I suspect newspapers don’t receive many, the give-away to that suspicion by so often the same letter writer names cropping up.
The amusement I derive comes from the frequent lack of deeper thought in these missives.
Consider this nonsense from a Graham Booth of Taradale, which appeared in Stuff’s The Post a few days back.
Graham, who sounds more like a Kevin, wrote the following.
“For over a century NZ has attempted to address criminal behaviour, without addressing the root cause.
We had hangings for murders but that never stopped other murders”.
He then goes on to detail other examples of different crimes and punishments, repeating his murder punishment assertion, that these penalties are plainly not working, given these crimes continue to occur. That assertion is totally devoid of logic.
While we can never know exactly, the fact of punishment is logically a detriment, for while we continue to have murders, how many have not occurred because of the potential punishment?
To take Graham’s faulty logic to an extreme, let us assume we legislate to recognising no actions being criminal.
Within a month we’d be reduced to a state of anarchy. There’d no longer be the need for bitter divorce disputes, rather, the simple solution would be to knock off the other party.
There’d no longer be a need to work, given the option to simply take what you want. Very soon we’d all be building fortress homes and arming ourselves to the teeth.
No female could venture out as rapists would find themselves in paradise.
The cold hard reality is that crime and punishment are age-old partners.
So rather than a softer, kinder approach as Graham recommends, again to take an extreme hypothesis, if say shop-lifting was subject to hanging, overnight we can safely assume that contemporary scourge would grind to a halt.
In short, bleeding heart tolerance is not working and instead a case can be made for a much more punitive approach to end criminality.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE - where this article was sourced.
Graham, who sounds more like a Kevin, wrote the following.
“For over a century NZ has attempted to address criminal behaviour, without addressing the root cause.
We had hangings for murders but that never stopped other murders”.
He then goes on to detail other examples of different crimes and punishments, repeating his murder punishment assertion, that these penalties are plainly not working, given these crimes continue to occur. That assertion is totally devoid of logic.
While we can never know exactly, the fact of punishment is logically a detriment, for while we continue to have murders, how many have not occurred because of the potential punishment?
To take Graham’s faulty logic to an extreme, let us assume we legislate to recognising no actions being criminal.
Within a month we’d be reduced to a state of anarchy. There’d no longer be the need for bitter divorce disputes, rather, the simple solution would be to knock off the other party.
There’d no longer be a need to work, given the option to simply take what you want. Very soon we’d all be building fortress homes and arming ourselves to the teeth.
No female could venture out as rapists would find themselves in paradise.
The cold hard reality is that crime and punishment are age-old partners.
So rather than a softer, kinder approach as Graham recommends, again to take an extreme hypothesis, if say shop-lifting was subject to hanging, overnight we can safely assume that contemporary scourge would grind to a halt.
In short, bleeding heart tolerance is not working and instead a case can be made for a much more punitive approach to end criminality.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment