on religious grounds.
so according to the mail (the lady i look after reads it, so i skim over it too, though it is prone to procoke feelings of disgust and/or anger and indignation) 'rapists, peadophiles and other dangerous attackers are expected to discuss their crimes with other inmates as a condition of release'
'the possiblity of an exemption for muslims came to light in a letter from an unnamed inmate to Inside Time, a newspaper for prisoners.
the convict said: 'i have always insisted that it was against islamic teachings to discuss your offence to anyone, let alone acti it out within a peer group'
errr...but it's not against islamic teachings to rape, attack or kill?
the atricle goes on to give a quotoe from this guy who knows stuff "if they do not take part, muslim sex offenders are likely to serve longer sentences, possibly the whole of their term, before they are released"
OH NO! THE WHOLE OF THEIR TERM?! the humanity! all violent criminals should serve the entirety of their sentence, surely? why sentence someone to ten years if you really mean 4?
grrr
can you link the article?
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558091&in_page_id=1770
ClicheGuevara, is that you?
muslim sex offenders??
Surely Daily Mail readers' heads would explode at the very concept
Hmm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558091&in_page_id=1770
They way I read it no one's budging on this. It just sounds like some load of guff raised by nutters to me.
just read it
i agree, they have lost their chance to have rights by being guilty of such offenses. if they want to carry on being 'muslims' then they should have to adhere to the justice system.
it's part of the bigger problem of prison spaces though too
it all comes down to the question of
do people automatically give up their human rights by commiting and being convicted of all or certain crimes?
if you believe so, then what's your view on torture of criminals as punishment?
i don't believe in harming convicts
as that is barbaric.
ahh, but
forcing someone to defy their faith can be more harmful to their minds/mental state than no torture
but that's what you're advocating up there
er, than ANY torture
was what i meant
but they've already defied their faith, unless...
THE KORAN PROMOTES SEEX OFFENSES!?
grrr
okay, deep breath brusma, here we go:
to a lot of religious people, they can commit crimes like that, which are obviously against their particular religious doctrine, while still feeling that they are devoutly Christian/Muslim whatever
here's a quote from Dr. Henry Giaretto with reference to sexual abuse by rabid Christians in the USA:
"In contrast to common belief, a great number of men who turn to their children for sexual purposes are highly religious or morally rigid individuals who feel that this is "less of a sin" than masturbation or seeking sexual liaisons in an outside affair."
look, i know some smart-arse is going to say "oh, you're condoning sex offenders then". no, fuck off.
my point is merely that some people see sexual crime etc and religion as unrelated, often the very religious people. THEREFORE, by forcing them to go against other aspects of their religious doctrine, it can be harmful to them mentally. that's all i'm saying. i'm not taking sides in this argument, I'M JUST SAYING. okay?
if they are in that sort of deluded state
then perhaps they should be in a 'mental hospital' or some other secure unit, rather than a prison, so that they can recieve some kind of enlightening moment that guides them beyond such a belief. it would be insane to release such a person who had the beliefs in your example.
yeah, i agree
someone who believes that they're allowed to rape people, and that it's alright shouldn't really be on the streets
no it doesn't
if you rape someone, you obviously aren't living a strict muslim lifestyle, so how can you claim that you should be exempt from ANYTHING baised on religious restrictions?
ANSWER ME THAT
.
http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/3147134#r3147312
just because people don't follow logic
doesn't mean we should punish them for it
just because people rape people
oh...wait...
oh, just read what you read up there
im pretty sure islam condemns rape.
so why should you be able to pcik and choose which aspects of your religious text you have to live by and which whill harm you mentally?
ha
show me one person in this world who completely follows their religious text in their religion
anyway, like i said
i'm pretty sure christianity condemns child molesting too, but it doesn't stop the people in the quote i mentioned up there believing they are devoutly Christian - but have they forgone the right to their religion? again, it depends what you believe
then they cant expect to be exempt from something for religious reasons
now, see
forcing someone (as in, you forcing them) to do something contrary to their religious beliefs/codes is (i'm no expert here) contrary to human rights
but seeing as there's a growing call from some people that we should give up our human rights...again, i'd like to see the anti-human rights types to have their current human rights violated, and see their reaction
but if they've already done something conrary to their religious beliefs
then they are just trying it on to get off lightly/out of doing things they want to do, surely?
