The Human Rights of Child Killers.

[leo9]

DETERRENCE

Assuming (whcih is not always clear from this discussion) that the object of a judicial policy is to reduce crime by deterring people from breaking the law, there are two main tactics, detection and punishment: "You will be caught," and "If caught you will be punished." There is a dangerous tendency to focus on the second as if it were the only one that mattered.

In fact, if we think about it, everyone knows that detection works: most people do not break the law if they know they will probably be caught, even if the sanction is only a slap on the wrist. That, after all, is why we all want more police on the streets, because people do not commit crimes with a policeman watching. And likewise, while few of us like cameras, it is a well established fact that where they are installed, crime goes down.

But there is a tendecy to imagine that punishment can substitute for detection - that if you don't catch many lawbreakers, you can deter them nonetheless by punishing more severely the ones you catch. Historically, this has never worked, for several reasons. Firstly, the most hideous danger isn't scary if you feel the chances of it happening are remote (otherwise nobody would ever drive a car.) Secondly, if only a few lawbreakers are punished but those ones are punished brutally, people will feel the system is unfair on both counts; and those who are punished will feel that they have been not unlucky but unjustly singled out. (They may be right, since a poor detection rate usually goes along with picking off the easy cases and ignoring the hard ones, as when drug squads focus on poor blacks rather than rich white coke-sniffers.) People who suspect a neighbour may have done something wrong will think twice about informing on him if the penalty seems absurdly harsh. Juries, too, will be loath to convict someone when they know he will be brutally punished while many equally guilty go free. And - I haven't exhausted the list, just the obvious points - ramping up the level of punishment blurs the distinction between petty and serious crime. If you drop the roof on someone for theft, how much worse can you punish a murderer?

Better detection does not draw the headlines that "getting tough on crime" does, but it actually works, where "getting tough" rarely does.

[IAN 2411]

You suggested:

Life meaning life with hard labour, and I really do mean hard labour. Work in the open in all weathers regardless of conditions, and twelve hours a day seven days a week. No Sunday let off for religious purposes, because if they really were that way inclined they would not have broken Gods commandment. Wooden huts in compounds to live in and with bare heating essentials, quarries were their menial task helps pay for their incarceration. Wholesome food to keep the body alive but not to satisfy the pallet, a doctor as the only right they have but only to lawfully keep them alive. Give them a minimal show of hell that through their warped minds they have given their victims loved ones.

So now we know what you don't consider to be "brutality." Do you imagine that the discipline in this Gulag would be a sharp telling off? Or would you just appoint plenty of tough macho guards, tell them to keep order and keep up the output, and just not look to see how they were doing it? Because, after all, these people have no rights.

To your question above, yes more than likely, because I certainly would not be going around wiping their tears or wiping their ass, like most liberal reformists. No I don’t consider that to be brutal I consider that to be fair punishment for taking another’s human rights to live, by murdering them. And in answer to this rehabilitation shit, it might be ok for a non violent prisoner but for a cold blooded killer? Not a bats chance in hell.

Why are you all quoting a Gulag, because if you knew the first thing about them there is no comparison?
In a Gulag, there was little or no health coverage for the inmate.

In a Gulag there was very little or no healthy food to eat to keep the inmate alive, because the whole point of being there was they were sent there to die.

So your argument is a non starter.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

If the killer died while doing his time in a working environment, while in prison that is ok too.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Prisoner given right to father baby

A prisoner is being allowed to father a baby from behind bars following a decision based on human rights laws.

According to the Daily Mail, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke approved the inmate's request to have the child with his partner by artificial insemination.

The decision was based on the prisoner's "right to family life" under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

It comes after convicted criminal Wayne Bishop used the act to successfully appeal against an eight month prison sentence for burglary and dangerous driving.

The father-of-five, 33, argued the judgment breached his human rights and not enough consideration was given to the plight of his children

Judges at the Court of Appeal in London last week agreed and ruled his prison sentence should be suspended so he could look after his family.

Tory MP Philip Davies said the combined impact of the two cases raised the prospect of criminals fathering children from behind bars simply to demand they be let out.

He told the newspaper: "The public are sick to the back teeth of the human rights of criminals being put before the rights of decent law-abiding people, victims and taxpayers. The whole point of being in prison is that your liberties are taken away from you. What's the point of locking people up if this pseudo-court, with the help of Ken Clarke, is going to give them all their rights back?"

