Criminal Justice (Death Penalty and Torture)

The death penalty and torture are they right?

As it goes it is illegal to torture people or put them to death in many countries.

I personally believe the death penalty should be used for repeat offenders and offenders of the most horrific crimes. In my reasoning when I say repeat offenders I mean those that consistently disrupt others lives by stealing and harming them. Many of these crimes are committed due to substance abuse. On the first occasion of offending they should be given a community based rehabilitation order. This would comprise being removed from their existing area, taught how to live in a community while being given budgeting lessons and breaking their habits.

In the second offence they should be – placed in a secure custody setting. While here they should be put through cold turkey – given a full intense rehabilitation program. Along with this they should be given the education as above. Teaching them how to live respectfully in society, handle their finances and given a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of written and spoken language. They should there after be given a support worker not to hold there hands but to be there if they require help in the future. This would give them someone to turn to if in difficulty with their substance issues.

As they have already had two chances at great expense to the tax payer, not only in rehabilitation, but in the criminal justice actions along with any victim counselling that may be required. They should be seen as a lost cause. If you are given all the support humanly possible – and you still posse a real risk to public security, why should you be left to keep eating up valued resources, finances and time. Lay the person to rest. If you have a dog that can't be trained and is dangerous, it would be taken to the farm.

My opinion may seem harsh but haven lived in a few areas where substance abuse has ravished them. I have live below, above and next to addicts. I believe everyone can change with the right help. People say a person will only change when they are ready to do so, with the right psychological support they will realise they need to change. If on two occasions the support is unsuccessful why try at great cost to do it a third.

For persons convicted of crimes that can only be put in the category of horrific should be put to death – if – it can be proven further than “reasonable doubt” the person is the offender with no questionable evidence what so ever. If there's a modicum of doubt on the evidence the person should be put to hard labour with minimal rest periods.

Torture should be used in cases where the crime is severe but not in the horrific group. In no way, shape or form should torture be used during an investigation of a crime. Evidence under torture is factually inaccurate and questionable.

Torture it's self can cover anything from psychological mind games to inflicting long lasting injuries to the body. Even sleep deprivation is seen to be torture, however, the information that comes out during sleep deprivation is likely to be accurate if the sleep deprivation is kept to four days or so. After this a person will begin to say anything to get sleep.

We need to give focus to young offenders rehabilitation and serious punishment to the older offenders making examples of them. In criminal circles jail times is a badge of honour. Many people in the criminal justice system and social work sector would like to think, jail time works, quoting 30% of people don't reoffend but this is a poor attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. It's 70% of people that go on to reoffend once

If you make jails less attractive and more punishing the 70% may reconsider. Weather it be hard pointless labour or putting the “hard men” in a wing with no protection against each other.

I can only see two ways of making the world we live in the polite civilised society it once used to be. That is through education and life limiting of those that education doesn't work for.

Third World Aid

Third World Aid – is it a human duty or an unnatural cause of suffering?

Some religious types may say as humans we should give aid to the third world in-order to stop starvation, death and chronic illness.

The more realistic people in the world would say, giving aid to the third world is a endless and pointless act that goes against basic evolutionary principles.

As humans we have conscious and free will. To please our own conscious we like to use our free will to choose to help others in our species that are in need. As well as pleasing our conscious, some may believe that this assistance of another human being will help them into “the after life”. If you give money to a country for food for it's people, that already has plenty of land that could be used for agriculture that hasn't already been tended, is it reasonable to think it will suddenly make a difference?

A country that has wide spread problems with HIV/AIDS will retrovirals and condoms stop the spread of the infection, if women are second class and their opinions are worthless, giving the men no reason to use condoms?this same argument goes for over populated places. In addition, in times gone by many cultures had big families incase of death so the elders would be cared for. However, if the population grows to a size that can't be sustained with the means that are available – starvation, disease and death will naturally increase.

