Why the UKIP will never work....
Discussion
NicD said:
edh said:
..and that's why the US is such a crime free paradise...
can you please try to frame a logical thought?you forgot that they still get out of prison.. or do we lock them up indefinitely.
Correlation between recorded crime and # of prisoners in a country? Maybe we should stop sending so many people to jail, maybe we should legalise drugs to cut crime & prison populations, maybe we should stop sending mentally ill people to prison? Lots of options, but locking more people up for longer is nowhere near the top of my list.
edh said:
NicD said:
edh said:
..and that's why the US is such a crime free paradise...
can you please try to frame a logical thought?you forgot that they still get out of prison.. or do we lock them up indefinitely.
Correlation between recorded crime and # of prisoners in a country? Maybe we should stop sending so many people to jail, maybe we should legalise drugs to cut crime & prison populations, maybe we should stop sending mentally ill people to prison? Lots of options, but locking more people up for longer is nowhere near the top of my list.
I answered the asked question: 'Does locking more and more people up for longer and longer a la USA actually reduce crime?'
Its an obviously complex subject, but yes, I am a 'hanger and flogger'.
Its huge, I do wonder though, that kids will always want to rebel, even if there were free choice of licensed drugs, would there still be a large unlicensed (illegal) drug demand?
Some people (my dear departed younger brother, for example) should not have access to mind altering substances.
Some people (my dear departed younger brother, for example) should not have access to mind altering substances.
rs1952 said:
Go on - give us all a laugh and not just me 
Are UKIP suggesting that they will abolish ALL human rights or just give us more control about implementing those rights (to avoid those perverse judgements which appear to put the criminal's rights above those of law abiding citizens)...??Clue: it's not the former!
NicD said:
unless it is an open prison it seems pretty likely that locking someone up means that person cannot commit more crimes.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/has_crime_fallen_regardless_of_changes_to_prison_numbers-28551Suggests there is no link between locking people up and crime rates......
Countdown said:
HonestIago said:
FredClogs said:
What like in the crime free USA?
Or like in the crime free USA would we just create a marketised for profit prison system, that afford a powerful political lobby and generates a self perpetuating positively fed back cash and politically rich "business" of punishment to society's poor and unfortunate?
...because of course the UK is exactly like the USA in every other regard. Or like in the crime free USA would we just create a marketised for profit prison system, that afford a powerful political lobby and generates a self perpetuating positively fed back cash and politically rich "business" of punishment to society's poor and unfortunate?
Does locking more and more people up for longer and longer a la USA actually reduce crime? My interpretation of FC's post was that it doesn't reduce crime and in the UK it would cost £40,000 per annum for each prisoner.
I'm no expert, but my gut feeling is that when criminals are in a cell, they just don't have as many opportunities to commit crimes as the ones who are not in prison.
I know that the following is just anecdotal evidence, but I know a few people (myself included) who have been burgled. In all cases, the burglars were not in prison.
We have also seen thousands of cases where underage girls were sexually abused. Once again, all of the taxi drivers were not in prison when the crimes occurred. Most of them are still at liberty, for reasons which escape me.
That being said, I do believe that we should try much harder at "rehabilitation".
Countdown said:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/has_crime_fallen_r...
Suggests there is no link between locking people up and crime rates......
I stopped reading when I saw a quote from polly torn boy...no seriously, i skim read it to the end, and indeed no useful conclusion can be reached.Suggests there is no link between locking people up and crime rates......
certainly not this 'no link between locking people up and crime rates......'
Problem is, there is no appetite to be hard on people, there are so many apologists and human rights lawyers that all measures are doomed.
Tell me, how much crime is there in Singapore? answer, not much, why, because they are very harsh on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore
problem is, none of use want to live like this.
don4l said:
You appear to be asking if criminals who are at liberty commit more crimes than criminals who are in a prison cell.
I'm no expert, but my gut feeling is that when criminals are in a cell, they just don't have as many opportunities to commit crimes as the ones who are not in prison.
I know that the following is just anecdotal evidence, but I know a few people (myself included) who have been burgled. In all cases, the burglars were not in prison.
We have also seen thousands of cases where underage girls were sexually abused. Once again, all of the taxi drivers were not in prison when the crimes occurred. Most of them are still at liberty, for reasons which escape me.
That being said, I do believe that we should try much harder at "rehabilitation".
No. Feel free to have a re-read.I'm no expert, but my gut feeling is that when criminals are in a cell, they just don't have as many opportunities to commit crimes as the ones who are not in prison.
I know that the following is just anecdotal evidence, but I know a few people (myself included) who have been burgled. In all cases, the burglars were not in prison.
We have also seen thousands of cases where underage girls were sexually abused. Once again, all of the taxi drivers were not in prison when the crimes occurred. Most of them are still at liberty, for reasons which escape me.
That being said, I do believe that we should try much harder at "rehabilitation".
