disgusting!

21 to 40 of 45 messages
04/11/2010 at 14:49

This might cheer you up:Saxo Crash Test

It's only a matter of time,at the very least they'll suffer severe injuries!

On a serious note though,these results are frightening. How many parents let their kids drive around in these cos they're cheap runabouts? After seeing this would you let YOUR son or daughter drive one?

04/11/2010 at 14:55
Chieffy - my cousin had a saxo, crashed it, didn't live to tell the tale.  This was in Ireland where they've let the driving test become voluntary, it seems.
04/11/2010 at 15:20

Sorry to hear that but unfortunately I'm not surprised. This  and this are even worse! (Rover and Fiat drivers:  Do NOT click on these links if you suffer from a nervous disposition!) 

It sends a shiver down my spine every time I see one of these on the road.

Edited: 04/11/2010 at 15:22
04/11/2010 at 15:21

Hey JayVee i never said you did?!

I was referring back to AllNewTB's comment about the deterrant effect on offending rates in countries with death penalty... Keep up! 

04/11/2010 at 15:35

Oooh twitchy twitchy David.

The word deterrent was originally used by AllNewTB. I was simply making my point. No antagonism intended towards anyone.

04/11/2010 at 15:41

David / JayVee- punishment of criminal activity has five purposes, one of which is deterrence. They are pretty much all given equal weight (with perhaps 3 less so) when punishment is set by a court.

Incapacitation: A criminal in prison cannot commit crimes while imprisoned.

2. Deterrence: The threat of punishment deters people from engaging in illegal acts.

3. Restitution: A crimonal is required to take some action to at least partially return the victim to the the state they were before the crime.

4. Retribution: The criminal harmed society; therefore society (or the direct victims) is entitled to inflict harm in return.

5. Rehabilitation: The punishment changes the crimonal in order to make him a better citizen afterwards.

04/11/2010 at 15:44
JayVee wrote (see)
The word deterrent was originally used by AllNewTB. I was simply making my point. No antagonism intended towards anyone.

Apart from this bit...

 JayVee wrote (see)

Oooh twitchy twitchy David.

If you can't play nicely we'll have to exterminate you

Those cars look mighty messy, cheiffy. At what speed is that?

04/11/2010 at 15:50
Where's that list from?  Are you saying that the court believes "an eye for an eye" (number 4) is as important a principle as the others?
04/11/2010 at 15:56

AllNew point well made. Your 5 points are from where? Are you citing a source? I can't say I'm an expert on UK law.

Blister: I deserve to be exterminated when I start spitting at you or in your beer. If I spit in your beer then maybe I should be exterminated in a slow fashion with the help of a hot iron. Beer is holy water! 

04/11/2010 at 16:01

PP  - I can't remember the exact source, but it's something we covered during the History of Crime and Punishment module of my degree, nearly 20 years ago. These are theoretical factors a judge would consider when passing sentence.  They'll also consider other more practical aspects, such as mitigating factors, whether they're a habitual criminal, etc

And yes, a court would look at the injury inflicted on society and use that as one of the determining factors when setting the sentence.  For instance, someone found guilty of insider dealing is only likely to get 18 months to 2 years imprisonment, because although they've broken laws, their activity hasn't harmed society as significantly as say rape or a serious assault.  Then of course, we get into the long debate about what is society and how can it be harmed, but that's for another day.

04/11/2010 at 16:19

Some interesting posts.

 I will take my stand point from Jack Charlton. There was incident in a Holand v Germany game years ago when a player did the biggest gob ever and hit his opposite number (I think it may have been Rudi Voller, not too sure). When asked what he would have done in that situation Big Jack said 'Son if he had done that to me I would have chinned him'.

Basically if some gobbed on me I would chin them (and I am not a violent person).

04/11/2010 at 16:21

Ooh it's getting interesting now Ha ha. No offence taken, just some mild mannered fun for a Thursday afternoon.

I do favour the rehabilitation of offenders, as in the long run it's actually far cheaper than the effects of re-offending, however, i'm happy for there to be gaps in the law for when RW forumites are accosted

04/11/2010 at 16:36
Those cars look mighty messy, cheiffy. At what speed is that?

40 MPH.
04/11/2010 at 16:44
I would have taken the number plate and reported them!
04/11/2010 at 21:31

I agree with JayVee.

BTW - no punishment has a deterrent effect and it appears no punishment reforms the character if what I've been hearing is anything to go by.

Watched a Michael Caine film recently - will have to find out what it is called. 'bout an old man living in a high rise.

04/11/2010 at 21:31

Nam
04/11/2010 at 22:08

1. Incapacitation: A criminal in prison cannot commit crimes while imprisoned. --- yup that works, expensive but effective while they are there

2. Deterrence: The threat of punishment deters people from engaging in illegal acts.  --- LOL punishment such as what...?  Lets look at the alternatives to custody.. probation - a doddle, community service - a doddle, fines - a joke....

3. Restitution: A crimonal is required to take some action to at least partially return the victim to the the state they were before the crime.  ---  compensation?? - often never paid or pathetic amounts as most are on benefits, works when you're talking about scrubbing off some graffiti... meaningless when you look at dwelling burglaries, severe violence etc - you can't just 'make good'

4. Retribution: The criminal harmed society; therefore society (or the direct victims) is entitled to inflict harm in return.  ---  also referred to as 'just deserts'

5. Rehabilitation: The punishment changes the criminal in order to make him a better citizen afterwards.  ---  re-offending rates suggest that doesn't actually happen

-------

I studied a similar module many moons ago in Uni....  and then I worked as a Probation Officer for a few years...  believe me the theory and reality are not the same.

Nam
04/11/2010 at 22:11
Grace Reeman wrote (see)
I would have taken the number plate and reported them!

Yeah did that.  Nothing happens when there are no witnesses.  Unless you're lucky and you have a witness or they do it right in front of CCTV, nothing happens.  Burden of proof is on you not them. 
Nam
04/11/2010 at 22:24
PhilPub wrote (see)
Where's that list from?  Are you saying that the court believes "an eye for an eye" (number 4) is as important a principle as the others?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment

I think some of the current references are in here.

and a good overview of the historical philosophies of punishment http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/

04/11/2010 at 22:48
Grace Reeman wrote (see)
I would have taken the number plate and reported them!

Im personally a great believer in carma.
I consider myself lucky to have a friend, who due to his occupation has the ability to obtain addresses from number plates which permits carma to visit such deliquent individuals should the need arise  .

21 to 40 of 45 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums