ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th September 2017, 05:55 PM   #81
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Bob, there's a difference between a few years in prison and 48 out of 67 years in prison, as in one's entire adult life. I realize that you don't do nuance, so I'll stop there. I think you need to revisit my point about the Supreme Court screwing the pooch on the death penalty. She should have been executed. She wasn't. Keeping her in prison is a good enough alternative.
Nuance is a myth perpetuated by vacillaters.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 06:02 PM   #82
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,363
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
All of that and you still can't explain why you think she should be released.
You remember when I asked you if you were reading my posts and you said I was personalising the discussion? Well, this is what I meant: if you're saying that I can't explain why I think she should be released, after I just told you that I never said I thought she should be released, then you're not reading my posts. And that's not personalising. That's a fact.

Quote:
Why do you think this case justifies parole?
See above: I never said it did.

Quote:
Can you try one time, just one, without resorting to insults and accusations about me, personally?
For pete's sake, stop crying about people being mean to you. Sometimes, you're wrong. Sometimes, people will point it out to you. Grow a thicker skin.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 06:07 PM   #83
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,229
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In certainly shouldn't be making people ineligible.
Why not?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 06:11 PM   #84
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why not?
The same reason they shouldn't let inmates escape. Their job is to carry out the prison sentence ordered by a job. Preventing people from getting paroled is counter to the judge's order.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 06:35 PM   #85
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,457
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Nuance is a myth perpetuated by vacillaters.
Thanks for not disappointing. Having watched your show in the Mayweather- McGregor thread over in sports, I've absorbed my limit of schnitzengruben-a la-Bob for the quarter. Be well.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 09:06 PM   #86
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,246
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I don't think keeping old people in prison decades after they have changed their dangerous tendencies has any deterrent effect on the young people who commit the vast majority of crime.
I'd make an exception for Sheriff Joe.
I might favor releasing even Sheriff Joe after he has served 40+ years as a model prisoner.

Some will say only a bleeding heart liberal would suggest there's nothing intrinsically wrong with commuting the sentence of a convicted criminal to time served. Note, however, that Leslie van Houten, having shown evidence of reform and repentance over decades, probably poses far less threat to society than those who have spent a long career demonstrating contempt for law and the courts.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2017, 11:01 PM   #87
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,229
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The same reason they shouldn't let inmates escape. Their job is to carry out the prison sentence ordered by a job. Preventing people from getting paroled is counter to the judge's order.
It's orthogonal to the judge's order. If it were counter, the judge would have ordered something else. The prison system is what it is. The judge ordered what they ordered. If the judge wanted criminals prepared for parole, the judge would have ordered it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2017, 12:05 AM   #88
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,872
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
Thats some good imagination you got going there, where can I get me some of that?
I think someone has been watching this documentary! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Went...29?wprov=sfla1
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2017, 12:12 AM   #89
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,872
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I might favor releasing even Sheriff Joe after he has served 40+ years as a model prisoner.

Some will say only a bleeding heart liberal would suggest there's nothing intrinsically wrong with commuting the sentence of a convicted criminal to time served. Note, however, that Leslie van Houten, having shown evidence of reform and repentance over decades, probably poses far less threat to society than those who have spent a long career demonstrating contempt for law and the courts.
In her state is she released "on license" as would be the case in the UK? For example a released murderer in the UK may have certain requirements imposed on them - such things as a curfew, having to report to a certain police station, meetings with parole officers, and only allowed to live in certain places etc. And can be recalled to prison without a trial or hearing of any sort at any time.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2017, 05:07 AM   #90
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's orthogonal to the judge's order. If it were counter, the judge would have ordered something else. The prison system is what it is. The judge ordered what they ordered. If the judge wanted criminals prepared for parole, the judge would have ordered it.
This doesn't track. Inmates also escape in opposition of the judge's order.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2017, 06:09 AM   #91
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,530
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As your application comes up for parole three years in advance,
[ citation required ]

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
then after six years on average you can apply for parole, as I said (ceteris parabus).
You never said "average". Your said:
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Actually, I do not agree with 'Life without Parole'. All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence).
"set" means fixed, IOW, you claimed that everyone could apply for parole in six years, not on average.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do you understand that you are completely and utterly wrong about lifers never being eligible for parole after 6 years?
That's a lie. MikeG never claimed that. He just said:
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You what? Sorry, are you being serious?

The word "tariff", as applied to life sentences in the UK, means exactly what, in your understanding?
i.e., he contradicted your claim that everyone could apply for parole in six years. Some may be able to apply earlier, and others only later. IIRC, the various verdicts of the ECHR on this matter - not only against the UK but also against the Netherlands - strongly suggest that the tariff may not be longer than 20 years.

At least it's for all to see from your own links that you're wrong. You even claimed the Home Secretary is the only one to set the tariff, while quoting a wiki page that clearly says that that was struck down by the ECHR in 2003 and is now in the hands of the sentencing judge.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2017, 06:25 AM   #92
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,530
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I might favor releasing even Sheriff Joe after he has served 40+ years as a model prisoner.
I'd have no problem releasing him at the age of 120 either.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's orthogonal to the judge's order. If it were counter, the judge would have ordered something else. The prison system is what it is. The judge ordered what they ordered. If the judge wanted criminals prepared for parole, the judge would have ordered it.
It's not. The judge knows how the system works, and the system includes parole hearings and the possibility of early release. The judge takes that on board with his sentencing.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2017, 05:07 PM   #93
wasapi
Illuminator
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,577
In my opinion, it is simple. She 'did the crime' but DID NOT 'do the time'.

Many people want to justify her release with platitudes about her not being the person she once was and there were bad circumstances in her life.

BS. Many other wayward teenagers were exposed to worse then she had ever experienced. She had choices. And she chose to stab people to death while enjoying herself.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2017, 05:36 PM   #94
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
In my opinion, it is simple. She 'did the crime' but DID NOT 'do the time'
And others say her time was adequate.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 12:36 AM   #95
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,982
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And others say her time was adequate.
OMG I appear to agree with BobTheCoward, though in my case I cannot definitively say that her time was adequate, merely that it appeared to be from the limited information I have - the parole board OTOH has access to far more information than I and came to that conclusion.

A lot of people, including many on this board, seem to think that murderers, or "evil" murderers should never be released from prison. I guess my question would be why ?

If they still represent a risk to society then I agree, they should not be released but in this case the parole board has assessed the situation and come to the conclusion that she isn't a threat to society. If it's a case that she hasn't been punished enough then I think 50 years in prison is sufficient. If she is ill-equipped to deal with the outside world then I think the issue lies in a US prison system which doesn't invest sufficiently in rehabilitation and preparation for release.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 01:25 AM   #96
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,456
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
OMG I appear to agree with BobTheCoward, though in my case I cannot definitively say that her time was adequate, merely that it appeared to be from the limited information I have - the parole board OTOH has access to far more information than I and came to that conclusion.

A lot of people, including many on this board, seem to think that murderers, or "evil" murderers should never be released from prison. I guess my question would be why ?

If they still represent a risk to society then I agree, they should not be released but in this case the parole board has assessed the situation and come to the conclusion that she isn't a threat to society. If it's a case that she hasn't been punished enough then I think 50 years in prison is sufficient. If she is ill-equipped to deal with the outside world then I think the issue lies in a US prison system which doesn't invest sufficiently in rehabilitation and preparation for release.
Quote:
If it's a case that she hasn't been punished enough then I think 50 years in prison is sufficient. If she is ill-equipped to deal with the outside world then I think the issue lies in a US prison system which doesn't invest sufficiently in rehabilitation and preparation for release.
This to me is a very very good point.

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 02:34 AM   #97
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,363
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
In my opinion, it is simple. She 'did the crime' but DID NOT 'do the time'.

Many people want to justify her release with platitudes about her not being the person she once was and there were bad circumstances in her life.

BS. Many other wayward teenagers were exposed to worse then she had ever experienced. She had choices. And she chose to stab people to death while enjoying herself.
And? How would you deal with someone like that?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 04:06 AM   #98
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
[ citation required ]


You never said "average". Your said:

"set" means fixed, IOW, you claimed that everyone could apply for parole in six years, not on average.


