6 ms·

An indefinite prison sentence is unethical - the article is quoting people calling for a review of all indefinite prison sentences. Presumably Mr Ings hurling f

An indefinite prison sentence is unethical - the article is quoting people calling for a review of all indefinite prison sentences. Presumably Mr Ings hurling feces at someone or whatever it is he did would be taken into consideration. Idk about you but I think a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone don't deserve decades long prison sentences.

Spivak 2y ago
We're also talking about the difference between 17 and 35 years old. That alone I think would be grounds for parole, he's a completely different person twice over in that amount of time.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  A 17 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. Obviously physically harming others is not acceptable. If they don’t know that at 17, they’ll never know it I bet.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I mean this genuinely, if you believe this shouldn't we just execute anyone guilty of a violent offense? If someone can't be redeemed and they'll never not be a danger to the public what do you gain locking them up forever?
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      I don’t think we gain anything from locking them up forever to be honest. But I am not saying they “can’t” be redeemed - simply that the chance is low and all the time and expense we lose to investing in those individuals (even if only by jailing them) seems like a massive waste when it could go to someone else who hasn’t broken he law. I realize this stance is cruel in a way, but I am simply weighing the trade offs between the different ways we could deal with criminals, and I think it is better for the rest of society to be highly intolerant of violent crimes. For me, violent offense includes any act involving physical violence - including most property crimes. People put their life into obtaining their property - taking it away is the same as taking years of their life away.
      - komali2 2y ago
        Why don't you instead argue for summary execution? Seems like the natural conclusion to your points: * we gain nothing from locking them up, and it costs us a lot to do this * redeeming them might not work and if it does it costs us a lot * we don't want them around You could try to argue for shipping them to some island, shipping them to another country etc but there's some obvious shortcomings to this such as slave rebellion, other countries punishing through sanctions if you ship your criminals to them etc, so am I missing something or is the natural solution to your position, swift and summary execution?
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  He doesn't seem reformed... https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/18158037.prisoner-accused-using-human-excrement-prison-officers/ https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/18158037.prisoner-accus...
tiku 2y ago
It is not like prison prison, more like a mental hospital with prison. So you have more freedom and get treatment and evaluation. He probably doesn't improve or gives the correct answers.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  I would be unsurprised if at least part of that comes from expecting an autistic person to give 'correct' (i.e. non-autistic) answers. It's pretty typical for autistic people to be treated harshly by courts and other institutions because they don't emote in the "normal" manner.
ActorNightly 2y ago
In a perfect world, we would have actual rehabilitation programs that work, but since we don't, that type of person should absolutely kept away from public. If you assault someone with (i.e intend to injure them through physical means), you don't belong in society, period. A fight could end up with life lasting damage should someone get struck in the head with enough force. This guy did it multiple times.
- commodoreboxer 2y ago
  You're in support of life imprisonment as punishment for somebody who gets into a couple fights?
  - ActorNightly 2y ago
    Yes. This is the reasonable position to take. Fighting isn't normal. Nobody should be able to use physical size/strength as a way to impose their will on someone else. Fighting should be treated exactly like rape. You can also find plenty of examples where in fights, someone got thrown to the ground on their head, and got a concussion. That shit can be life altering.
    - t-3 2y ago
      By your logic, half or more of all children would be in prison before they even hit 10 years old. Fighting and violence is very normal, and it takes a lot of teaching and social pressure to make it as rare as it is.
      - ActorNightly 2y ago
        The difference with kids is that you have a way higher chance of them being able to change their behavior, and you can also do things like go after their parents, so you don't have to jail them. But again, juvenile detention centers are thing, with kids as young as 10 years old being able to be put in there, and plenty do. >Fighting and violence is very normal Yes, I understand this. People make irrational choices all the time.There are very little things that prevent someone from drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car or a truck. And yet, the support for mandatory breathalyzer devices standard in vehicles to be able to operate them is never going to be high. So people are making the irrational choice to risk getting killed by a drunk driver rather than lose some fake "freedom". And people like the commenters here also make the irrational choice to view fighting in a way less serious light then it should be. In this case, though the problem is solved - a person who should not be in society is not, and it should remain that way.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
I agree that a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone doesn't warrant locking someone away forever. But the comment you're replying to is also mentioning seven robberies and several other assaults, which you conveniently ignore just like the biased article that makes it sound like he's in prison only for a fight in McDonald's. He's in prison to keep him from victimizing more people, and I think there's a huge difference whether that is done after one fight, or a history of crime after crime after crime. Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them?
- freeopinion 2y ago
  I'm not defending any specifics of this case. I would like to mention, though, that somebody who got in fights when they were 15 is less likely to do so when they are 30. And somebody who committed robberies when they were 22 is less likely to do so when they are 40. If your argument is that they have a criminal nature and will therefore commit some other crime because it is in their nature, that's a bit hard to accept. If your argument is that they are acting out against their prison environment and therefore can't be trusted in a completely different environment, that is also hard for me to accept. If your argument is that they have been moved into a halfway house but don't seem to be able to cope with normal society, I would probably probe that. Have they committed robberies while in the halfway house? Have they assaulted someone there? I hate to paint all prison guards with a giant brush, but I have experienced first hand how normal people act out against mild authority like parents or teachers or coaches. I think many non-criminal people would fare very poorly in an environment of prison-style authority. Activists are often viewed poorly in regular society. In more authoritarian climates they become indistinguishable from criminals. That is not a good indicator of their expected behavior in less authoritarian climates.
- komali2 2y ago
  > Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them? No, I don't, because that's a false assurance. Governments, and especially the American and British governments, don't lock away sociopathic murderers, they lock away weed dealers and kids who make mistakes, mostly. Plenty of those mistakes have victims and those victims deserve justice - but locking up someone for 20 years and turning them into a hardened convict in torturous conditions isn't justice. Last I read, something like 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Similar to kidnappings (it's usually one of the parents). It would be incorrect to believe you're safe, or safer, from harm because people are being locked in prisons. If anything, this system creates more harm. If you're not British or American maybe it doesn't apply to you, but I think people seriously underestimate how life-ruining a chance encounter with the justice system of those countries can be, for things that "everyone" does, or for things that genuinely could happen to anyone. It's a common misconception that these justice systems are keeping people safe from, idk, roving bands of criminal drug pushing rapists or whatever.

