paulsutton

It does seem in a lot of cases these people are 'known' to the police which does raise the question of how well the Channel /prevent programme is funded, or maybe more to the point how well partner agencies are funded. Anyone referred has to give consent but also can be referred to say youth services (if under 18) to provide more positive activities, of course funding for which has been cut right back. I sort of understand the process from undergoing the online awareness training for prevent and channel processes.

Indeed as with the case in the Westminster bridge attack, which I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread. I am guessing your from the UK, I watched Dom (Dom Littlewood) Does America this morning, ( 18/8/2020 ) he was working with the Texas police department, they carry spray, taxers and guns of course, but go in to every situation as if it is hostile, even a routine car stop, and they expect to be shot at and maybe killed.

In the UK we have what was called the IPCC independent police complaints committee it is their job to look in to situations if a police officer opens fire it can be referred to the IPCC or the police can refer the matter so it is investigated and the facts gained as to why. Even with the Westminster bridge attack last year, it was the people that held down the terrorist and the police shot him dead, he had already stabbed two people to death. I think the police referred themselves.

The police here in the UK try and diffuse situations, very rarely do the police open fire and kill people, a very low percentage of UK police carry Guns. Those that do are specialist units. Police carry Tazers . I think most have access to CS gas (or is it pepper spray).

I agree, while as you say we as a society we need make it clear they have done wrong, the rehabilitation could be about teaching them the skills they need to contribute to society in a positive way, which is what we want. There is no point taking someone who can't read and write, who commits crimes, to one side, put them in jail, releasing them only for them to go back to what they were doing before, because they lack literacy skills for example. Surely this is a barrier to them getting a good job, decent accomodation and adult education courses may not be available or there could be other barriers. So yes, jail needs to send a strong message, but also perhaps help people back on track but not be seen as a free ride to a free 2nd chance education you are till locked up in your cell, still denied freedom to come and go, and still subject to rules. Lets find out why that person in jail, clearly there are some crimes that warrant locking up for a very long time, but it seems for many, prison is a revolving door, we also need to perhaps fix the system so ex offenders can actually work in certain posts, perhaps having been on the wrong side of the law, been in jail, but took the chance and to work hard, and gain a good set of qualifications to turn their life around, that person could mentor people and steer them away from jail which from experience they would not want any one else to have to go through. Jail should not be the only way to turn lives around, we need proper funding of adult education and homeless / addiction / other groups who take people who have fallen off the radar and actually help them, that may stop them falling in to the revolving door mentioned above. Also no reason really why some ex offenders should not be able to say join the army, police or other services, for the same reason, as a community officer you perhaps are there to prevent and help people to stay on the right track.

There are such things as mitigating circumstances. If behaviour is learned then a child who is abused may go on to abuse others as an adult or even as a child, while clearly this is not acceptable it can be taken in to consideration. On a similar note a person who is a victim of say domestic violence may kill in self defence or maybe poison their abuser, is this murder (even if planned) or is it a sign they want to get out of a situation and feel killing their abuser is the only choice they have. Each case should be treated as an individual case.

Surely rights go along side responsibility, I have the right to go out and walk in to my local town centre, but the responsibility to act safely, obey the law for example. In a similar way have having a drivers license gives people the right to drive, when a person reaches 18 or 21 (in the US) they can buy alcohol they they have the responsibility to drive safely and are considered able to make judgements, if they choose to drink and then drive, and end up killing someone they need to be held accountable. Granted the seller also has some responsibility to refuse to sell more to someone who is clearly intoxicated. --- On a side topic, I get notifications of replies here, if I click on the link I get the following. I logged in and then tried to follow the link a 2nd time, and got the same error page. Any idea what is causing this?

Do guns ever kill people ? or do people kill others with guns, ? I hardly know anything about fire arms, but there are now safety features so they don't accidentally fire, if you are an adult parent with children, should guns not be locked or in a secure place out of reach.. Have adults been charged when a child picks up a gun and kills a friend with it, (playing) depending on age is it the child's fault if they pickup a gun, to them it may be something to play with. ? All this is very complex

But if a person knows what they want you to hear, do some people adjust their tone accordingly, some people are good at that , gaining trust and just pretend to show that remorse or empathy for the victim. Not sure if anyone follows the UK news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-berkshire-53445791/pc-andrew-harper-trial-video-shows-defendants-laughing How do you deal with people such as this, not quite sure how they didn't know they were dragging PC harper behind the car like this, and ended up with Manslaughter not murder but that is a matter for the courts and legal system, Paul Is there more to this than admitting your offence and accepting responsibility. , If someone has say alcohol or drug dependency they have to accept they have a problem and want help. This can't apparently be forced on to people. So once in jail, how long should it be for?, or should that period of incarceration also include assessment, retraining etc so people leave able to change their lives around. Rather than what we seem to have which is a revolving door for some people. . What purpose is the incarceration for, so maybe to protect the public, and the public want justice to be seen, however what goes on inside jail should also produce results. or to protect that person from others, so addicts from dealers. or themselves perhaps. Some people just take advantage of others, or see an opportunity to make money, so commit theft or fraud over a short or long period, longer periods they know what they are doing perhaps it is better planned Shawshank redemption is a good film, in that respect but it also illustrates how being inside also makes you so used to jail you struggle on the out side, which in a away also happens to military vets the go from high structure to having to pay rent for example, Very complex issues. Not an expert in this field just expressing some ideas Paul

I think you can make a sort of plastic / rubber sufur substance by heating then putting in to cold water so the sulfur reforms in a different structure, then it will act as a sort of rubbery substance,