That's a lie. MikeG never claimed that. He just said:

i.e., he contradicted your claim that everyone could apply for parole in six years. Some may be able to apply earlier, and others only later. IIRC, the various verdicts of the ECHR on this matter - not only against the UK but also against the Netherlands - strongly suggest that the tariff may not be longer than 20 years.

At least it's for all to see from your own links that you're wrong. You even claimed the Home Secretary is the only one to set the tariff, while quoting a wiki page that clearly says that that was struck down by the ECHR in 2003 and is now in the hands of the sentencing judge.

For goodness, do read my post.

Are you some kind of a white knight coming to the rescue of other posters who've boobed?
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 04:20 AM   #99
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,982
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For goodness, do read my post.

Are you some kind of a white knight coming to the rescue of other posters who've boobed?
Funny that you refer back to the middle of the exchange and not to the start where you say:

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Actually, I do not agree with 'Life without Parole'. All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence).
Perhaps it's just clumsy phrasing but that reads to me the same way as MikeG seemed to interpret it - in the UK all prisoners sentenced to life can apply for parole after six years.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 05:45 AM   #100
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,416
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For goodness, do read my post.

Are you some kind of a white knight coming to the rescue of other posters who've boobed?
It's you who cocked-up, Vixen. You have made more than one erroneous claim about eligibility for parole in a life sentence, then you've straight-out lied about what I said, and about what you said. Never mind needing a white knight, you are behaving like the black knight. Carry on claiming victory, when all around can see you are flat-out wrong, and have lied.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 08:29 AM   #101
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,530
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For goodness, do read my post.

Are you some kind of a white knight coming to the rescue of other posters who've boobed?
You're trying to lie about what you claimed yourself. As The_Don rightly notes, you now point to the middle of the conversation. Your initial claim was, clearly, that every life-convict could ask for parole after six years. That claim was wrong, but in your second post you pretend that the material you quote support your claim, but it doesn't. That's willful lying. You also willfully lied about what MikeG said, who simply challenged your first, wrong, claim. And now you still pretend that you're the one who's right?

BTW, I said in that post, from recollection, that the ECHR had set the upper limit for a first parole hearing to 20 years. I was wrong, it's actually 25 years, see this factsheet from the ECHR itself. See how easy it is to admit a mistake? Maybe you should try that yourself, e.g. start with retracting your disgraceful accusations against Agatha. And no, I'm not a white knight but I'm just bothered by this kind of behaviour.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 09:20 AM   #102
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,229
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This doesn't track. Inmates also escape in opposition of the judge's order.
Of course it tracks. Readiness for parole is orthogonal to the judge's order. Escape contradicts the judge's order. Preparation for parole is irrelevant to the judge's order.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 09:22 AM   #103
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,229
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
This doesn't track. Inmates also escape in opposition of the judge's order.
Of course it tracks. Readiness for parole is orthogonal to the judge's order. Escape contradicts the judge's order. Preparation for parole is irrelevant to the judge's order.

Unless you can show that the judge ordered that van Houten be prepared for parole by the prison system.

Indeed, your logic opens up the argument that if the prison *had* prepared the prisoner for parole, this would be in opposition to the judge's order, since the judge did not order it.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 09:35 AM   #104
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,530
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Of course it tracks. Readiness for parole is orthogonal to the judge's order. Escape contradicts the judge's order. Preparation for parole is irrelevant to the judge's order.

Unless you can show that the judge ordered that van Houten be prepared for parole by the prison system.

Indeed, your logic opens up the argument that if the prison *had* prepared the prisoner for parole, this would be in opposition to the judge's order, since the judge did not order it.
I agree with you that Bob's analogy of parole with escape does not hold water.

But parole is a part of the system. Parole boards are part of the law, they're held and they can give a prisoner early release. And the judge knows this. Every judge's conviction should be read as "X years unless a parole board decides earlier".
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 10:46 AM   #105
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Of course it tracks. Readiness for parole is orthogonal to the judge's order. Escape contradicts the judge's order. Preparation for parole is irrelevant to the judge's order.

Unless you can show that the judge ordered that van Houten be prepared for parole by the prison system.