A request under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that one prisoner was allowed fertility treatment this year. It is not known who is funding the treatment.

Another five applications are still being considered by the Justice Secretary.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/prisoner-gi...043152153.html Read the comments of the UK people that really matter.

This is Human rights of prisoners Ken Clarke and UK Gov style.

Yet again soft judges and its ridiculas that article 8 can be abused in this manner. Get rid of it for prisoners and do it before worse happens.

Be well IAN 2411

[thir]

If I understand this correctly, the human rights we are talking about are those of the children, which makes everything more complicated.

[IAN 2411]

If I understand this correctly, the human rights we are talking about are those of the children, which makes everything more complicated.

Those rights should not be included. Yes i know what you're saying but a third party outside of prison should have no bearing on the person paying for his/her crimes. It is hard I admit, but shall we bring all our troops back from Afghanistan because their children miss them?

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

REVENGE... Wikipedia,
Although revenge resembles some conceptions of justice, vengeance is usually depicted as more injurious and punitive as opposed to being harmonious and restorative. Whereas justice implies actions undertaken and supported by a legitimate judicial system grounded upon a foundation of ethics and morals of the authority recognized by the victims and usually the wrongdoer, revenge implies actions undertaken by an individual or narrowly defined group outside the boundaries of acceptable judicial or ethical conduct whose goal is to force a wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain or loss than that which was originally inflicted to the victim(s).

So, the only thing difference between vengence and justice is that vengence is private, and justice is public? So all official laws are just, by definition? And always accepted?

We all have to abide by the same laws of the land, and yes laws are just by definition. We might not like the way they are thought out, but if everyone is judged in the same manner and sentenced with the same punishment then that is what it is all about. There has to be a line drawn between justice and revenge or we revert to anarchy and mob rule.


Be well Ian 2411

[MrEmann]

This looks like an interesting thread. I will read it in it's entirety in the days that come. However I do have one thing to say after reading the initial post. Well a couple of things. First not only do I believe in hard labor as Ian has described it, I believe that when a judge hands out a sentence of three consecutive life terms, or 490 years it should mean that. Does that mean I expect to keep a person alive for that amount of time? No of course not. However when the criminal expires from natural causes, a plexiglass box is built. The corpse is then placed in that box for public display. That person's estate pays for this, and the storage until 490 years (or whatever) is actually over. Then the remains are released to whatever family they have, that may want them. I think that prisoners can build these boxes as well.

I don't think we can be too tough any one one that goes to prison.

Also I think instead of three strikes and you in, every one gets one chance. Say ya get arrested for theft. Alright you get hauled into court. The rules of society are explained to you. You are asked if you understand the rules of society. You answer yes, and sign a paper stating you understand the rules. You get five years probation, (or whatever society deems is reasonable). You ever get caught again, for any crime what so ever, you go away for life.

Also if it were up to Me it would work that way for DUIs. You get caught a second time Loss of license forever. Even stricter if you get caught DUI as a teen driver (i.e. under the age of 21) you lose your license forever. Part of one's driver's education would be drunk driving is against the law. So you would know before you did it, you were breaking the law.

Why so harsh on teen drivers? Because they are breaking more than one law. They cannot buy alcohol under 21, (though to be fair I do favor back to 18) and you are endangering the lives of others.

I am sure My opinions are going to be laughed at. I'm pretty right wing all things considered.

[Thorne]

I am sure My opinions are going to be laughed at.

I have to admit, your idea of keeping deceased prisoners in a box for the duration of their terms brought a chuckle. All I could envision was Lenin, and wondering just WTF he'd done to deserve HIS fate?

But I don't like that idea, I'll admit. It seems to me to lend an air of martyrdom to the criminal. I can picture people making heroes of them, filing past their boxes and leaving little tokens of respect or something. Or I can see some "right-wing" redneck singling out the guys kids and harassing them because their father's on display like some freak show. No, I say just bury them in a pauper's grave, or better yet cremate them and scatter their ashes. At the prisoner's expense, of course.

I don't think we can be too tough any one one that goes to prison.

I think in some cases they might be too easy on them, but there have to be gradations of punishments, just like there's gradations of crimes. You don't treat some shmuck who got caught selling pot the same as the guy who shoots up a school.