oh, i'm not saying it's a possibility
but they're definitely not necessarily. again, you're taking an arbitrary approach.
one point you raise is that if someone does something contrary to their religious beliefs, they can't surely hold the rest of their beliefs can they? well, they really can, and that's the problem.
you seem to be of the belief that people hold a religious belief that follows logic - like, that if they go against their religion once, they feel like a bad religious person for that and stop believing in religion. but religion isn't a rational thing, people can do bad things and still be really religious. it's just how people are, m'afraid
^ this
If they show disdain for a given religion by claiming to belong to it then breaking its laws, they oughtn't have a right to be protected by those laws.
That's not to say 'anyone breaking the law has no right to be protected by the law' - you opt into a nation by living there, and are thus subject to, and protected by, its laws, whereas you opt into a religion by following its tenets. Thus, by breaking religious law you oughtn't be subject to its protection since you ignore its tenets, whereas breaking national law doesn't opt you out of the country (what with deportation being out of vogue these days).
I could have said that more succinctly, I think.
but then you've got to establish religious law
as far as i'm aware, every religious person doesn't completely follow their religious book exactly. does that mean they've broken religious law? or is it decided by a high council of religious leaders?
by consensus, really
And yes, I'm aware of the complete lack of it.
LOL @ This Comment:
"The reason Muslims might not join such groups is because it is believed that discussing sins and misdeeds openly makes them more socially acceptable and people realize that other people do the same thing or want to do the same thing, so the no longer feel shame about it. If you look at the way that homosexuality and paedophilia have become much more widespread since we have felt more 'free' to talk about them, there may be some sense in this. Paedophile rings are groups which just encourage each other to do wrong. Why set them up in prison? They will just 'play along', but meanwhile they are learning knew techniques for abuse and avoiding detection. I don't believe these prison groups prevent re-offending. I bet they make it worse and make it harder to catch the paedophiles."
- Rw, London
I 'love' this cunt's easy pairing of paedophilia and homosexuality.
THEY'RE EVOLVING
*DEVOLVING
*REVOLVING
*REVOLTING
This is a total non-story
If you read the Telegraph version you'll see some random organisation claims prisoners might be in a position to sue for unfair treatment thanks to their religion, based on them serving longer sentences.
Chances of them winning that case? Probably very low. The course they're talking about is used to assess whether a prisoner has a chance of reoffending. Clearly one could still take part in it and not get any parole so it wouldn't make much difference if they sued. Looks like reactionary arse to me.
It's all rubbish
It's ONE muslim.
"OH NO! THE WHOLE OF THEIR TERM?!" it is the whole of their term as decided at the time of sentencing eg, you're sentenced to 8 years, 5 if you're good in jail.
Not that I have any sympathy for low life crims, they should be sentenced to death - I'd love to see them reduce that for good behaviour.
i've just picked up on this, too
"all violent criminals should serve the entirety of their sentence, surely? why sentence someone to ten years if you really mean 4?"
erm, well if you tell all violent criminals to serve their full sentence, it doesn't matter then how they behave in prison, doesn't give them any motivation to try and reform while they're on the inside. giving people incentives to change their ways, such as the prospect of earlier release if coming to terms with their crimes, and teaching them to be truly sorry/repent and thus CHANGE THEIR WAYS are a way to prevent crime in the future.
you just tell someone "10 years, fuck off", they're just going to be resentful of the prison/justice system and aren't going to want to change. to believe the "harsh relaities" or whatever or prison are going to change someone alone is naive and possibly stupid
i agree to some extent
obut it doesn't stop them being really good little convicts for 4 years and getting out only to do it again in a day or two.
The same applies for all imprisonment.