There is no correlation between locking people up and a fall on crime rate. So, whilst the criminal who is physically in jail might not be committing crime, it appears that other people step in to fill the void. With the added cost of the £40k - £50k that we taxpayers will be paying to keep him in jail. And let's not forget that at some point he will need to be released and rehabilitated.
"Lock em up and throw away the key" might be a vote winner but its expensive and there's no guarantee it works.
Countdown said:
No. Feel free to have a re-read.
There is no correlation between locking people up and a fall on crime rate. So, whilst the criminal who is physically in jail might not be committing crime, it appears that other people step in to fill the void. With the added cost of the £40k - £50k that we taxpayers will be paying to keep him in jail. And let's not forget that at some point he will need to be released and rehabilitated.
"Lock em up and throw away the key" might be a vote winner but its expensive and there's no guarantee it works.
Just shoot 'em then.There is no correlation between locking people up and a fall on crime rate. So, whilst the criminal who is physically in jail might not be committing crime, it appears that other people step in to fill the void. With the added cost of the £40k - £50k that we taxpayers will be paying to keep him in jail. And let's not forget that at some point he will need to be released and rehabilitated.
"Lock em up and throw away the key" might be a vote winner but its expensive and there's no guarantee it works.
And yes, I'm taking the piss but it is obvious that what we are doing now isn't very successful and we should openly look at all options both from a utilitarian (shoot the useless buggers) and a humanitarian (yes, they're bang to rights but society is to blame) viewpoint and try and design a justice system that can work.
Countdown said:
NicD said:
unless it is an open prison it seems pretty likely that locking someone up means that person cannot commit more crimes.
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/has_crime_fallen_regardless_of_changes_to_prison_numbers-28551Suggests there is no link between locking people up and crime rates......
The simple truth that people in prison don't burgle houses, steal cars or mug people is inescapable.
sidicks said:
In the past they have proposed a flat tax with a large tax free threshold, which benefits the lowest earners the most...
Oh, I love this!Tell me.. how much do you stand to save on your 6-figure tax bill with a flat rate, Sidney? I'll tell you how much I'd save on my 85th percentile wage, and then maybe we can take a look at how much a median earner would save, and see if you're talking elitist b
ks or not. (BTW I strongly suspect that you are)
CamMoreRon said:
Oh, I love this!
Tell me.. how much do you stand to save on your 6-figure tax bill with a flat rate, Sidney? I'll tell you how much I'd save on my 85th percentile wage, and then maybe we can take a look at how much a median earner would save, and see if you're talking elitist bks or not.
(BTW I strongly suspect that you are)
Ah the jealous enviest returns....and still you deliberately misquote my name to try and be clever, how dull.Tell me.. how much do you stand to save on your 6-figure tax bill with a flat rate, Sidney? I'll tell you how much I'd save on my 85th percentile wage, and then maybe we can take a look at how much a median earner would save, and see if you're talking elitist b
ks or not. (BTW I strongly suspect that you are)
How much I would benefit would obviously depend on the flat rate chosen and the size of the tax free allowance. But of course I'm still likely to be paying many multiples of 'my fair share'...
As much as ignorant lefties try and deny it, a system that takes the lowest paid out of tax altogether does far more for the lowest income earners that one where they are forced to pay tax and then claim benefits.
Further, a simplified tax system (with more reasonable tax rates) is likely to lead to lower avoidance and hence higher revenues meaning that once again the lower earners benefit.
But once again you let ignorance and envy get in the way of the bigger picture.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th November 10:09
sidicks said:
Ah the jealous enviest returns....and still you deliberately misquote my name to try and be clever, how dull.
How much I would benefit would obviously depend on the flat rate chosen and the size of the tax free allowance. But of course I'm still likely to be paying many multiples of 'my fair share'...
As much as ignorant lefties try and deny it, a system that takes the lowest paid out of tax altogether does far more for the lowest income earners that one where they are forced to pay tax and then claim benefits.
Spectacular dodge. Let's take UKIP's proposed 30% flat rate: go on then..How much I would benefit would obviously depend on the flat rate chosen and the size of the tax free allowance. But of course I'm still likely to be paying many multiples of 'my fair share'...
As much as ignorant lefties try and deny it, a system that takes the lowest paid out of tax altogether does far more for the lowest income earners that one where they are forced to pay tax and then claim benefits.
CamMoreRon said:
Spectacular dodge. Let's take UKIP's proposed 30% flat rate: go on then..
Given that you struggled to work out the result of £1,400bn + £75bn - £75bn without the use of a spreadsheet, then I'm not sure I trust your calculations.The UKIP proposed flat rate of tax is about 5 years out of date - do keep up.
I've never said that I wouldn't benefit from such a system - indeed there is a view that suggests that most people would benefit - but that wasn't the point.
The point was about taking the lowest paid out of tax.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff