[Split from SE23 Topics > Police crime zones on Dartmouth road]

Why would anyone do this. Wanton destruction.
Bring back stocks ( without shares )

There is nothing feared more than humiliation by the public.

To save the great expense that Wardens / Prosecutions would cause.
Bring back the Stocks.

This would give education to the young of our History.
Show that the offence was being dealt with.
Humiliation the Offender.
Giving you the opportunity to show your feeling.
A set of Stocks could be erected on One Tree Hill.
With the addition of two Chamber pots to place the feet of the accused.
One placed under the chin, these could be topped up with the contents of Pooper bags.

Being pilloried, or put in the stocks, was a common punishment for civil crimes in the 15th-18th century. Criminals were set in a chair outdoors with their hands and/or feet, locked into holes in short span of wooden fence. The holes were placed in such a way as to be physically uncomfortable for the criminal. The stocks were placed in a public space so that the criminal would be subject to ridicule. This shaming was part of the punishment. Often townspeople would jeer at the offender, or even throw spoiled fruit at him.

May I suggest that after filling in the application form for Dog Warden a short trial spell in the stocks should be given to acquaint them with the process, this could be offered to prospective Traffic Wardens if found to be over zealous, as a Clause would be incorporated in their contract of misconduct.

Thank goodness those days are over, at any rate.

Yes JaneD, we wouldnt want to upset people who commit crime would we?

It's bad enough having the crime to contend with, without seeing people being hurt and humiliated in the streets. Seriously, would you really like it?

If the people being hurt and/or humiliated in the streets were the ones that had done some crime themselves then they would deserve their punishment and I doubt most people would lose any sleep over it. They may then think twice before committing futher crimes in the future. Solid punishment and even better deterrent.

I thought 'Community Payback' was scheme that is designed to humiliate some offenders.

I have certainly seen such a scheme in SE23 when they lifelessly cleared a public footpath.

I think said public footpath has been targeted since as some sort of 'retribution'.

Given that this silliness all arose from a violent assault on an individual, together with criminal damage, I would hope that a custodial sentence would be more appropriate.

I certainly don't think that a couple of days of public humiliation would make any difference to violent gangs and doesn't even seem to be a good deterrent for people willing to put on a traffic warden's uniform and roam the streets with people shouting abuse at them. Clearly public humiliation and abuse from the public does little to deter people from becoming traffic wardens, bankers, or mothers.

However in crime-free America some states do publish pictures on the internet of all the people they charge with offences. You can have a look through the pictures from Dayton, Ohio at http://projects.daytondailynews.com/cach...ontgomery/ Hours of fun and you can even 'rate' them (no idea why). Watch out for Anthony Barrett, he looks mean

I agree with Michael. Using public humiliation (i.e psychological torture) as a punishment is cruel and inhuman and ought to have no place in a civilised society.

I wonder if the gent who was beaten up, stabbed and will most certainly have long lasting physical scars will have any pshycological damage?

Pitty some seem to think that the offenders need protecting.

Yes, offenders do need protecting - not from punishment, but from cruelty and humiliation.

protection they took away from their victims when commiting a crime. Why should they have it when their victims dont?

Looks like Forest Hills everywhere are having trouble http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoan...72476.html

Right, that does it. I'm moving to er, er, Penge

Because our criminal justice system isn't (and shouldn't be) based on the principle of doing to the criminal what the criminal did to his or her victim. Punishment in a civilised society isn't revenge or 'an eye for an eye'. Many would argue that punishment necessarily involves an element of retribution (as well as deterring others and rehabilitation or reforming the criminal), and it should certainly reflect the outrage which society feels at the injury it receives when a crime is committed. But that doesn't mean we should lower ourselves to criminals' level and treat them like they treat their victims.

I think the offenders should be put in prision. I don't think they need to be beaten up, tortured, or publicly humiliated. What good will this do for the victim, the criminal, or the families of either?

As I point out above, humiliating offenders does not actually lead to a lower crime rate, but I'm sure it is a good way to get yourself elected as police chief.

This is a terrble incident. Surely there will be no liberals do gooders out there
defending their HR.
In my opin ion sounds like attempted Murder and they should receive Capitol Punishment.
I do not see why we should pay to keep them in prison for years.

Come come Brian, this is not the time to joke about incarceration in Wetherspoons.

tee hee hee