Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:47:20 +0100, Dave Muir <dmuir>
> wrote:
>>
>
> No, I have always claimed that it is about *both* rehabilitation *and*
> punishment.

There are many who can't be rehabilitated so keeping them locked up can
only be for revenge. That revenge costs money to extract and it sure as
hell isn't the prisoners who pay for it.

If a prisoner refuses to have 'rehabilitation' forced on them then I see
little point in keeping them locked up especially if they are 79 and
totally unable to commit any more crime as in the case of Biggs who is
no threat to anyone.

Straw is acting out of pure spite. A typical Jewish trait.

Dave Muir wrote:
..
> So, Biggs gets 30 years, harsh perhaps but maybe not for the times.

It was exceptional even for 'the times'. The sentences were issued to
take the medias eyes off the Profumo affair which had brought the
government to its knees.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:38:33 +0100, Johnny <jonwon> wrote:

>>> But in other posts recently, you claim that prison is not about
>>> punishment but for rehabilitation?

>> No, I have always claimed that it is about *both* rehabilitation *and*
>> punishment.

>There are many who can't be rehabilitated so keeping them locked up can
>only be for revenge. That revenge costs money to extract and it sure as
>hell isn't the prisoners who pay for it.

While it is true that UK society appear to be more concerned with
revenge than rehabilitation, I disagree than there is any but a very
low proportion of criminals who *cannot* be rehabilitated.

>If a prisoner refuses to have 'rehabilitation' forced on them then I see
>little point in keeping them locked up especially if they are 79 and
>totally unable to commit any more crime as in the case of Biggs who is
>no threat to anyone.

Rehabilitation does not need to be anything that the prisoner has to
agree with or cooperate with, and so can be carried out regardless of
the prisoner's wishes - though it is easy to ensure that prisoners
will cooperate. It does not require a very big or a very expensive
carrot to get a prisoner to do what you want.

Johnny wrote:
> Cynic wrote:
>
> There are many who can't be rehabilitated so keeping them locked up can
> only be for revenge. That revenge costs money to extract and it sure as
> hell isn't the prisoners who pay for it.
>

Revenge or public protection?

I'll pay my share.

> If a prisoner refuses to have 'rehabilitation' forced on them then I see
> little point in keeping them locked up especially if they are 79 and
> totally unable to commit any more crime as in the case of Biggs who is
> no threat to anyone.
>

As a warning to those who in the future might like to do a Biggs wrt the
media?

> Straw is acting out of pure spite. A typical Jewish trait.
>
A, a bigot.
No matter, we all have our prejudices, me included. I hate thieves and
robbers and those who use force to take what is not their own.

Johnny wrote:
> Dave Muir wrote:
> .
>> So, Biggs gets 30 years, harsh perhaps but maybe not for the times.
>
> It was exceptional even for 'the times'. The sentences were issued to
> take the medias eyes off the Profumo affair which had brought the
> government to its knees.
>
So you keep saying, but, as someone who was there at the time, the
feeling in my circle was that the sentences were richly deserved and
Profumo was nothing more than light entertainment.

"Dave Muir" <dmuir> wrote in message
news:6df2
> Johnny wrote:
>> Dave Muir wrote:
>> .
>>> So, Biggs gets 30 years, harsh perhaps but maybe not for the times.
>>
>> It was exceptional even for 'the times'. The sentences were issued to
>> take the medias eyes off the Profumo affair which had brought the
>> government to its knees.
>>
> So you keep saying, but, as someone who was there at the time, the feeling
> in my circle was that the sentences were richly deserved and Profumo was
> nothing more than light entertainment.
>

I can't see that the Profumo case is in any way relevant. The sentences were
issued by a court of law, not by Harold MacMillan or the government's spin
doctors.

The Profumo case was not a major problem for MacMillan - at the end of the
day it was Profumo's problem. It was his dalliance with a prostitute, and
his dishonesty in denying it in the Commons, and there was no misconduct on
the part of the Prime Minister or anyone else in the Cabinet.

"Johnny" <jonwon> wrote in message
news:de2f
> Cynic wrote:
>
> There are many who can't be rehabilitated so keeping them locked up can
> only be for revenge. That revenge costs money to extract and it sure as
> hell isn't the prisoners who pay for it.

Wrong. A major purpose is deterrence. To deter the criminally minded from
committing such offences.

If a train robber is allowed out early for good behaviour, the message it
sends out is that robbing trains isn't really among the gravest offences a
chap can commit.

The purpose of keeping a prisoner locked up is also to reassure the
law-abiding public that serious offences will be punished severely.

>
> If a prisoner refuses to have 'rehabilitation' forced on them then I see
> little point in keeping them locked up especially if they are 79 and
> totally unable to commit any more crime as in the case of Biggs who is no
> threat to anyone.
>
> Straw is acting out of pure spite. A typical Jewish trait.

What a stupid thing to say - with those four words you show yourself to be
irrational.

Of all his possible motivations, I am quite sure that spite has nothing to
do with it.

mcp wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:38:08 +0100, johannes
> <johs> wrote:
>
> >The train driver died from head injuries.
> No he didn't, he died of leukaemia, 7 years later.

"Jack Mills, who was 58 at the time of robbery, never fully recovered
from his injuries, and never returned to work."

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:53:28 +0100, johannes
<johs> wrote:

>mcp wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:38:08 +0100, johannes
>> <johs> wrote:

>> >The train driver died from head injuries.
>> No he didn't, he died of leukaemia, 7 years later.

>"Jack Mills, who was 58 at the time of robbery, never fully recovered
> from his injuries, and never returned to work."

Which is irrelevant to your claim he died from head injuries.

mcp wrote:
>
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:53:28 +0100, johannes
> <johs> wrote:
>>
>
> Which is irrelevant to your claim he died from head injuries.

So would you perhaps like to be struck over the heady with an iron bar?

Train driver Jack Mills was traumatised over his injuries that his life
was effectively finished.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:16:04 +0100, johannes
<johs> wrote:

>mcp wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:53:28 +0100, johannes
>> <johs> wrote:
>> >mcp wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:38:08 +0100, johannes
>> >> <johs> wrote:

>> >> >The train driver died from head injuries.
>> >> No he didn't, he died of leukaemia, 7 years later.

>> >"Jack Mills, who was 58 at the time of robbery, never fully recovered
>> > from his injuries, and never returned to work."

>> Which is irrelevant to your claim he died from head injuries.

>So would you perhaps like to be struck over the heady with an iron bar?

>Train driver Jack Mills was traumatised over his injuries that his life
>was effectively finished.

That's not what you were claiming above.