Indeed, your logic opens up the argument that if the prison *had* prepared the prisoner for parole, this would be in opposition to the judge's order, since the judge did not order it.
If I tell my babysitter, "the kid can have a treat if she is good," it is implicitly agreed that the babysitter is not supposed to sabotage that arrangement.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 11:38 AM   #106
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,530
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If I tell my babysitter, "the kid can have a treat if she is good," it is implicitly agreed that the babysitter is not supposed to sabotage that arrangement.
That's actually a good comparison. If you tell the babysitter that, and the kid is sweet, and the sitter gives the kid a sweet, then they hold up to the arrangement.

In this case, the babysitter is the parole board and the treat is early release. The arrangement is written into the law, which overrides whatever the judge decides in their sentencing.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 11:47 AM   #107
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
That's actually a good comparison. If you tell the babysitter that, and the kid is sweet, and the sitter gives the kid a sweet, then they hold up to the arrangement.

In this case, the babysitter is the parole board and the treat is early release. The arrangement is written into the law, which overrides whatever the judge decides in their sentencing.
In this case, the babysitter is also the prison. If she torments the child in a way that she acts out, that is a violation of the agreement.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 12:43 PM   #108
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 11,175
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
You're trying to lie about what you claimed yourself. As The_Don rightly notes, you now point to the middle of the conversation. Your initial claim was, clearly, that every life-convict could ask for parole after six years. That claim was wrong, but in your second post you pretend that the material you quote support your claim, but it doesn't. That's willful lying. You also willfully lied about what MikeG said, who simply challenged your first, wrong, claim. And now you still pretend that you're the one who's right?

BTW, I said in that post, from recollection, that the ECHR had set the upper limit for a first parole hearing to 20 years. I was wrong, it's actually 25 years, see this factsheet from the ECHR itself. See how easy it is to admit a mistake? <deleted> And no, I'm not a white knight but I'm just bothered by this kind of behaviour.

As I cited from Wikipedia and the Government's own web page, the average life sentence in England and Wales is nine years.

An average applies to the total number. As only 70 prisoners in the entire UK have a 'whole life tariff', we can infer that broadly speaking, the average life sentence is nine years. This obviously doesn't equate to all lifers, but in general terms is a perfectly conventional rule of thumb. Most of the media cite this figure.

The government's own webpage states that for any lifer or prisoner with a sentence longer than four years is automatically eligible to apply for parole and the government will make this application for you or three years before your due release date. Thus common logic tells you that all of those lifers out after nine years, became eligible for parole after six years.


As a comparison of a UK life sentence compared to the USA, it is correct to say our lifers generally serve nine years, becoming eligible for parole after six.

A whole life tariff is relatively rare so it is to change context (=logical fallacy: false premise) to focus solely on that group.

Thank you for admitting that your whole tone is based solely on a personal attack and a sycophantic attempt to curry favour.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 11th September 2017 at 12:47 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 12:44 PM   #109
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,530
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
In this case, the babysitter is also the prison.
OK.
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If she torments the child in a way that she acts out, that is a violation of the agreement.
Yes, you have a point. However, the child may also act out while the babysitter is not tormenting the child. So if the child acts out, you have to ask if this was the (reasonable) result of inappropriate behavior of the child.

And yes, often American prisons behave inhumane towards their prisoners. But nobody's claimed that's the case here. We have a prisoner who's been described as a model prisoner for 50 years. So the question how the prison behaved is moot. The prisoner behaved good and is entitled to their candy (early release), going by what the parole board said - I have no more detailed information than that, so I just have to rely on the judgment of the parole board.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 01:06 PM   #110
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17,530
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As I cited from Wikipedia and the Government's own web page, the average life sentence in England and Wales is nine years.
You first claimed that everybody with a life sentence was entitled to ask for a parole hearing after six years. First retract that claim and admit it was wrong.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
An average applies to the total number. As only 70 prisoners in the entire UK have a 'whole life tariff', we can infer that broadly speaking, the average life sentence is nine years. This obviously doesn't equate to all lifers, but in general terms is a perfectly conventional rule of thumb. Most of the media cite this figure.
Average does not equal everyone. You were a "fully qualified accountant"? So much for the credibility of that claim.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The government's own webpage states that for any lifer or prisoner with a sentence longer than four years is automatically eligible to apply for parole and the government will make this application for you, or three years before your due release date. Thus common logic tells you that all of those lifers out after nine years, became eligible for parole after six years.
I note the lack of any link to the government's website (either here or in your pervious posts).