Spivak 2y ago

We're also talking about the difference between 17 and 35 years old. That alone I think would be grounds for parole, he's a completely different person twice over in that amount of time.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
A 17 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. Obviously physically harming others is not acceptable. If they don’t know that at 17, they’ll never know it I bet.
- Spivak 2y ago
  I mean this genuinely, if you believe this shouldn't we just execute anyone guilty of a violent offense? If someone can't be redeemed and they'll never not be a danger to the public what do you gain locking them up forever?
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    I don’t think we gain anything from locking them up forever to be honest. But I am not saying they “can’t” be redeemed - simply that the chance is low and all the time and expense we lose to investing in those individuals (even if only by jailing them) seems like a massive waste when it could go to someone else who hasn’t broken he law. I realize this stance is cruel in a way, but I am simply weighing the trade offs between the different ways we could deal with criminals, and I think it is better for the rest of society to be highly intolerant of violent crimes. For me, violent offense includes any act involving physical violence - including most property crimes. People put their life into obtaining their property - taking it away is the same as taking years of their life away.
    - komali2 2y ago
      Why don't you instead argue for summary execution? Seems like the natural conclusion to your points: * we gain nothing from locking them up, and it costs us a lot to do this * redeeming them might not work and if it does it costs us a lot * we don't want them around You could try to argue for shipping them to some island, shipping them to another country etc but there's some obvious shortcomings to this such as slave rebellion, other countries punishing through sanctions if you ship your criminals to them etc, so am I missing something or is the natural solution to your position, swift and summary execution?
WillPostForFood 2y ago
He doesn't seem reformed... https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/18158037.prisoner-accused-using-human-excrement-prison-officers/ https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/18158037.prisoner-accus...

tiku 2y ago

It is not like prison prison, more like a mental hospital with prison. So you have more freedom and get treatment and evaluation. He probably doesn't improve or gives the correct answers.

crooked-v 2y ago
I would be unsurprised if at least part of that comes from expecting an autistic person to give 'correct' (i.e. non-autistic) answers. It's pretty typical for autistic people to be treated harshly by courts and other institutions because they don't emote in the "normal" manner.

