UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => the log pile => Topic started by: Sloper on June 03, 2014, 09:30:34 pm
-
No pink anasazi / pain au chocolat option, who are you banging up and why? And yes for all you budding pedants I know the difference between assault and battery.
The convict has no previous convictions and a job which he may well lose.
You must impose a custodial sentence on one of the five, which is it?
-
What are we talking about?
-
I'm very much anti-jail, but since you said 'custodial sentence', I'm in support.
For me, the single greatest reason to use custodial sentences (in face of their failures and the harms they cause) is quarantine, i.e. protection of others. The case of a seemingly abusive relationship seems to give the greatest call for quarantine, to give space and time to the victim. Thus I chose that.
Shoplifting and cannabis selling wouldn't even come close.
The really interesting one is drink driving, since it produces a troubling case of moral luck. Someone who drives while blind drunk and crashes into a lamp post and someone who drives while blind drunk and crashes into a child fatally are likely to receive very different treatment - and many people would say they should (though I'd question that). The same can be said for speeding, or perhaps carelessly tossing metalwork down a crag.
-
How is this related to diet?
-
What are we talking about?
Say six months, serve 8 weeks with early discharge. :shrug:
-
I'm very much anti-jail, but since you said 'custodial sentence', I'm in support.
For me, the single greatest reason to use custodial sentences (in face of their failures and the harms they cause) is quarantine, i.e. protection of others. The case of a seemingly abusive relationship seems to give the greatest call for quarantine, to give space and time to the victim. Thus I chose that.
Shoplifting and cannabis selling wouldn't even come close.
The really interesting one is drink driving, since it produces a troubling case of moral luck. Someone who drives while blind drunk and crashes into a lamp post and someone who drives while blind drunk and crashes into a child fatally are likely to receive very different treatment - and many people would say they should (though I'd question that). The same can be said for speeding, or perhaps carelessly tossing metalwork down a crag.
Interesting, if the victim has a (limited) degree of control whether to be a victim, you consider the offending to be more serious than then offence where the victim has no control and there is less potential for +ve intervention and remedial treatment? I'm not arguing this is wrong, after all I started the thread to canvas opinions, just interested in why people's views are as they are, personally I would consider the random violent nutter to be more deserving of a custodial sentence.
-
How is this related to diet?
it's not, wrong fora, Bubba / Shark can you move please to trolling the proles shooting the shit
-
Rest it with ice ;)
:off:
-
it's not, wrong fora, Bubba / Shark can you move please to trolling the proles shooting the shit
Done :)
Logged because it's a ridiculous poll.
-
I'm very much anti-jail, but since you said 'custodial sentence', I'm in support.
For me, the single greatest reason to use custodial sentences (in face of their failures and the harms they cause) is quarantine, i.e. protection of others. The case of a seemingly abusive relationship seems to give the greatest call for quarantine, to give space and time to the victim. Thus I chose that.
Shoplifting and cannabis selling wouldn't even come close.
The really interesting one is drink driving, since it produces a troubling case of moral luck. Someone who drives while blind drunk and crashes into a lamp post and someone who drives while blind drunk and crashes into a child fatally are likely to receive very different treatment - and many people would say they should (though I'd question that). The same can be said for speeding, or perhaps carelessly tossing metalwork down a crag.
Interesting, if the victim has a (limited) degree of control whether to be a victim, you consider the offending to be more serious than then offence where the victim has no control and there is less potential for +ve intervention and remedial treatment? I'm not arguing this is wrong, after all I started the thread to canvas opinions, just interested in why people's views are as they are, personally I would consider the random violent nutter to be more deserving of a custodial sentence.
Tagging/curfews/reformative&restorative justice would be appropriate for the assault outside the pub, but not so much for domestic abuse. As I say, custodial sentences should be a last resort.
-
Rest it with ice ;)
:off:
:lol:
Pub random nutter - because most likely to be a psychopath best segregated from wider society. Then assault within a relationship/drink driving, equally weighted - because there <may> be mitigating circumstances (though not justification). Then selling cannabis / shoplifting equally weighted - because both do minor harm to society relative to the others.