What is "three years before your due release date" when you're convicted to life? The UK government is so all-knowing that they know the day you die three years in advance? Common logic (what's that? A conflation of "common sense" and "logic"?) tells me you're talking out of your arse with that.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As a comparison of a UK life sentence compared to the USA, it is correct to say our lifers generally serve nine years, becoming eligible for parole after six.
Your earlier claim was that the application for a parole hearing was three years prior to the actual parole. Now you've shifted it to parole after six already?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A whole life tariff is relatively rare so it is to change context (=logical fallacy: false premise) to focus solely on that group.
Nobody is focusing on people with a whole life tariff. That's something that you brought up yourself. And that group is not expanding, at least not while the UK abides by the rulings of the ECHR which has said that the tariff should not be longer than 25 years. See the factsheet I linked to with summaries of several ECHR verdicts.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Thank you for admitting that your whole tone is based solely on a personal attack and a sycophantic attempt to curry favour.
No, it's based on the fact that every post I've read of yours that I could check for factuality turned out to be utter falsehood.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 01:17 PM   #111
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,416
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
.......All prisoners should be allowed to apply for it after a set number of years (in the UK this is iirc six years into a life sentence)..........
Here's your claim, Vixen.

Back this crap up or withdraw it and apologise. I say again, no one is allowed to apply for parole until their tariff period, determined by the judge, expires.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 01:18 PM   #112
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,191
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As I cited from Wikipedia and the Government's own web page, the average life sentence in England and Wales is nine years.

An average applies to the total number. As only 70 prisoners in the entire UK have a 'whole life tariff', we can infer that broadly speaking, the average life sentence is nine years. This obviously doesn't equate to all lifers, but in general terms is a perfectly conventional rule of thumb. Most of the media cite this figure.

The government's own webpage states that for any lifer or prisoner with a sentence longer than four years is automatically eligible to apply for parole and the government will make this application for you or three years before your due release date. Thus common logic tells you that all of those lifers out after nine years, became eligible for parole after six years.


As a comparison of a UK life sentence compared to the USA, it is correct to say our lifers generally serve nine years, becoming eligible for parole after six.

A whole life tariff is relatively rare so it is to change context (=logical fallacy: false premise) to focus solely on that group.

Thank you for admitting that your whole tone is based solely on a personal attack and a sycophantic attempt to curry favour.
The average time spent in prison by lifers in the UK is 17 years, not 9. And people don't apply for parole three years before their tariff is up either, you're posting an awful lot of nonsense in this thread.

https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-...-serve-prison/
Strawberry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2017, 10:22 PM   #113
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
The intent of the sentence was permanent punishment in the form of death; the crime was judged as being heinous enough for the ultimate punishment. That there was a technical kerffle which resulted in a reduced sentence should not mean that the intent of the judge/jury should be thwarted.

Just put yourself in the position of the victim and their family. It's impossible to remove emotion from the equation.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 12:11 AM   #114
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,982
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The intent of the sentence was permanent punishment in the form of death; the crime was judged as being heinous enough for the ultimate punishment. That there was a technical kerffle which resulted in a reduced sentence should not mean that the intent of the judge/jury should be thwarted.

Just put yourself in the position of the victim and their family. It's impossible to remove emotion from the equation.
That's why developed countries tend to have an independent judiciary, ideally on who don't have to appeal to an electorate to get appointed, they can remove emotion from the equation so that justice is more likely to be served.

Of course developed countries also tend to have done away with the death sentence but that's already been discussed in various threads and is almost certainly OT in this one.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 12:57 AM   #115
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,416
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
......Just put yourself in the position of the victim and their family. It's impossible to remove emotion from the equation.
There's your problem, right there. Follow this logic, and you'll have intergenerational blood feuds as in Albania. Emotion, particularly victim emotion, must be removed as far as possible from the judicial process.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2017, 05:19 AM   #116
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The intent of the sentence was permanent punishment in the form of death; the crime was judged as being heinous enough for the ultimate punishment. That there was a technical kerffle which resulted in a reduced sentence should not mean that the intent of the judge/jury should be thwarted.

