Lexi is really going in strong, extreme activism, in her defence of criminals.

The women who are soft on prisoners come from all sectors of society.

It is most likely fantasy projection and more likely one might suppose in women who don't trust men (locked up they can be trusted not to tomcat), don't really want physical sex and desire control of their caged male project.

I had a work acquaintance who was a warder for a time. He got out quickly and before the scum bent his mind totally. He confirmed what all normal, reasonable people know: that custodial sentences are given for very compelling reasons -a criminal must 'earn' a custodial spell- and no, they are definitely not men who are sensitive cases awaiting a rescuer of Lexi's ilk.

onthebeach,

To what do I owe your slithering in
Boredom, stalking, or just shedding skin?
I wait with baited breath to see
How much more venom you'll aim at me?

Dear Chris,

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.
I think few people believe that imprisonment
does the offender any good. Rather, it's
used as a last resort means of punishming
criminals and protecting society from them.
Several experts argue that society should
waste little energy on imprisoning petty offenders
for whom other forms of correction - like
probation or community service might be more
appropriate, and should concentrate instead on
incapacitating dangerous and persistent offenders by
locking them up - if necessary, for very long
periods of time.

We're told that the great bulk of the street crimes
that the public most fears are committed by a very
small minority of repeat offenders, who can sometimes
be identified quite early in their careers. About
7 per cent of youngsters, for example, are responsible
for about 70 per cent of juvenile offences.

Incidentally, the fact that so many criminals are
repeatedly re-arrested does not necessarily mean that
prison fails to deter people from crime. It only
means that it fails to deter "these" individuals, but
the example of their fate no doubt provides a
strong enough warning to deter most other people.
As I stated earlier, the best deterrence is not
necessarily the most severe punishment, rather, it is
punishment that is "swift" and "certain."
We're told that if punishment follows soon after the
crime, and if there is little doubt that it will follow
the crime rate will be low, but if people think they may
escape punishment indefinitely, then the sanctions will
have much less deterrent efect.

Lexi,

I believe you meant what you said in your post of 18 July 2013 10:53:08 AM and now all you are doing is a quick catch, twisting it a bit to make it seem more palatable.

It would be better for you to argue it out to give some chance of challenging your own world views.

Your choice but London to a brick you come back again in the near future with views exactly the same as in your post of 18 July 2013 10:53:08 AM.

Chris, I never said I didn't believe in locking up criminals forever, just that I didn't believe in shooting them all dead!

How do you know I haven't already been a victim of crime?
A family member has been, as it happens.

There are certainly many truly disgusting criminals that deserve never to be released.

For serial murderers, child murderers, paedophiles and rapists, I would advocate true life sentences with hard labour, no computers, TV's or other perks in jail.

I don't like the death sentence though...as I advocate they should have a lifetime of hard jail time for a better punishment.

Suseonline, "I never said I didn't believe in locking up criminals forever, just that I didn't believe in shooting them all dead!"

OK, so it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim. As well, you could include injury to the offender through his victim not providing a safe place for him to commit his crime.

What limits do you imagine you can impose on the home invader you find in your bedroom?

Home burglary is increasingly common. Few cases are closed. The criminals do not appreciate witnesses.

More women are working shifts and travelling alone. Many travel alone. Nurses are known to work shifts. Because of that they are targets. I have two young women doctors in the family and both were put through placements in risky country towns. Once safe country towns have become risky through changes in demographics. The offenders are cheeky, likely already have criminal records and operate in packs.

What would you be recommending? Remember that in the case of the hospital workers the Department of Health can't afford to provide security. Give a panic alarm to the young woman doctor and who comes? So often in the country the answer is no-one, or way too late.

What deterrent would you give the nurses and doctors or women travellers? My recommendation to my relatives was never to take the placement unless it was compulsory. Don't go back, ever.

It is all very right to protect the safety and rights of criminals, but it is NOT realistic to expect service deliverers like medical staff to work and travel where they are at risk either. It is not discrimination that reduces medical, education and other services in some areas, it is the very real and present danger of being mugged, molested and crippled or killed.