Also I think instead of three strikes and you in, every one gets one chance. Say ya get arrested for theft. Alright you get hauled into court. The rules of society are explained to you. You are asked if you understand the rules of society. You answer yes, and sign a paper stating you understand the rules. You get five years probation, (or whatever society deems is reasonable). You ever get caught again, for any crime what so ever, you go away for life.

I can see someone getting a harsher sentence for a second offense, but I do like the three strikes laws. If you haven't got your shit together after two terms in prison you probably aren't going to.

Also if it were up to Me it would work that way for DUIs. You get caught a second time Loss of license forever. Even stricter if you get caught DUI as a teen driver (i.e. under the age of 21) you lose your license forever. Part of one's driver's education would be drunk driving is against the law. So you would know before you did it, you were breaking the law.

Again, I think that might be too strict, and it shouldn't be so cut and dried. Somebody who just barely blows the limit shouldn't be treated as harshly as someone who's 3 or 4 times over the limit. But in general, I agree: repeat offenders should be treated as felons, and spend time in prison, and lose their licenses.

I'm pretty right wing all things considered.

Well I'm glad you told me! I never would have figured that out for myself!

[thir]

I can see someone getting a harsher sentence for a second offense, but I do like the three strikes laws. If you haven't got your shit together after two terms in prison you probably aren't going to.

Or else you do not have any other way.

I am baffled by this in some ways - don't you realize that 'the criminals' are all of us? We could ALL commit crime, depending on circumstances. What's with all this self-rightousness?

I see the point of the original thread - some crimes are too terrible for words and beyond understanding to anyone except perhaps a psychiatrist. Very heavy motivation for protection must come in, the safety of others must come first, and thought of revenge (sorry Ian) are understandable, if useless and pointless since they do not deter.

But there is so much other crime which is at least understandable - provocation, need, stupid temptation, thoughtlesness - the criminals are mostly ordinary people who do something wrong. Apart from the hard core ones.

[Thorne]

Or else you do not have any other way.

Not being able to think of a way out of your problems does NOT justify performing criminal acts which cause OTHER people problems.

I am baffled by this in some ways - don't you realize that 'the criminals' are all of us? We could ALL commit crime, depending on circumstances. What's with all this self-rightousness?

To a certain extent you're right, anyone could commit a crime, given the right circumstances. Most of us wouldn't commit a violent crime, at least, unless the circumstances were dire. But the large majority of those sent to prison commit crimes of opportunity! They see the chance to get something they want and they take it, with no regard for the consequences. They generally only show remorse when they are caught.

But there is so much other crime which is at least understandable - provocation, need, stupid temptation, thoughtlesness - the criminals are mostly ordinary people who do something wrong. Apart from the hard core ones.

It's hard to think of a provocation to commit a violent crime. Someone calls you a name so you shoot him? Sorry! Not understandable to me. Need, yes. I can understand, if not necessarily condone, a parent stealing food or money to feed her children. But if that same parent attacks an innocent victim my understanding goes right out the window.

Ever watch those bait car programs, where the cops leave a car unlocked with the keys inside? I'm generally fascinated, repulsed, angry, in varying combinations, by the attitudes of those stealing the cars. They KNOW they're doing wrong (many will make a conscious effort to prevent leaving fingerprints), yet they think they are somehow justified in stealing someone else's property - until they get caught! THEN they're remorseful. If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

[thir]

Not being able to think of a way out of your problems does NOT justify performing criminal acts which cause OTHER people problems.

I disagree. let me try to explain, bear with me a bit.
In the very beginning people lived of the land directly, and it was up to them to get their food. The big difference is that now you have to have a job, which is a completely different thing, and depending on completely different conditions. In short, we have lost the direct line to food, and are now depending on things beyond our control. If the jobs aren't there, they aren't. It happens. We cannot just go further away to get what we need. This is simplified, of course, but maybe, for the sake of the argument I am trying to make, you can go along with it for now.

So, if you have a hungry child or a sick parent, what is most important: to uphold the law, or protect and feed your family?

To a certain extent you're right, anyone could commit a crime, given the right circumstances. Most of us wouldn't commit a violent crime, at least, unless the circumstances were dire. But the large majority of those sent to prison commit crimes of opportunity! They see the chance to get something they want and they take it, with no regard for the consequences. They generally only show remorse when they are caught.