I am personally one of the individuals that believes third world aid is cruel, inhumane and unnatural. This is why:

Over population can be stopped. If twenty people have two children in a village, that then becomes sixty mouths to feed. In that village if there is only enough resources for fifty mouths ten will go unfed. But, to stop those ten going unfed, the other fifty give up a share of the required amount to be a health functioning person. Now, there are sixty fed mouths but none of which are with the full amount needed to a fully functional life. The lack of food will over a long period reduce the natural defences or disease and rehabilitation to disease and injuries. Once the children become old enough they have two children each – along with say ten or so people passing in this time, there are now a hundred and thirty mouths to feed. The amount of food for everyone drops again or the food has to be sought from a wider area. If the food is sought from a wider area it uses more energy, which in it's self is a then pointless task. The cycle will and has gone on several stages more, now, there are places where the suffering and levels of disease are so great that aid is not worth while. A race of people with the right skills and understanding will fair better than that which is given constant tip-bits of food. Rather than giving the people of third world countries this understanding and skill set, many charities and countries – throw money or bibles at the people and expect them to find God along with a sustainable life-style. Many of these countries had there own belief systems historically, however, they have ditched these – so as to make the people feeding them happy. Once an individual has converted someone from a “false religion” to that of there own and put a bowl of rice in someone's stomach they can feel good about themselves.

Financial aid, is great if you have a democratic society, without democracy the money can be disposed with as seen fit by whom it is given. In many cases this is in the form of military capability and governmental comforts. On a smaller scale – giving money to a town or city the people at the top will get what they want (a house with air-conditioning and a executive four-by-four) where as the small farmer and their family are struggling to make enough food to feed their own mouths. The money has no measurable positive impact upon the worst hit. The only impact it has, once the money has been spent and there isn't anymore in the pot and the benefactor wont resupply. The taxes go up to pay for the life-style the people have become used to. A farmer that struggles to feed their family wont be making much if any money at all, they therefore, wont be able to pay the taxes. There is no democracy, so nobody is answerable for the actions imposed upon them by those higher up the pecking-order. The person in a nice house with the nice car gathers a group of thugs (soldiers/enforcement) and says, I want my taxes, you can take a wage once I have them. If you can't get money take other things. When they go to a settlement with no money and very little in the way of “other things” they use rape and violence to make them sell some crops or a cow or goat. Oops, they never used a condom during the rape, they have now cause another life – another mouth to be fed if the mother is strong enough to sustain the pregnancy. What will happen? They can't sell the crops or cow the food is needed for the new mouth. Unless they leave the child to die or unless they dispatch of it themselves. Even for those that weren't really struggling before the taxes were increased they maybe now – they will eventually end up in the same situation as those that had nothing before the increase.

By withdrawing all support and aid from third world countries, there would be great outrage, overtime however, the fit would survive the smart would share the knowledge – the informed would sit back an eventually realise democracy, education and skills are what will get them out of the plight they are in. Democracy can't be imposed this was proved by Colonialism. Education and skills can't be taught by an outsider, they have to be sought and learned by those that want them and that know what they need to learn. As extreme and horrid as it may sound. Death and poverty is the only way to really help these countries. If one person takes another persons belongings someone else with more will want them and take them from the theif. This will go on until nobody except one person has everything, the likely hood is the nobodies wont like this and will stand united against the person with it all and take with forces. To stop it happening again they will realise they need to have structure to their society.

I say aid is unnatural because if every species through out time had enough food the world would be a much heavier place. Humans have hunted for many species until extinct, taking them from the food chain for others. If humans have no food they will die. As with things I have already bloggged about and will blog about in times to come. Humans have the far from amazing ability to look at everything pass judgements and base theories on them from those judgements but yet fail to see they are also involved in the cycle. Humans are animals, like dogs or flies we are equally a part of nature as either of those in our base forms. In our current forms we are far detached from nature and are far more destructive that either of those other creatures. Take what you need leave enough for everyone else, share and be content with what you have. Don't cause suffering of a child by bringing one into the world if you're not going to be able to give it what it needs. A dog will look for opportunities to become higher up in the pack as time passes, some maybe happy just having the friends of the pack, if the pack becomes to big and enough food isn't there the weak one will be forgotten about. By weak, I don't mean nearly dead none strong but I mean the one that doesn't pull their weight doesn't have the spark to be better than it was born. The weak one will if it's lucky find another pack if it's accepted it will partner with the weak in that pack causing a cycle. The only way of getting out of it is by looking to the stars and trying to get there however, unlikely it is of it happening but trying none the less.