ActorNightly 2y ago

In a perfect world, we would have actual rehabilitation programs that work, but since we don't, that type of person should absolutely kept away from public. If you assault someone with (i.e intend to injure them through physical means), you don't belong in society, period. A fight could end up with life lasting damage should someone get struck in the head with enough force. This guy did it multiple times.

commodoreboxer 2y ago
You're in support of life imprisonment as punishment for somebody who gets into a couple fights?
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  Yes. This is the reasonable position to take. Fighting isn't normal. Nobody should be able to use physical size/strength as a way to impose their will on someone else. Fighting should be treated exactly like rape. You can also find plenty of examples where in fights, someone got thrown to the ground on their head, and got a concussion. That shit can be life altering.
  - t-3 2y ago
    By your logic, half or more of all children would be in prison before they even hit 10 years old. Fighting and violence is very normal, and it takes a lot of teaching and social pressure to make it as rare as it is.
    - ActorNightly 2y ago
      The difference with kids is that you have a way higher chance of them being able to change their behavior, and you can also do things like go after their parents, so you don't have to jail them. But again, juvenile detention centers are thing, with kids as young as 10 years old being able to be put in there, and plenty do. >Fighting and violence is very normal Yes, I understand this. People make irrational choices all the time.There are very little things that prevent someone from drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car or a truck. And yet, the support for mandatory breathalyzer devices standard in vehicles to be able to operate them is never going to be high. So people are making the irrational choice to risk getting killed by a drunk driver rather than lose some fake "freedom". And people like the commenters here also make the irrational choice to view fighting in a way less serious light then it should be. In this case, though the problem is solved - a person who should not be in society is not, and it should remain that way.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

I agree that a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone doesn't warrant locking someone away forever. But the comment you're replying to is also mentioning seven robberies and several other assaults, which you conveniently ignore just like the biased article that makes it sound like he's in prison only for a fight in McDonald's. He's in prison to keep him from victimizing more people, and I think there's a huge difference whether that is done after one fight, or a history of crime after crime after crime. Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them?

freeopinion 2y ago
I'm not defending any specifics of this case. I would like to mention, though, that somebody who got in fights when they were 15 is less likely to do so when they are 30. And somebody who committed robberies when they were 22 is less likely to do so when they are 40. If your argument is that they have a criminal nature and will therefore commit some other crime because it is in their nature, that's a bit hard to accept. If your argument is that they are acting out against their prison environment and therefore can't be trusted in a completely different environment, that is also hard for me to accept. If your argument is that they have been moved into a halfway house but don't seem to be able to cope with normal society, I would probably probe that. Have they committed robberies while in the halfway house? Have they assaulted someone there? I hate to paint all prison guards with a giant brush, but I have experienced first hand how normal people act out against mild authority like parents or teachers or coaches. I think many non-criminal people would fare very poorly in an environment of prison-style authority. Activists are often viewed poorly in regular society. In more authoritarian climates they become indistinguishable from criminals. That is not a good indicator of their expected behavior in less authoritarian climates.
komali2 2y ago
> Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them? No, I don't, because that's a false assurance. Governments, and especially the American and British governments, don't lock away sociopathic murderers, they lock away weed dealers and kids who make mistakes, mostly. Plenty of those mistakes have victims and those victims deserve justice - but locking up someone for 20 years and turning them into a hardened convict in torturous conditions isn't justice. Last I read, something like 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Similar to kidnappings (it's usually one of the parents). It would be incorrect to believe you're safe, or safer, from harm because people are being locked in prisons. If anything, this system creates more harm. If you're not British or American maybe it doesn't apply to you, but I think people seriously underestimate how life-ruining a chance encounter with the justice system of those countries can be, for things that "everyone" does, or for things that genuinely could happen to anyone. It's a common misconception that these justice systems are keeping people safe from, idk, roving bands of criminal drug pushing rapists or whatever.