I am quite comfortable that both side of this discussion are likely to be entrenched in their belief and it has WHAT to do with canals?
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Will Chapman Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 5:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [canals-list] Re: Canal side thefts and other anti social behaviour qwertybjg wrote: > I meant that not killing the people would mean that they would have a > chance to reform and possibly become valuable to the community in > terms of their economic input through employment/self-employment or > other social input. > Do you have any evidence that reform actually works? I'm all for giving someone another chance (dependent on the severity of the crime), but from what I've read it seems that reform has a very poor success rate. Is there a point when you agree that the re-offender has had enough chances and are there any crimes that you feel are so severe that your rule shouldn't apply? Will -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