Remorse is a concept that I cannot get my head around much..you pay for your crime and hope to learn better in the future, that is about it.

But yes, we live in a society where our main function is to buy, and so many temptations are placed before us and much prestige is placed on things, and we
are stupid enough to react just as the sellers want in having to have the last new gadget - whatever cost to budget or the world in general.

In my head it is understandable and at the same time stupid if people fall into temptation, but it only means that we are human, not Us the saved and Them the terrible criminals.

It's hard to think of a provocation to commit a violent crime. Someone calls you a name so you shoot him? Sorry! Not understandable to me.

What I was thinking of was need as in food, clothes, shelter, health care.

But I can think of reasons to commit violence that seems acceptable to people, revenge and mob mentality first and foremost, if you feel you have not got justice by the courts, or if you cannot wait for the system to convict somebody.

People seem to think it ok to kill a suspected child molester without the detal of finding out if that person is actually guilty, this has happened several times here in UK.

And I am thinking of the bad 60's where lynchings on a sunday aftenoon seems to have been a general entertainment with hundreds of spectators with lunch boxes and so on. Gay bashing seems to be among us in many societies.

Are these people - people? Or are they crazy by the thousands? I guess that is something I ask myself.

Need, yes. I can understand, if not necessarily condone, a parent stealing food or money to feed her children. But if that same parent attacks an innocent victim my understanding goes right out the window.

Same here, except I can condone the stealing if it really is neccesary.

Ever watch those bait car programs, where the cops leave a car unlocked with the keys inside?

No-? What on earth is that? Tempting idiots to commmit crimes and go to jail for amusements??

I'm generally fascinated, repulsed, angry, in varying combinations, by the attitudes of those stealing the cars. They KNOW they're doing wrong (many will make a conscious effort to prevent leaving fingerprints), yet they think they are somehow justified in stealing someone else's property - until they get caught! THEN they're remorseful. If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

Yes, that is certainly different.
But I can see no excuse for tempting people to commit crimes.

[thir]

However when the criminal expires from natural causes, a plexiglass box is built. The corpse is then placed in that box for public display. That person's estate pays for this, and the storage until 490 years (or whatever) is actually over. Then the remains are released to whatever family they have, that may want them. I think that prisoners can build these boxes as well.

What is the point? The prisoner doesn't care, and who'd want to go look at them anyway? You'd be punishing the family, which is not the point. We all only answer for ourselves.

I don't think we can be too tough any one one that goes to prison.

Well, lets just kill them the first time, yes? It would be so much cheaper.
For the money saved, we could buy haloes to all the rest, and polishing cream.

I am sure My opinions are going to be laughed at. I'm pretty right wing all things considered.

Well, laughed at or not, we all have a right to our say.

[IAN 2411]

That person's estate pays for this, and the storage until 490 years (or whatever) is actually over.

I am not sure how it works in the States but in the UK the Wife and Husband have joint position of property and chattel. So what you are saying that when first married they both work like hell to buy a house between them, then have children. They both finish paying for the house a long time before he goes and commits his murder. He kills deliberately and pleads guilty showing no remorse, and he gets your glass box treatment. The estate is only half but what you are saying is that the wife and children have to pay for his murder as well as him. You ought to think about the implications of what you are suggesting because that is immoral and is a crime itself, to which is I might add in breach of her Human Rights as a free and God fearing person. If we kill we are only answerable for our selves, to the law of the land and our God.

The rest I can live with.....The glass box? I think you have watching too many films....and the only one I could think of was Sleeping Beauty...LMFAO

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

...that is immoral and is a crime itself, to which is I might add in breach of her Human Rights as a free and God fearing person.

So, are you saying that we who are NOT god fearing do not have Human Rights?

If we kill we are only answerable for our selves, to the law of the land and our God.

Would this be the God who thinks nothing of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation"? By that measure, MrEmann's "justice" is justified!

Let's keep the gods out of this, and stick with the laws of humanity.

[IAN 2411]

because that is immoral and is a crime itself, to which is I might add in breach of her Human Rights as a free and God fearing person.

So, are you saying that we who are NOT god fearing do not have Human Rights?

