughen up sentencing, make crime punishable by life means a life hard labour, sure. Send them to military style boot camp and instill some purpose, no problem with that. But to take a life while there is even the faintest possibility of innocence is to condone legalised murder and leaves the judiciary no better, and some would say worse, than the wrongly convicted victim of capital punishment.
Steve.
Mike.C
Established Member
DW wrote,
He may very well deserved to be hanged but it still does not convince me that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
There is no evidence that hanging is a deterrent, in fact in the US it seems that the states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates then those that do have it.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 2&did=168#
Also once you hang someone thats their punishment over, whereas if you let them rot in prison they will suffer for the rest of their lives, and if they are then found to be innocent you can correct the problem which you cannot do if they are dead.
Since the introduction of DNA evidence, look at how many people in the USA who have been released from death row when it has been found out that they were not guilty of their crimes.
Cheers
Mike
He may very well deserved to be hanged but it still does not convince me that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
There is no evidence that hanging is a deterrent, in fact in the US it seems that the states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates then those that do have it.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 2&did=168#
Also once you hang someone thats their punishment over, whereas if you let them rot in prison they will suffer for the rest of their lives, and if they are then found to be innocent you can correct the problem which you cannot do if they are dead.
Since the introduction of DNA evidence, look at how many people in the USA who have been released from death row when it has been found out that they were not guilty of their crimes.
Cheers
Mike
ByronBlack
Established Member
All violent criminals should be sent to a very large prison in the middle of siberia, we can outsource to the russians to run the place, it would be cheaper, tiny risk of escape and keeps the chance to bring them back if it comes to light they are innocent - like the scottish fellow who recently got off death-row in the states. Hanging leaves very little room for error and is an easy way out, people need to be punished for their crimes.
But in all this discussion no one has really started at the root of the issue - the motivation. What drives people to do these things. Until we nail that issue, you can have all the prisons, hangings and preventative measures in place, you'll still have violent crimes committed regardless.
But in all this discussion no one has really started at the root of the issue - the motivation. What drives people to do these things. Until we nail that issue, you can have all the prisons, hangings and preventative measures in place, you'll still have violent crimes committed regardless.
devonwoody
Established Member
So how many murderers have we got in or served prison sentance for murder in prison.
30.000?
30.000?
ByronBlack
Established Member
devonwoody":2u6se7bb said:
nowhere near, I think there is only 80-100k prison places in the UK so I doubt a third are murderers.
Similar threads