-
There's some confusion if you can yoke the words 'common assault within a relationship' and 'trifling' together into the same sentence. Whilst common assault is obviously a legal term to be distinguished from murder, this is trivialising domestic abuse.
Last year I knew data about (2010 IIRC) was 19 men killed by partners.
In contrast well over 100 women are killed by partners in the UK annually, more than 2 every week.
That's not trifling.
-
I don't wish to make light of anything, because 100 women killed in a relationship is quite obviously 100 too many - but, in the context of the post, your 100 women killed figure needs putting in context with how many people were killed in violent assaults, drink driving or cannabis use. Another important bit of context is: how many relationships exist in which women (or men) aren't assaulted?
According to Rospa, 1754 males and females were killed on the roads in 2012: 35 people killed every week. http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=296 (http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=296).
The Crime Survey figures for England & Wales 2012-13 report 688 violent assaults by a stranger compared to 388 in a domestic (obviously there's issues around non-reporting); the stats are here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/13/violent-sexual-crime-statistics-england-wales-2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/13/violent-sexual-crime-statistics-england-wales-2013)
Cannabis? Can't be arsed to look.
-
I don't wish to make light of anything, because 100 women killed in a relationship is quite obviously 100 too many - but, in the context of the post, your 100 women killed figure needs putting in context with how many people were killed in violent assaults, drink driving or cannabis use.
Have you really thought about what you are saying?
Another important bit of context is: how many relationships exist in which women (or men) aren't assaulted?
Same argument, different twist: 'it's not so bad because of some other, irrelevant point'
Lots of people die in other settings, so this is not that big a deal/lots of people don't die in similar settings, so this is not that big a deal. You're trivialising the -absoloutely, not relatively - unacceptable reality of domestic violence by diminishing it with spurious analogy.
Would you employ the same argument if say a daughter/sister/friend of yours died in this context? To me these figures should be a matter of horror, not a philosophical puzzle to mull over.
from what I've seen your posts are usually pertinent and astute. Not this time.
-
ex partners killing women is a massive problem and one that is likely to persist; the difficulty from a practical policng perspective is how to deal with it.
This sort of offence is massively male >> female.
I in now way would trivialse domestic violence, but I have an understanding of the difficulties in prosecuting it.
For example, when I worked in the Police Service we had a repeat victim who would withdrawn charges, the case would not proceed as the Crown would not compel her to attend as a witness. She will almost inevitably be murdered by her partner then there'll be the shit storm.
No easy answers.
-
Agreed with that observation.
I'm not knowledgeable, but listened to a couple of talks by a senior Cheshire social worker tasked with delivering training on this and child protection issues, grim listening, I can tell you, though you obviously know all too well.
Murderous nutcases addicted to a sense of power and control over their victims are very difficult to thwart.
-
It is also a matter of "intent".
Domestic violence is very much a Female on Male thing ASWELL.
Having recently had this discussion with many serving and retired Coppers, both male and female; it is as Sloper has described. Opinion, leant towards the greater male strength leading to more likelihood of a tragic outcome.
Oddly, the discussion grew out of the killing of a 17 year old boy in Kingsbridge a couple of nights ago; a random street violence incident. Aka a scrap.
Two of the officers involved are very close friends and given our own history (Google "Ben Coaker Torquay"), we got together for the "coffee and debrief" on the morning after...
-
Have you really thought about what you are saying?
Yes, I have. I'm not trivialising anything - I think you're overreacting to what you perceive to be me trivialising something.
What I'm saying answers the O.P. within the narrow context of his posted question - which was 'You must impose a custodial sentence on one of the five, which is it?''. That's all. And I answered that I think 'random nutters assaulting people' - I said that because I think RNAP are a greater problem to society, overall, than the others. That doesn't mean I think some of the other examples aren't equally as tragic. Blame the limits of the question (and actually look at Sloper's original question)!
Pointing out how tragic it is that women get beaten up by men seems, to me, as such a totally obvious statement to make that it renders it almost meaningless in a debate; a bit like pointing out how tragic and terrible it is to be hit by a bus or beaten up by 'a random twat'; to any sensible person with some level of empathy they're all self-evidently shit things to happen to any person. Does it really add anything to state such obvious things?