This country is crying out for the death penalty to come and sort everybody out.
i believe that
people who are in favour of the death penalty deserve to be the victim of a wrongful conviction and executed before being exonerated posthumously
i'm not really, but it's the sort of delicious irony i'd appreciate on some level
actually
it'd be better if they were wronfully convicted and sentenced to life, and then exonerated after a time that WOULD have seen them executed had the death penalty been around
that way, they can say "thank god we don't have the death penalty", even though they had been in favour of it previously
or would they say "well, i still believe in the death penalty, even though i was innocent i should have been executed"
The simple argument when people bring up 'wrong conviction'
is as follows: how is it acceptable to imprison somebody wrongly convicted but not to kill them?
Prison destroys people. Its probably the most traumatic place ever. But, because we're not actually KILLING them, its somehow 'less bad'? I disagree. I think the idea of someone being locked in a warehouse full of the dregs of humanity is just as bad, if not worse than being hanged by the neck.
If I was going to be wrongly convicted for commiting 6 murders
I'd rather be killed then spend 25 years in jail.
^this ^
no it doesn't stop that
nor does keeping them for ten years arbitrarily stop them doing it again in a day or two after they're released - in fact, i'm under the impression it makes it more likely
since we live in a society which gives people the chance to change their ways after their punishment has been served though, what else can you do?
exactly
i do believe some convictions are uneven, multiple seex offenders can get off after 4 year, yet if i were to grow a plant of weed and sell it to my friends, i could go down for 5.
relative moral codes, innit
ok ok
perhaps i rushed through my initial post because i had vegetables to prepare.
i DO think the prospect of eirlier release is a good way to make prisoners behave in prison etc etc but within reason. i seem to see so many jail terms that are DRASTICALLY reduced from the initial sentencing.
but if you don't know the current circumstances
don't know how the prisoner is conducting himself at the moment, if he or she seems to have truly reformed, how can you automatically believe it's a Bad Thing?
i raped your sister
i got sentenced to 7 years in prison
im being ever such a good girl in prison so, after 3 years i get released.
your sisters pain will never go away, why should i be free so soon?
i do believe in redemption etc and i realise this is probably making me sound all PUNISH KILL ETC
but yeah.
that's precisely what you are saying
you're saying, essentially, that, in your example, you should stay in prison until my sister's pain goes away?
i'm no expert, but i'm under the impression that in a substantial number of cases the mental pain of rape never goes away - so rapists should stay in prison for ever? i'm just clarifying here.
no no no
i could argue my point much better face to face, im rubbiosh at online debate.(but i was in the debate club at school, and ace i was too :D)
i just think (and this is now going off quite a bit from the original thread subject matter)
heee, this is why i'm arguing here
i'm crap at real life debate because i get the red-mist. you can't use the delete key in real life
you just think what...?
oops
im sure i wrote more there!
i just think that prison sentences for rape seem to be too leniant at the moment and rapists are let out LONG before their term is served, only to re-offend. i dont feel that most prisoners really ARE rehabilited.
the system sucks, or something.
can i just go play mario 64 now? i've got 53 stars and got 3 of them today in only an hour, im on a roll!
i agree the system isn't great for rape
isn't there some statistic like only 4 or 5% of rape cases end in conviction?
i don't know the individual cases, but i'd be well fucking surprised if it turned out that only 4 or 5% of rape cases were actually rape, and the rest weren't, or something
Shit loads of them aren't rape
or can not be proved as rape.
Going back a few points.
People are not let out early.
If the judge said 7 years in jail but 11 if you are bad, would that be better than saying 11 years in jail but 7 if you are good?
That is what happnes. They are sentenced to a maximum (which can be extended if serious things happen in prison)- minimum length of time. How they behave in prison determines whether they are let out closer to the max or min end of the spectrum.
Very rarely are people release much before the minimum time they are supposed to serve.
Legalise ALL crime NOW.
Tough on prisons, tough on the causes of prisons!
they should be punched in the face
you want to punch everyone in the face
you're a thug
i've seen you, punching people in the face.