The Law according unto I
A Philosophy for a better world
Q. Why is there little or no distinction made between the terms "human rights" and human privelledges"?
There should be!!!
Firstly, the incidence of repeat offenders is so high that the softly softly approach being as extreme as it is, is clearly not working. In the UK. a News report today (16 Sept. 2011) is saying 1 in 4 have been convicted before and 4 in 20 have prior convictions. 50 times or more.
Secondly, for too long criminals have been getting away with light sentences. All the criminals are pretty much guaranteed half the listed sentence as time off for good behaviour. Scandalous! It should be time on for bad behaviour, and sentences should be longer to begin with.
Thirdly, victims should be recompensed properly by offenders rather than the duel system in place of separate litigation which merely takes too much time and sucks too much energy out of those who need it. Particularly if no doubt exists. By this I mean beyond that deemed "REASONABLE" though even some-one who pleads guilty to certain crimes should be investigated to look for disputes, conflicts of evidence etc.
Serious crimes: A life sentence for a life. This would be better as until death of convict. People are being let off due merely to overcrowding.
Where no reasonable doubt exists there should be some kind of fast track in place. Instead the same places are used and this causes delays.
Repeat Offenders. When some-one is convicted 10 times or more, the penalty should automatically double. After that extra month/s be added until 50 convictions where the sentence should trebble on top of added months, where applicable for the more severe things or no show of remorse. Or where it is considered that the regret is felt due to being caught.
Also prisions and prisioners, wardens and workers should all be independently checked under I.P. supervission. Technology exists now that annonymous persons can watch from a distance and ensure people are actually checked. For further annonymity masks should be allowed. After all criminals use them on respectable folk. So why not use this on them!!! See how they like it. (I.P. stands for Internet
The prisions themselves
Back to the question "Rights" versus "Privelledges". Why should there be a table and chair in a cell? If prisioner wants to sit down they've got their bed to sit on! A bed is a privelledge; minimum requirements are a couple of matraces. This way, in theory, cells could be made smaller and/or could fit more in!
As far as overcrowding goes. Why not use de-commissioned army ships, not necesarily far out at see. High prisioners might be sought after but less likely the lower ones. other than that; uninhabbitted islands may be a good prospect.
These should not be spacious but just enough room for a bed, a small cabinet for personal belongings such as a tooth-brush, a change of prision atire, towel etc. And a small window so the prisioner can tell day and night. While food rashions should be bread and water with basic sanitation allowed. (I don't begrudge any-one this: Though any-one who takes it away from some-one else I would bar any physical exercise whatsoever! -except what they can manage in such a small cell -without even a bed!!!)
I would not allow TV. Except where a convict is studying a course, and only for the sake of the required materials. Courses themselves should be geared towards rehabilitation. With enlightening discussions and arguments for and against the particular crime/s they committed. Self exploration and growth should be encouraged as part of rehabilitation. Basic Maths and English for purposes of reading writing should be allowed if the person has nothing prior and to enable them to attain enough knowledge to get onto the specially designed rehabilitation courses. Following say 3 levels of which grade A-C is achieved. The inmate -as s/he can then officially be called may choose to study other courses, or merely borrow prision library books.
No gym with weights should ever be allowed as this enables those with criminal intent to become stronger. Something which the rest of us pay for -should not be given freely, at all to convicts/inmates!
Allowing inmates, convicts to pay for things to be brought in, encourages drug crime in prisions and so should be banned completely. What are we running here -holiday camp?
After level 3 of the courses program, plus 1 voluntary course is passed. With good behaviour, a prisioner may be eligible for parole, providing the crime wasn't serious and no-one whether outside affected directly, or in authority has any objection.
Some will argue that such programes as a celebrity showing young prisioners how to play football/ whatever has a positive impact. In some cases may be. But how many footballers are also criminals and re-offenders? So stricter licence for re-offenders should be emplaced and less able to get back on such programmes. This should also be schooled on the grounds of how well the rehabilitation courses are going.
Boxing and other violent sports should be banned on the same priciple as weight gym. For those who seem to need something to hit though a punchbag may be provided /shared, with the usual 1 hr. a day remitt. or whatever it is.
Also. The rule "Ignorance is no excuse". This is one thing, but not even trying to educate your nations subject properly/ at all is unforgive-able. Therefore laws, (note: not necessarily Lawyer/s) should be taught in school from about a year before the person is criminally responsible. Things like double science is best done after school where more specific subjects can be chosen.
Schools might employ optional extras, that may appeal better to those who actually want to learn. Or study places, in case things are disrupted at home by traffic say or excessive TV.
Minimal force: Is minimally classified! -Why?
No-one should be sentenced for protecting their home/property -within normal limits. Minimal force should be categorized as :-
1. Allowing offender to escape if s/he chooses.
2. Not hitting while offender is on ground. -especially where there's time to call for police.
3. Tripping? but no kicking.
4. The home owner/house guard is not under the influence beyond a certain degree,-twice that of driving (as a guess).
5. Property or personal safety is provably at stake -ie. Asailant entered house, was using say a crowbar on locks, had broken a window and/or was hovering or climbing in to an open window or broken doorway that wasn't his/hers -especially if deemed dodgy or unknown to property owner., Or had initiated the physical aspect of violence by actual physical contact with "defendant".
Currently, there is no such guidelines in place for minimal force!
Courts should be less about confrontation, more about seeking the truth. Why do we have judges and jury's that those with criminal intent can see and find. If you know where some-one works, "you" could have some-one waiting to follow them home... Surely witness screens are used to good effect with line ups. Why not in court?? -If some-one knows the person and hides it. Isn't there generally a reason? But surnames only may be given on the list. And if some-one thinks they know some-one with a surname like that, they can refuse. Not even the lawyers, barristers etc. Should know, and they shouldn't know each other. Speak using interconnected phones in a private booth, or at least in a room darkened -slightly.
Good behaviour still should be rewarded. But not so much with time off. Time to the TV. or radio room. Extra exercise time, extra access/time to the phone etc.
But no mobile; and no individual phones as these can be used to conduct crime. A cigarrette is a privelledge, not a right! Those that have used their strength, power etc. to take others rights away outside should have less than those who are / have not broken any rules.
Well. That's my two penneth. What do you think?