Political Correctness

Political correctness according to Wikipedia is “The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult certain groups of people.”

Surely, the term “political correctness” could be scrapped and we could return to using “basic respect” and “good manors”. It's not PC to call a dry stone wall a dyke because lesbians may take offence to it; however, I would say the person that considers that to be offensive/homophobic is petty and needs to remove their pink topped flag pole from their rectal cavity. It was the name people were calling dry stone walls for years before it was used as a slur. Why call it anything else – just because some female, that doesn't wear a bra - because she can't afford one and claims it to be feminism, says she's offended by the word being used in it's proper and correct manor.

If words such as Faggot, poof, tranny, dyke, rug muncher, niger, gypo and Jock are so offensive why do the people that these words can be used to describe use them amongst themselves? The plain and simple answer is because they don't actually care. When someone other than another minority person uses them towards a person of a minority it's a cue to pull out the minority card.

I personally, would be happy for someone to call be a dyke. This isn't because I'm not offended by it, but simply because I don't care. Society has labels for everything. Maybe a Tomatoes just wants to be seen as a red juicy fruit. In saying that – it could be argued that I'm being none PC towards the lesser developed Tomatoes. As mad and crazed as my previous statement may seem that is what political correctness isn't.

Why can't we just use the tags that exist for minorities? As long as they aren't being used in a negative way, who cares?

Pakistan, how is this racist? It is merely an abbreviation of Pakistani. But yet how many Scottish people take such great and deep hitting offence at being called “a Scot”? Likewise, for British persons, is it therefore racist to call them “a Brit”? Where does the line get crossed? The argument that many people use is that, Pakistan, is racist because it is used towards people with similar looks – regardless of their nationality. If therefore it is racist, who to? The person that is being called a Pakistan – or the people from Pakistan themselves? I'd say if it is towards the person being called a Pakistan, it's not racist just ignorant to assume that someone is from Pakistan based on looks. If it's towards the person s of Pakistan, then see the above argument (Scot/Scottish etc).

A man is no longer to hold a door open for a female because it is to suggest that a female is incapable of holding the door for herself. If there is anyone intending to use the door after you it is simply only good manors to hold it for them regardless of gender? This once again stems from misguided feminism and females wanting to be seen as equal to males which we are. However, I'd be more annoyed if a man shut a door in my face because he thought he may offend me by holding it open so I could pass through it easier. To show males and females are equal – we need to stop banging the PC drum – and look at the reality. Is it nice to have someone hold a door open for you regardless of their gender? Yes. Is it nice for a person to let you go first? Yes. If we as females want true equality we have to stop seeing ourselves separately from males. If you cut a log in half it is different on either half, fact. If you cut everything into two sections the differences are more apparent. I'm not saying females have to be any less feminine or more masculine but stop seeing the dissection of male and female.

PC means not discriminating against a person negatively because they are deaf or blind or in a wheel chair. But, would you ask a blind person to take your arm so you could help them over the road? If the answer is yes, surely that is discrimination. You are presuming because they can't see they cannot safely cross a road. As a blind person myself, I wont deny it is occasionally welcome to be offered help. However, it can also become very annoying on crossings that I know very well to be asked time after time. Like with sighted people. A blind person is able to ask for help either verbally or by their body language. It's not very often you see a blind person being asked for bus stops or directions when a sighted individual is in need of help. They would rather ask a sighted person for the assistance. I'd personally say – you're better to ask a blind person for directions or for bus information as it is more likely they can give you accurate details. A blind person needs to know where they are to get to where they are going. A sighted person will give you alternating distances 300 yards forward on the right. Then another may say 450 yards on the right. A blind person if they know where the place is will tell you two roads a-head on the right. What is more accurate? I was once in Edinburgh city centre on my own going to catch a train or something, and a group of Australasian tourists said, “we need to ask someone local where the Scot's Monument is.” they were shocked when I pipped up and said it's that big monument over there on the left hand side, they were surprised to say the least.

I could go on for ever and a day about PC and how it's going mad. If I did though, I'd not be able to publish this and tell you all this simple thing.

