Whitesupraboy2 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Well recently on the news was about the little girl of 3 who was kidnapped and raped. So this bought us in the office on to the James bulger case and the now men given secret identities to live their lives. I said that it was right too as maybe they had changed and how does 2 wrongs make a right? Should the life sentence mean life? should death penalty exist, does one life another make it ok? Should prisioners be given secret identies be given a secret identity to live a new life? Could you forgive someone who killed a member of your family and was released 'supposidly' a new character? anyones views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Could you forgive someone who killed a member of your family and was released 'supposidly' a new character? Yeah, no problem, if it was my mother-in-law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptik Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Personally Im against it. Quite strongly. Ok, so people can change. But, we're probably talking about people that rob sweets from shops and put fire crackers in exhausts. The sort of people that kidnapp and torture a young child to death are not right in the head. If they did it when their brains were young, who knows what they're capable of when they're older. Bang em up for life. Just my 2p worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymanuk Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I think if proven without a shadow of doubt that they were guilty of kiling, then the death penalty. Why should the tax payers let the scum live on our hard earned cash? I think life should mean life especially if they have taken someone else's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 so say someone dodged a cat running across the road and hit a car head on killing the other person. Should they be put in Jail for life because they killed the person. As under law its your fault, according to law you should pile through the cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom S Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 so say someone dodged a cat running across the road and hit a car head on killing the other person. Should they be put in Jail for life because they killed the person. As under law its your fault, according to law you should pile through the cat true but change that to a Large deer, or a horse and some people would swerve everytime. My thoughts are if the crime fits, so should the punishment, these 2 that killed the Bulger kid, should never have been released. the local one re the young kid taken out of the bath, same thing. Do prisoners not exact revenge on kiddie kiddlers and rapists ?? If the hardened repeat offenders don't get released, how can the murderers, etc !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceptik Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I think you should be given the death penalty if you intend to harm/torture/kill someone on purpose. Obviously, there are accidents that happen and nothing can be done about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprasport Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 there is murder and manslaughter, murder is premeditated (think thats the right way round) and if found guilty with no doubt then they should be punished with no holds barred, not sure about death penalty to many innocent people are still in prison but definately hard labour or solitary for the rest of there life or even tortured once a week. but not looked after like they were ill. and pampered over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymanuk Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 so say someone dodged a cat running across the road and hit a car head on killing the other person. Should they be put in Jail for life because they killed the person. As under law its your fault, according to law you should pile through the cat Prove there was a cat/dog crossing the road. People might drive more safely.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Life should be life. And in proper prisons with a mattress, a bucket to shit in and fuck all else. Anyone who intentionally takes a life or commits rape or torture should be treated like the scum they are. It's all about acceptance of culpability - if you do the crime, you should be expected to take the punishment, and it should be fitting for the offence. Too much is placed on "human rights" of prisoners. Prison should be punishment, all but the very basic human rights should be negated. The 'justice' system is so fucked up in this country it's become a joke. [deep breath] okay, calm now. What's for tea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeT Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 theres no way in the world i'd swerve to miss a cat, im allergic to them:tomato: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerotop Dave Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I'm a different person at 35 than what I was at 30 (I've had a sex change for a start). At 30 I was different to the person I was at 25. At 25... you get the idea. We all change, especially when it comes to things like falling in love and having kids, and the death of a relative or someone close to us. These change us as people. The Bulger case involves two 14 year olds. At 14 I had very different ideals to what I have now. I knew the difference between right and wrong, and I'm proud to say I've never been in trouble with the police in my life (although oddly some people would consider that something to laugh at), so I don't know if I can relate my own life to what they did. At 14 I would have known that what they did was wrong and wouldn't have done it myself. But I've changed. Could they have changed to? Do they now have different ideals and a different sense of right and wrong? I dunno. Phew, deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I'm a different person at 35 than what I was at 30 (I've had a sex change for a start). I knew it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Every case is different and sentencing needs to be more flexible, Judges don't have the powers they need, they just follow guidelines. The death penalty is too lenient for some, they deserve to suffer long term. For premeditated murder then life should mean life, no luxuries neither and make them suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 For premeditated murder then life should mean life, no luxuries neither and make them suffer. What if the person they murdered made them suffer first? Abused them? Continually attacked, raped, beat them? Here in lies the problem. Each individual has their own views on punishment befitting a crime. Nothing is