Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Because the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill sounds too draconian?
Quite right. Blame carnival excess last night. I was thinking about how "three strikes" set the tone.
Surely these sneering references to my wining a "king of the proles" competition cannot be a reference to members of the proletariat,
Maybe you missed that magnificent portmanteau coinage "prolier than thou" - the suggestion is that it is something you aspire to, what with the repeated allusions to your rough and tough background.
-
You know, this discussion might have been completely different if the legislation were called the Recidivist Violent Offender Incapacitation Bill.
-
As soon as I saw this I thought of this thread.
-
David, to what do those papers attribute the crime reduction? Deterrence, or the fact that offenders can't reoffend while in jail? Both? Something else?
-
Apropos deterrence: my summer reading has been The Newgate Calendar, which is a prurient compendium of accounts of 18th century crimes.
At the time the Newgate Calendar was being compiled, England still had the so-called Bloody Code, which imposed the death penalty for anything more serious than minor theft (this is why transportation to the colonies was seen as a marvellously humane improvement).
What I learned from reading the lurid accounts in the Calendar was that the prospect of being hanged if caught did not prevent habitual criminality to any extent at all. One reason was that there was no police force at that time, so being caught was somewhat less likely. But what I infer is that no one who commits a serious crime believes they will be caught. No one cares about something which they don't think will happen. Hence the severity of the punishment is irrelevant.
If there were a truth-in-charity-name law, the SST would be called the Gratifying Vengeance Trust. If it's not about the vengeance, why does the SST always focus on victims and grieving family members and their feelings? The odd reference to crime prevention is a figleaf. It's all about the revenge.
Note, I think sentencing requires an element of revenge. People's need for revenge needs to be somewhat satisfied lest they take matters into their own hands. But the SST is all about the revenge. Specifically, they are about revenge for middle-aged, middle-class people, which is why Garth McVicar is so sympathetic to Bruce Emery. That's why their hand-wringing is so odious.
Actually, when I think about, the SST would probably like to bring back a Bloody Code regime. Death for tagging! The King's pardon for shopkeepers! Petty thieves to be burned in the hand! Costs to be recouped by screening on Sky.
-
Recording music on phonographs? Ruining musicians.
It did, actually. Lots of unemployed theatre musicians after that (and again after the talkies). It also killed the piano industry. And it's reduced most people's faith in their ability to sing/make music of their own, as they compare themselves to the recorded standard. There's certainly a fair amount of regress mitigating the progress.
-
Apropos the trains (and perhaps governmental stupidity too), poneke had a ripper of a background comment here.
-
the PROBLEM WITH the parallel
WHERE IS MY EDIT BUTTON DAMNIT.
-
Actually the parallel with the anti-smacking law is that duh, there would be a trial. The discretion in the anti-smacking law is discretion to charge you, not discretion to impose a criminal punishment.
-
Damien: I was consistently opposed to the so-called anti-smacking law too, for exactly that reason.