Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Prisons - less sending convicted into jail.
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
Hedda you raise an interesting point; when I was inside I saw a fascinating truth that doesn't seem to have struck politicians; it was the short termers that suffered most; us "long termers" (7 years in my case - for crimes that never took place) who, after getting over the shock and horror of imprisonment, settled in and enjoyed ourselves (no alternative). I think politicians have got it the wrong way around - continue to give the first timers the short, sharp shock of jail (although try to get it right) and release long termers far earlier, by which time they are often rehabilitated and won't re-offend. |
|
Randall |
wyot wrote:
I am starting to consider that maybe I am just too out of step with this site generally on this topic...I havent changed my mind, but perhaps this isnt the forum for me to be commenting on this area.
I encourage you to stay and talk it out with those you feel out of step with.
Very often, we are conditioned to believe certain tropes or schemas. Or rather, we unthinkingly adopt them because they're presented to us so pervasively. So I also encourage you to think about why you hold the views you do, and see if they hold up to logical scrutiny. On which points do you agree and disagree with Holocaust21 or me or whoever, and why? |
|
hedda |
Unfortunately I'm not really with this 'no jail' thing or sentences less that 6 months and that's because it's not being done for the right reasons rather the fact jails are over-crowded and at breaking point.
Judges & Magistrates are fully aware of the jail situation and can always impose suspended sentences.
Authorities only have to study the Scandinavian countries approach to lawbreaking where the emphasis is heavily on rehabilitation and a desire to not have the offender return to jail.
This is a mind set they have had for decades and it works.
The problem is changing the British mind set that punishment must be brutal and the notion of re-offending is not a priority, rather just tokenism.
The fact they mention "sex" crimes demonstrates British ridiculous Victorian mentality and inhibitions about sex that produces odd reactions such as an era of "naughty" films etc ( Carry On ) which are very funny or decades of (then) illegal prostitution like Madame Cynthia's famous Luncheon Voucher brothel (naughty, funny and oh so British and great tabloid fodder) but accompanied by a very weird terror of sex and a notion that anything outside a missionary position mentality must be severely punished.
I like to think I'm a natural feminist and have been for decades mainly because I was brought up by strong women.
But the movement (much to the chagrin of pioneers like Germaine Greer) has been captured by a fanatical loony bin mob who really are demonizing men.
I was attacked in a conversation some months ago by 2 young ladies when discussing the brutal demolition of actor Geoffrey Rush on accusation alone..they accused me of being a "typical old man" (even tho I like 30 years younger  ) at which for once I got quite angry and demanded an apology for their disgusting "ageist" attack upon me for:
1. being a certain age which is beyond my control and such an attack is like condemnign someone because of their race or sex..
2. How dare they use age alone to attempt to typify thought when especially I had been promoting female rights before these two had been born and one in particular- as I pointed out- only discovered her notion of "feminism" about 5 years ago (long story).
Oddly they both apologised and sort of agreed. One hasn't spoken to me since!  |
|
wyot |
Very well put. I dont believe I have a rose tinted view of any section of humanity Holoand have never asserted thatall who claim must be automatically believed. But equally it makes no sense to me to attack all accussers as clearly sexual abuse occurs. I think the analogy to racism is easily countered: King et al were fighting racism which does not I agrer merit nuance. Big difference. But we have probably gone now as far as we can an important issue for our times... |
|
holocaust21 |
Your arguments will be inevitably more persuasive with nuance rather than polemic.
I think you'll find this forum has all kinds. JK seems to be more into nuance than polemic (as you can see from his annoyance with me). I personally got tired of trying nuance as I prefer to just say what I feel otherwise I'm just moderating myself. And the thing is, feminists use polemic all the time with articles writing drivel like "White Male, Pale and Stale". Or "Rape is Rape is Rape" etc. So I kind of feel polemic needs fighting with polemic. For the most part people don't care very much about long nuanced academic articles. What they pay attention to is drama and emotion. And the trouble is people need to understand that men have feelings too. You claim that my posts read as a "very anti female/all victims in general stance". It sounds bad when you put it like that, to be anti female and anti victim, but what you don't seem to see is that you've got a narrow definition of victim and an elevated perception of women. When a man is locked up for a sex crime he's on the receiving end of what is always life destroying violence. We often say "well, he deserved it" and sometimes we have to make those compromises, but you have to do it with balance, otherwise you are creating innocent victims of the law. And I think balance has massively disappeared in that regard. I get the feeling that you take the attitude that "girls are sugar and spice and all things nice" but that's just not always the case, in my opinion women do bad things at an equal rate to men. And that's not a view that feminists take.
But in any case, that's just my opinion on why I choose polemic. Taking down a monster like the feminist system takes all kinds. Martin Luther King and the Black Panthers didn't always see eye to eye but in some ways they were both needed and helped ensure success. |
|
|
|