NO. I am saying the key words are : -FREE and God fearing, so take your pick.

If we kill we are only answerable for our selves, to the law of the land and our God.

Would this be the God who thinks nothing of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation"? By that measure, MrEmann's "justice" is justified!

I don’t know as I don’t read the Bible, but it seems as though you do.

Let's keep the gods out of this, and stick with the laws of humanity.

I will go with the majority.

Be well IAN 2411

[Austerus]

I disagree. I don't think 'hard time' should necessarily be 'hard'. If someone isn't safe enough to have on the street then locking them away for ten or twenty years causing them pain and suffering isn't going to make the person any more sociable. The time a person is locked up should be spent actively trying to rehabilitate the person: education, job training, counseling, medical care, the kinds of things that may actually lead to the criminal becoming a useful member of society when he gets out. Currently jails are Lawbreaking School, with prisons as the master class in Organized Crime. I know people who went into juvie, county jail, or state penitentiaries for making a dumb mistake and came out as hardened criminals. We should be trying to reverse that trend rather than further it.

I'm also very leery of stripping more rights than necessary away from criminals. It's a slippery slope from child murderers to murderers to carjackers to thieves to vandals. It's very difficult to define a fair line between the "you should be punished" crime and the "you're fucked forever" crime. And what about fairness? Do we really want to say that punishment should be more severe for killing a 17-year-old than an 18-year-old?

[IAN 2411]

Ever watch those bait car programs, where the cops leave a car unlocked with the keys inside? I'm generally fascinated, repulsed, angry, in varying combinations, by the attitudes of those stealing the cars. They KNOW they're doing wrong (many will make a conscious effort to prevent leaving fingerprints), yet they think they are somehow justified in stealing someone else's property - until they get caught! THEN they're remorseful. If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

I have seen these programs and I am with thir by saying they are disgraceful shows of police urging people to steal, and just so they can justify the real crimes they have no idea how to solve. It is at best showing lazy police at their worst.

In the UK, have you ever wondered why sweets are on the low shelves in garages and shops? Well it is so that minors of three and four can pick them up with ease without their mothers/fathers noticing, and getting stuck into them. The crunch is the assistant saying you will have to pay for that sir/madam. That is under handed people teaching your children to steal, exactly the same as Thorn’s police bait programs.

Here is a good bait, drop a gold bar on the pavement and see the rush to pick it up from all those otherwise law abiding citizens. Then get the police to jump on them as the stick it in their pocket, and charge them with stealing by finding, yes that is a law in the UK and carries almost the same sentence as outright theft. I quote you again Thorn because it must apply by your law for people I have just mentioned in this paragraph.

If someone is old enough to actually drive a car and still hasn't learned that it's NOT okay to steal, I have to wonder if perhaps prison might be the best thing to teach them.

Cars, sweets or gold bars what the difference? Answer nothing, because the temptation to steal different items was deliberately placed there for a crime to be committed.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

US inmates' 40 years in solitary

Two US prisoners who have been held in solitary confinement for nearly 40 years should have their isolation ended immediately, Amnesty International said Tuesday.

Albert Woodfox, 64, and Herman Wallace, 69, have been held in solitary at Louisiana State Penitentiary ever since they were convicted of murdering a prison guard in 1972, the London-based human rights group said.

Their four-decade ordeal "is cruel and inhumane and a violation of the US's obligations under international law," said Guadalupe Marengo, Amnesty's Americas deputy director.

"We are not aware of any other case in the United States where individuals have been subjected to such restricted human contact for such a prolonged period of time."

The pair are suing the Louisiana authorities claiming that their prolonged isolation is "cruel and unusual punishment" and so violates the US constitution.

"The treatment of these men by the state of Louisiana is a clear breach of US commitment to human rights," said Marengo.

"Their cases should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, and while that takes place authorities must ensure that their treatment complies with international standards for the humane treatment of prisoners."

Amnesty said the men were confined to their cells, measuring two metres (6.5 feet) by three metres, for 23 hours a day, and have never been allowed to work or have access to education.

.............................................

This begs belief; I have been informed right from my OP that my idea of justice is warped. Tell me whose was the better my Justice or the real Justice of Louisiana Prison authorities? The above really is inhumane, even by my thoughts on justice.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

This begs belief; I have been informed right from my OP that my idea of justice is warped. Tell me whose was the better my Justice or the real Justice of Louisiana Prison authorities? The above really is inhumane, even by my thoughts on justice.

You're right. They should have been executed in 1973.

You did read the part where they KILLED A PRISON GUARD? What do you think should happen to them? Give them cake and Pepsi? They killed a man! The post doesn't say what they did to get into the prison in the first place, but killing a prison guard does not constitute good behavior! I have no sympathy for them.

[thir]

You're right. They should have been executed in 1973.
You did read the part where they KILLED A PRISON GUARD? What do you think should happen to them? Give them cake and Pepsi? They killed a man! The post doesn't say what they did to get into the prison in the first place, but killing a prison guard does not constitute good behavior! I have no sympathy for them.

Prison guards are not always better than the inmates.

[Thorne]

Prison guards are not always better than the inmates.

Doesn't mean it's okay to kill them, does it?

However, I googled Albert Woodfox, one of the two prisoners in question, and I have to say that, in this case at least, there may be some merit in the "cruel and unusual" comments. His original conviction was for armed robbery, bad enough but not worth a life in prison, much less in solitary. And it MAY be that the conviction for killing the guard was politically motivated, and he MAY not have committed the crime. There is probably justification in reviewing the conviction, and possibly in overturning it. Even the victim's wife doesn't think Woodfox did it, which is pretty unusual.

So yes, in this case, it's possible that the solitary confinement might be wrong. That doesn't mean it would be wrong in every case. The original post didn't specify what kinds of prisoners these were, whether they were relatively well behaved or basically animals in cages. Yes, sometimes criminals really ARE bad people!

[thir]

Yes, sometimes criminals really ARE bad people!

Ahr, you are just saying that because it is true

[IAN 2411]

Yes, sometimes criminals really ARE bad people!

As a matter of interest, is there a case you know of where a criminal was not a bad person. I agree that a prisoner might not be a bad person, due to mistaken identity or the like, but a criminal in my book has to have committed a crime so he is bad by guilt.

Be well IAN 2411

[thir]

[COLOR="yellow"]

This begs belief; I have been informed right from my OP that my idea of justice is warped. Tell me whose was the better my Justice or the real Justice of Louisiana Prison authorities? The above really is inhumane, even by my thoughts on justice.

Be well IAN 2411

I'd have to say yours, Ian.

[IAN 2411]

You're right. They should have been executed in 1973.

You did read the part where they KILLED A PRISON GUARD? What do you think should happen to them? Give them cake and Pepsi? They killed a man! The post doesn't say what they did to get into the prison in the first place, but killing a prison guard does not constitute good behavior! I have no sympathy for them.

I am in partial agreement with you Thorn at the moment, as the full story to how the prison guard was killed has not been talked about. All I am saying is you must have strange laws for your prisons in the USA. Your President has the bare face cheek to go to China and condemn them for an inhuman prison record and is own is not that much better. I think the key words are Prison Guard, if it had been anyone else say a con man doing the last year of a ten year stretch fuck all would have been said. That in my post, reference these two men was revenge justice, not real justice, [take note thir and leo9] and the justice the prison authorities meted out was worse that a person would treat a dog. If the crime was so bad....yes they should have been executed. Come to think of it did Louisiana have the death penalty then in 1973, and if so why was it never used?

For the prison authorities to take the law into their own hands is a dangerous road to travel, because that is now stooping to the level of the prisoners themselves. I would also think that it is against the American constitution as said in the post, and that is not a human right of the prisoner I am talking about, it is the laws that Americans live by, well it was up until now. I doubt very much if there is a Judge anywhere in America that would condemn a man/woman to 40 years solitary confinement, because they know the next step is putting straw hats on and pulling rickshaws. I’ll bet though that they would be falling over themselves to give the sentences I have suggested in my OP.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

Yes i do agree with you Thorn that there are a few grey areas that need adressing, but at the speed the criminal and justice system works in the UK it will not be in my lifetime.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Yes i do agree with you Thorn that there are a few grey areas that need adressing, but at the speed the criminal and justice system works in the UK it will not be in my lifetime.

Be well IAN 2411

LOL! At the speed justice systems work anywhere, I'm not sure there's enough time left in the universe!