dargelos
Super Vip
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,859
- Reaction score
- 335
- Points
- 83
We're on the same channel;
"I think it has to depend from the crime how hard or less hard you have to be punished."
But not quite the same frequency.
I am trying to say that people in these minority groups go to prison when they would not have, had they broken the same law as a 'nice' person.
The rich person can hire a good lawyer who is expert at twisting the truth far enough to save the client from custody, look to the Philadelphia queerbashing case. The mentaly ill, drug addict, homeless, don't have that sort of money, all they can hope for at best, is the overworked underpaid low status public defence worker who can't spend the time needed to get justice.
London, last year, police arrest a homeless man for using the shower in a public sports club. The judge was incensed.
"The accused has no money, how could I fine him? He has no fixed abode so there are no community penalties that could be enforced. All I could do is put him in prison for a week. You want me to spend £450 for a week in prison plus nearly a thousand pounds in extra costs because he used ten pence worth of water taking a shower. Take him back where he cama from and don't waste my time like this again."
Not all judges are so sensible, some would have cooperated with the police and sent the poor man to the clink for nothing.
At the same time I see Lloyds Bank and Barclays Bank found guilty of a medley of assorted billion pound frauds. The directors who allowed those frauds to happen don't even get their botties slapped for naughtiness. The huge fines the banks were charged will be ultimately paid by the public. Massive crime, no punishment. Those are the opposite ends of the scale.
Equal punishment for equal crime, agreed. No it's not happening.
Where this is going is to say, stop putting people in prison who dont need to be there and the problem of overcrowding is over. Then the standard of education and rehabilitation can function as it was designed to do, to stop the revolving door effect.
"I think it has to depend from the crime how hard or less hard you have to be punished."
But not quite the same frequency.
I am trying to say that people in these minority groups go to prison when they would not have, had they broken the same law as a 'nice' person.
The rich person can hire a good lawyer who is expert at twisting the truth far enough to save the client from custody, look to the Philadelphia queerbashing case. The mentaly ill, drug addict, homeless, don't have that sort of money, all they can hope for at best, is the overworked underpaid low status public defence worker who can't spend the time needed to get justice.
London, last year, police arrest a homeless man for using the shower in a public sports club. The judge was incensed.
"The accused has no money, how could I fine him? He has no fixed abode so there are no community penalties that could be enforced. All I could do is put him in prison for a week. You want me to spend £450 for a week in prison plus nearly a thousand pounds in extra costs because he used ten pence worth of water taking a shower. Take him back where he cama from and don't waste my time like this again."
Not all judges are so sensible, some would have cooperated with the police and sent the poor man to the clink for nothing.
At the same time I see Lloyds Bank and Barclays Bank found guilty of a medley of assorted billion pound frauds. The directors who allowed those frauds to happen don't even get their botties slapped for naughtiness. The huge fines the banks were charged will be ultimately paid by the public. Massive crime, no punishment. Those are the opposite ends of the scale.
Equal punishment for equal crime, agreed. No it's not happening.
Where this is going is to say, stop putting people in prison who dont need to be there and the problem of overcrowding is over. Then the standard of education and rehabilitation can function as it was designed to do, to stop the revolving door effect.