Chaingangs...?

[BEANFro Elite]

Listening to the radio as I do, they were discussing ways of deterring people from commiting crimes and someone said that road sweepers with leaf blowers could do the same job faster with a broom.

So I thought "why not bring back chain-gangs".

Chain-up a load of criminals, say in groups of ten and make them sweep the streets and other mundane but rather essential jobs they can do so in bright pink coveralls with polka-dot or floral designs so they really stand out and look silly and they can show their mates how harcore they REALLY are eh?

It's humuliating and it will save money on employing roadsweepers who don't do a good job of it anyway, get someone to whip the slackers and Bob's your mother's brother

I know its harsh and it won't deter the most hardcore of criminals but petty thieves / burglars / muggers etc. will surely be deterred, its worth a try at least.

Note: I'm being serious, hit their egos hard and humuliate the pants off of the nasty toe-rags .

[Bazzlad]

They do it in America. And they have to wear PINK!

But this guy is a legend:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest...ain.gang.reut/

That's how criminals SHOULD be treated.

[JPreston]

It's not uncommon to see community service work gangs if you live in a sufficiently scummy area, just that this goes on during the day when most folk are at work. They tend to do jobs that are suitable for groups though, because they have to be supervised and it's not worth having a supervisor for a lone street sweeper, and 10 people sweeping the same street is not efficicent.

Not the first time it's been suggested to make them do it in pink flowery dresses etc, in fact I read some county in America does exactly that with good effect. Don't think anywhere in the world actually chains people together any more though

[sTrAnGeFrUiT!]

Shame think they should do it

like BEANFro Elite said

a hardcore criminal sweeping the streets in pink woud feel like an absolute idiot!

and it would be fun to watch

[JPreston]

....

That's how criminals SHOULD be treated.

That's a pretty backwards way to treat people who are only on remand, and they still have 60% recidivism rate. Even in Carandiru the inmates had free health care, such as it was

[BEANFro Elite]

...said he wanted to start a chain gang for juveniles soon too...

Wicked! I love this man already perhaps he can live over here and whip our criminals into shape he's a genius damn right too treating the inmates worse than dogs .

Also remember the mindset of people in the USA is VERY different to people who live over here and as far as I know, there haven't been any chaingangs in London so it would have such value as well for the first year or two.

I think it should trialed for a year over here see if petty crime and burglery etc falls during the duration of the trial.

It doesn't matter if its not efficient the point is its humuliaiting and destroys their unreasonably large self-esteem and when they get out they can't exactly brag to their friends about it can they

"I did time..I was in one those chain-gangs"

[Bazzlad]

That's a pretty backwards way to treat people who are only on remand, and they still have 60% recidivism rate. Even in Carandiru the inmates had free health care, such as it was

Criminals get what they deserve, I feel no sympathy for any criminal - although common sense applies obviously, someone stealing some bread (although no one ever does that anymore) should be treated differently to murderers/rapists etc.

I'm sorry, you break the law, and other people's rights, then the law should stop protecting you and your rights should be to an extent removed.

Why should you have rights when you fail to respect other people's rights?

[JPreston]

Do you understand what 'on remand' means?

[Tumble]

By behaving outside socially acceptable, and lets face it, common-sense norms, you should expect to forfeit any rights you hold. Why should the majority have to put up with a crim's behaviour just so they can have a telly in their cell?

[Moby-Dick]

Do you understand what 'on remand' means?

I suspect not. Allow me to elucidate.

The second usage relates to the imprisonment of criminal suspects awaiting trial or sentencing. A prisoner who is denied, refused or unable to meet the conditions of bail, or who is unable to post bail, may be held in a prison on remand.

Reasons for being held in custody on remand vary depending on the local legal system, but may include:

the suspect has been accused of carrying out a particularly serious offence
the suspect having previous convictions for similar offences
reasons to believe the suspect could leave the court's jurisdiction to avoid its trial and possible punishment
reasons to believe the suspect may destroy evidence or interfere with witnesses
the suspect is likely to commit further offences before the trial
the suspect is believed to be in danger from accomplices, victims, or vigilantes
In most countries, remand prisoners are considered innocent until proven guilty by a court and may be granted greater privileges than sentenced prisoners, such as:

wearing own clothes rather than prison uniform
voting in elections
being entitled to additional visiting hours per week
not being required to complete prison-related work or education
Although remanded prisoners are usually detained separately from sentenced prisoners, due to prison overcrowding they are sometimes held in a shared accommodation with sentenced prisoners.

Remand can cause hardship and thus be a punishment for suspects. This can be quite difficult on those that have not been previously convicted of any crime and have not yet been proven guilty on the current case as it appears as though they are not "innocent until proven guilty."

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

[Bazzlad]

Do you understand what 'on remand' means?

Yes. But my statement obviously refers to people found guilty.

[JPreston]

Yes. But my statement obviously refers to people found guilty.

so, why do you have a problem with my comment that:

That's a pretty backwards way to treat people who are only on remand...

[Bazzlad]

Sorry, that's what skim reading can do. I hold my hand up and accept my mistake!

[BEANFro Elite]

Well, I believe they should try chain-gangs out, there isn't much to lose, I'd be glad that my tax money is actually a positive difference if it worked

[Bazzlad]

I agree with that, just no on prisoners on remand (IE not proven).
Keep them in very poor conditions though. I don't like this SKY TV in a cell and massages crap.

[Mike Fishcake]

I'm all for treating criminals a bit more like, well, criminals, but I don't understand this often-repeated complaint about prisoners being allowed Sky TV... it's not like Sky TV is the ultimate pinnacle of happiness and contentment and a symbol of human success is it? I don't get home, look lovingly at my Digibox and think "You know what Michael - you've really, really made it here".

I can't really see any criminals getting into jail and thinking "oh my god, is it? Can it be? It's SKY TV!!!! I mean, this is just MAGIC! It's my dream come true!".

It's always just Sky TV mentioned as well. People don't seem to mind them watching terrestrial channels, as if depriving the prisoners by only letting them watch five channels is somehow different to giving them a choice of hundreds of channels of repeats. It just sounds like a really, really weird thing to complain about, or to use as an argument.

So anyway, what about freeview?