Get a grip – life is life, people are all the same but yet very different. Judge everyone one on their own merits.

Global Warming

Global warming, some say it's the fault of car drivers and the rear end of cows – others say its a natural cycle.

I personally believe we should all be living in a sustainable manor. Not to try and reverse global warming. It is a fact we already have a deficit of food and clean water through out the planet. If we all limit the amount of food to the amount we need and no more there would be no wastage and the same goes for water. If we all used public transport as far as possible it would become cleaner and more reliable.

Surely, if people leave the cities to get peace from all the traffic and noise, it makes sense to not drive as much? If everyone limited the amount of time they spent driving it would reduce: noise, air, visual and sent pollution for us all. I would of loved to live back in the days were the air spelled of nature and the sound of birds in the trees is all that could be heard.

Also if we reduced our usage of everything but food as a primary topic, we would reduce the amount of trucks driving around with our dinner in the back. Not only this but the thing many people don't give consideration to is, farmed foods generally require machinery to stock the fields/barns/waters before they can be tended then harvest it. Not to mention after it has been harvested. It often needs to be moved to a place of sale or to an intermediate place for sorting or preparation. Looking at something as basic as milk. The cow has to be bought and moved to the farm (requires a truck). The grass or feed needs to be planted but the seed needs to be bought and also moved to the farm. To plant the seed a machine is required. Once the foliage is mature the cattle needs to be driven out either using a truck to move them to the pasture or some sort of motorcycle or 4x4 or in the US sometimes even a helicopter. Then for milking the beasts need to be rounded up and brought in for daily milking.once the milk has been gathered it then has to be transported to the dairy where it is pasteurized bottled then back onto a truck to get to the shop.

As you can see there is a lot of work put into the basic things, most complex foods are made up of lots of basic things. If we reduce our intake we reduce our carbon foot-print the number of vehicles on the high-ways and thereby reduction in noise , smells and ugly development of roads.

Now if we look at public transport. If more people use it the people that are in charge of the infrastructure would be forced to focus upon more rail-way stations, bus stops and the most important thing the vehicles to service them on a proper and regular timetable. Obviously, for this to happen – it would cost a substantial amount of primary financial input. If this is spread over lots of people rather than the small number that it currently is we'd not notice the cost nearly as much as we do. In addition if more people used the transport systems they could be connected and giving a greater level of independence to all without access to a private vehicle.

So as you can see there is lots of benefits for everyone. Cleaner environment, healthier life-style and more money in our pockets. As I say this isn't to reverse the effects of global warming because I personally believe it is a natural cycle.

We have had two ice-ages and two thaws. The current increase in temperature is probably just another clime before a descent into freezing temperatures once more. I also believe our destruction of the world can't be helping the planet and the eco-systems in homes.

Audio Description

Audio Description, isn't just for blind and VI people. My other half loves AD and so does my dad neither of which are Blind or VI.

AD is good for sighted people for understanding the facial expressions of the actors also for keeping a full grasp on what's going on. Even sighted people miss visual things. In a most movies AD can also give another great diemention to a movie.

The sad thing is, AD isn't available on every movie that has been or is being made. Most movies being made today are subtitled for deaf people though. Surely if the movie studios are going to the effort of employing a subtitler the same individual could also do the AD?

Is the lack of AD when subtitles are available a breach of disability equality laws, I bet it is. If AD was more widely used it would become less expensive to roll-out on movies and TV shows.

It would also make it a option for everyone for every occasion so why not make it illegal for a new big movie DVD to be sold without AD when it has subtitles and multi languages.

I personally believe if companies are able to make the effort for one minority why not make that little extra effort and include sight impaired persons.

Gender, Gender Roles, Sexuality *& Same-sex Adoption.

In today's world, where males and females are both allowed (legally and socially) to go to combat zones and work in nurseries - are gender roles still a real thing never-mind important?

The argument against Gay/Lesbian adoption is that a child would not have a male/female role model. The truth however, is that a child would have two males/females in their life. If the two people love each other and the child then does it really matter?

I hear you ask what gay adoption has to do with gender roles. Well a male/female role-model is based on a child having a male/female to learn from.

In days gone by females more often than not were expected to stay at home, while the “man of the house” went out to work - so he could feed 'his' family. Meaning the female gender role was to: enjoy cooking; cleaning and day time gossip with the next door neighbour. The male role was – to be a provider and defender that enjoyed drinking beer, participating in sports and doing D.I.Y.

As previously mentioned the world these days has changed so much. Men can stay at home and do the traditional famine tasks, they can now even wear make-up (guy-liner) – there's brands made just for men. This is no longer a social taboo. Women can be brick-layers or fighter pilots. They can wear jeans and boots to the supermarket - this isn't unusual in society.

So what are the gender roles really worth?

A person that stays at home to look after a child is the primary care giver regardless of gender. The other individual that goes to work is the bread winner. Both parties together should be the defenders of the family and of the child.

The only difference that stands between males and females in todays world are their roles in procreation. However, not all couples want children and society sees it less of a must than in times past.

Males and females both know very well what this is by nature. So they need no role-model for that. A child needs no role-model based on gender to show them how to love another human being. That comes out with them. What parents teach is their own prejudices. You can love a white person as long as they don't have ginger hair, and they are of the opposite sex from you. For some that may be their natural preference but for others, they might want to be in love with a black person with pink hair and of the same sex.

If you were to use the stereotype that gay males are weak; into arts and drama etc – surely, this is better for a child than being in a family where the child is abused; a witness of familiar violence and lacks cultural experiences/activities. Causing them to become an abuser and philistine when they are older.

Look at the female gay stereotype, a female that acts like a man; who is strong and into outdoor activities etc. Surely, a child brought up in a home like this would be better off because; they would grow into strong willed independent adults that would be sure of what they wanted.

That is not to say that 100% of straight couples don't love their children or abuse them; it's also not to say that 100% of all same-sex couples love their children or don't abuse them. I'm working with stereotypes. But remember – a straight couple can conceive a same-sex couple has to organise before conceiving – (once again not true of all straight couples I know).

My parents are straight – I am a lesbian. So, working on the premiss that a straight couple can produce a gay child. Why would a child raised by a same-sex couple turn out “the same way” by default?

It's a fact of life, that for a species to continue males and females need to reproduce. But - if every single male and female reproduced, the world would be a much more busy place with a lot more deprivation and poverty.

Another fact of life is, that some people cannot have a child of their own no matter what they try. Some people just don't want children. Does this make them any less of a human? No, never the less they don't add to the world's population but they aren't victimised or taunted because of their infertility or choices.

Gender, gender roles and sexuality are all different things.

Sexuality is an on going thing. We are all born asexual. Some of us have a point of bisexuality (liking both sexes) – some may go no further an stay liking both sexes. Others will go on to liking one sex and some may stay liking both sexes and those of a sex variation. Genetically, there's three sexes, fact, (Male, Female and Intersex). With the exception of genetics, there's very few biological differences. Sexual characteristics are the most obvious, but with todays medical advances these can be altered completely in either direction. Breasts, can be made, enlarged or removed. Vaginas, can be tightened, made or converted into a penis. A penis, can be enlarged, removed or converted into a vagina. Gonads, can be where they are or removed. Someone can have their sex changed because it's not the same as their brain. They're called transsexuals, but they're not trans anything they are either a male or a female. They may have been the opposite – but they are what they are now. A barn made into a home that now looks like a home, is used as a home and is treated by the government for tax etc is a home not a barn.

Someone's gender, need not be the same as their sex. This variation in gender from sex is called by many things. The umbrella term is transgender. Some males may choose to dress and act feminine (transgender), or – genderless (androgynous). The first example, when inverted is true of females. But what does “dressing like a...” mean these days? A female can wear ANYTHING that she feels comfortable in. A guy can wear ANYTHING he likes, as long as it's not overtly feminine and not get ridiculed. But Why does that Line still exist? Why can't a 6 foot 9 inch rugger bugger stride into work wearing his heals and jeans? Why does society have a “acceptable” cut off for men but not women? In this world, males can identify as women or men - and females can identify as men or women – both can identify as neither.

As for gender roles – I covered that above.

I hope you've found this both interesting and useful.