as clear as black and white. Courts have to be seen as fair as possible whilst giving a decision based upon the 'average' viewpoint. I do think the death penalty returning for cut and dry murder cases (if there is such a thing) should be reintroduced. Although I wonder if it would be a deterant. If these people are mentally afflicted enough to do it - do they even consider the penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I do think the death penalty returning for cut and dry murder cases (if there is such a thing) should be reintroduced. Although I wonder if it would be a deterant. If these people are mentally afflicted enough to do it - do they even consider the penalty? If the death penalty was such a good deterant then why does the USA still have a very high rate of murder? If we reintroduce the death penalty then we have to accept that it is based on revenge rather than a deterant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 If the death penalty was such a good deterant then why does the USA still have a very high rate of murder? If we reintroduce the death penalty then we have to accept that it is based on revenge rather than a deterant. It's true...but what do you do with 'em? Feed, water and clean them for a few years then let them out? This is also what I meant by it not being a deterant. The ones on death row are real psychos that probably never even considered the consequence of their actions. What good is the threat of punishment in that case if it doesn't prevent the crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 What if the person they murdered made them suffer first? Abused them? Continually attacked, raped, beat them? That's manslaughter, not murder. You know what I mean by premeditated murder, a businessman murdering his partner for financial reasons etc. I think the people in power are capable of making the sentence fit the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopite Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I personally think that the death penalty is a get out for some people. I know that if i was sentanced to 30+ years in jail, i'd rather be executed (if it's the gas chamber way), seems that it'd be the prisoner's family that'd suffer more there. If everyone gets locked up for life (,eaning life) then it's going to cause overcrowding in jails. I do wish each case could be treated individually but as Pete says, everyones views are different. Venables and Thompson, and whoever did this to the 3 year old, deserve to spend their lives in prison and never come out. That's how i feel although some people would argue that some lives weren't worth as much if all murderers didn't get life... so i dunno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roboldham Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 completely thieved from Richard Dawkins: Let's all stop beating Basil's car Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'. Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software. Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes? Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me). But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car? Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 i don't think there should be death penalties - as CJ says it doesn't work in the US so why would it work here. Plus if there was no DNA evidence etc how could they really be sure enough to kill someone for something they may not have done. I do however think that cases should be judged on individual basis because even every murder is different and for different reasons. I think there should be different laws for paedophiles though someone, anyone that hurts a child in any way doesn't deserve to be in a normal society. The Jamie Bulgar case really affected me as i was the same age as the boys at the time and my brother was the same age as Jamie Bulgar. I know people say that you think differently when you are that age to what you do now but you still have the same feelings, thoughts, emotions and your brain works in the same way so the thing that made those boys do such terrible things, where has it gone? Have they now switched off the part of their brain that said 'lets stick batteries up a 3yr olds backside' - sorry to be graphic but its sick.... phew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarface GTti Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 As for the 3 year old that was raped, i`d castrate them then chop their hands off. Ok, they may change in the future but just in case they don`t at least they couldn`t do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprasport Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Judges don't have the powers they need, they just follow guidelines. . they have to much power they are just human beings (fickle), with the power to dish out sentences. they hand out sentences of 6 months for rape when they can give much more than that yet they hand out harsh sentences for petty crimes. two crimes that are identical in every way can carry two totally different sentences. so as for following guide lines.... what a load of f***ing sh*t the law is an absolute ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 If you kidnap and gang rape a 3 year old, you clearly are so fucked up that you are never going to change a great deal, ok after a stint he may change his mind on Fox Hunting or whether Cameron is a poofta, but the long and short of it is that these guys are fucking sick in the head. People bang on about about prison as a source of rehabilitation- but what about as a punishment???? Shouldn't they be locked in a 7 foot cube with a mat, loo and a sink so they can think long and hard about what a bunch of arsehols they'd been? Why shouyld society have to put up with these scumbags because some greenie tree hugging lentil slurping sandalisa is worried about the prisioners human rights??? Imo if you rape 3 year olds or kidnap 6 year olds from their bath, then you waive your human rights. btw, the 'Bulger' boys- should they have new lives??? Fuck no, they should never have been let out, personaly I think we should see if Casino was correct that if you put Tompson & Venables head in a vice, would their eyeballs pop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chrispeemk2 Posted January 7, 2006 Share Posted January 7, 2006 just read the opening post and my opinion is this; i cant even think of a painful enough death for those maggots, and if someone did that to someone i cared for then i'd hold that grudge forever. and as for the death penalty not been a deterant, home office figures claim 70% of rapist and sex offenders reoffend-that wouldnt happen if they were dead hang the lot of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now