Just put yourself in the position of the victim and their family. It's impossible to remove emotion from the equation.
If the technical kerfuffle results in a rights violation, the jury can go eat an egg.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 09:52 AM   #117
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,908
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The desired outcome is to satisfy the communally shared notions of justice, which itself is fundamental to maintaining an orderly society. There is no requirement that justice, any more than any other human institution, be free of emotion. We want to be happy, don't we? More people are made happy if wicked acts are appropriately punished than are made happy if wicked acts are not punished appropriately.

The problem with this "make society happy" motivation is quite possibly the worst possible, since if that is the key factor in applying "justice", then it doesn't even matter if the person being punished is even guilty of the crime, so long as the dominant public perception is that the person is guilty. This is the prime motivation for scapegoating minorities and numerous other travesties of true justice.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:22 AM   #118
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,986
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
The problem with this "make society happy" motivation is quite possibly the worst possible, since if that is the key factor in applying "justice", then it doesn't even matter if the person being punished is even guilty of the crime, so long as the dominant public perception is that the person is guilty. This is the prime motivation for scapegoating minorities and numerous other travesties of true justice.
Okay, then, what's your justification for the concept of justice? Why have justice?
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:23 AM   #119
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,713
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
That's why developed countries tend to have an independent judiciary, ideally on who don't have to appeal to an electorate to get appointed, they can remove emotion from the equation so that justice is more likely to be served.
While you don't want personal emotions interfering in the judicial process, the judiciary should reflect, in general, the mores of the electorate. Otherwise punishments wildly out of line with public viewpoint will cause a lack of confidence and trust in the criminal justice system.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 10:59 AM   #120
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 13,908
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Okay, then, what's your justification for the concept of justice? Why have justice?

First, you have to define "justice". It's a far too nebulous a concept for this sort of attempt at argument by sound/text bite. What does "justice" mean? Looking throughout history, it has meant very very different things to different people.

"Seeing justice done" can mean anything depending on what a particular group of people feels like deciding it means.

It can mean letting a college-age rapist off with a slap on the wrist because negatively affecting his entire career for a "youthful mistake" wouldn't be "true" justice.

It can mean lynching a black teenager for "giving sass" to a white woman.

It can mean cutting off the hands of thieves, publicly flogging rape victims, and beheading blasphemers.

It can mean imprisoning recreational drug users and sexual minorities who have committed no harm to any other person because they're a "moral danger" to the over-culture.

It can mean exterminating all members of a particular minority ethnic and religious group because the majority believes them responsible for a failed economy and all the evils and ills of society.

It can also mean persecuting people falsely accused of a crime because a particularly vocal subset of society is too enamoured of conspiracy theories and emotionalist principles like "always believe" to believe the demonstrable facts of a case.

It can mean forcibly re-aquiring escaped and liberated slaves, returning them to their "owners", and fining or jailing those who help slaves escape their captivity.

It can mean knowingly convicting, imprisoning, and executing innocent people to appease the masses, especially when the true perpetrator of a crime is known to be untouchable.

It can mean hordes of vigilantes assaulting and murdering innocent people because they don't believe that the authorities have done "true" justice, or are simply taking too long to "see justice done".

All of these have been justified on the basis of "seeing justice done" and making society feel safer, regardless of whether there was true justice involved,

When you base "justice: on feelings and majority consent, it can mean anything depending on what the dominant cultural force decides it means. It can be based on religion, on conspiracy theories, on pseudo-science, on the whims of a particular ethnic majority. This makes society demonstrably less safe; especially if you happen to be an "undesirable" or unsympathetic minority.

The only legitimate purpose of a criminal justice system should be to protect society from directly and rationally measurable physical and financial harm resulting from force and fraud, enact restitution to victims when possible, and rehabilitate criminals so that they are able to be come responsible, productive members of society to the extent possible. Once you bring in the notion of feelings, that all gets thrown right out the window, and at that point, anything goes.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.