Supragal Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Don't agree with the death penalty simply because at some point someone will get it wrong. Makes me properly sick though, I can't stand reading that kind of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Originally posted by Barry What with CCTV, DNA testing etc.. now in use, I think it should be brought back in, the margin for error will be practically 0! I worked with Forensic police in my previous job and you wouldnt be so certain about some of the things they tell you. We have this DNA testing but its not EXACT yet. Its just used to add to the rest of the evidence, not relied on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harwood Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Where the evidence is undeniably strong, what IMO SHOULD happen, is to allow the family to pass judgement. However, in this case, providing life actually does mean life, (and not get let out early because they were polite to the prison warders), I think it's a reasonably fair judgement. Although the judge should add in, that the prison they serve in should give them the least possible priviledges once inside... Hope they die miserable and lonely Just my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I would definately not rest if I was a member of this poor blokes family, I would have to get revenge! Death or prison is too easy for them. I would inflict as much pain on them as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Easy what you say Matt you live nearer to a so called prison than I do ..should they escape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Tannhauser just a harsher UK one - but 'harsh justice systems' and repressive, brutal regimes often go hand in hand. If you live in a country that fails to provide human rights for everyone - including scum - then you'd better watch out. The same rules that protect the scum, protect you. They mean that if you are wrongly arrested for something, or that the government decides something is suddenly a terrible crime, there's a limit on the harm that can be done to you. An interested point Tann. Certainly the Saudi judicial system is very black & white. You're either guilty or innocent. No If's. No buts. You're absolutely right about westerners getting off lightly. At the time I w as working for Lucent Technologies when I was over there .. and a project manager got arrested there for speeding and Lucent had to pay money to get him out of prison and to avoid a flogging! But I'm of the opinion that our judicial system -in some cases, doesn't protect the victim or the victim's family as well as it should. The family of poor Jamie Bulger for example - those 2 monsters now 19 now ? - are let out roam the countryside (ok - they are no doubt tagged and tracked. Being cynical) with new identities .. practically a new life. I'm of the opinion that those two - don't deserve a 2nd chance. I'm of the belief that our laws need to be tightned up. For example - remember when Paul Evan's house was broken into ? If, Paul - had disturbed the thief and while restraining him .. was forced to defend himself ... kung fu kicked him and rugby tackled the mincer to the ground ... if the guy say broke an arm in doing so. It is possible that the thief could sue Paul! I'm at a loss about that law - because in that hypothetical scenario ... Mr E was defending himself and his home. Yet the perp wouldn't have a broken arm - a) IF he hadn't tried some silly Bruce Lee Super Street Fighter 8, Tekken Karate Ninjitsu move - lol! (Got hostile) b) If he wasn't there in the first place & breaking the law. c) If he wasn't a lowlife degenerate thieving prick. And yes you're right - what is needed is a judical system that is an equal balance between the two opposite sides of the same coin. However, in my opinion - though our system is far from Saudi (thank feck!) - but the penalties for crimes need to suit the crimes committed. See my previous post about speeding & 12yr old girl. Ok, after typing all that - am going to shut up now! Haha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Clarkey_Sparkey [b I'm of the belief that our laws need to be tightned up. For example - remember when Paul Evan's house was broken into ? If, Paul - had disturbed the thief and while restraining him .. was forced to defend himself ... kung fu kicked him and rugby tackled the mincer to the ground ... if the guy say broke an arm in doing so. It is possible that the thief could sue Paul! I'm at a loss about that law[/b] Yes, agreed. I can never get my head around that either. But I wonder how often that actually happens in practice - i.e. that a burglar sues the houseowner? Should the law say that people who steal your property give up ALL their rights by so doing? If so, this would mean that a kid who took a Mars Bar from a shop could quite legally be stabbed by the owner. I suppose the law tries to compromise to avoid my scenario by saying you can use 'reasonable force'. Having said that, the balance does sometimes seem crazily tipped in the perpetrator's favour - although you have to remember that this sort of thing outrages most people, outrage sells papers and so it tends to get over-reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Tannhauser Should the law say that people who steal your property give up ALL their rights by so doing? If so, this would mean that a kid who took a Mars Bar from a shop could quite legally be stabbed by the owner. I suppose the law tries to compromise to avoid my scenario by saying you can use 'reasonable force'. They should have rights - because otherwise we'd not be living in this peaceful & funloving eutopia that we do now. Lol. Seriously however, I think a perp waives all rights to sueing their victim as soon as: a) They "the perpertrator" - break the law. AND b) Proved that more force than necessary was used for restraint. Just to clarify -b- (a silly example) .. if someone is in your house and you disturb them. They put up their hands and say "I give up." ... you come along and nut them - claret pissing everywhere - staining your new persian rug and as a byproduct breaking their nose and knocking them unconsious. It just goes to show that some people have got some brass balls on 'em. I wonder what crap they tell the court when they're sueing their victim. "I'm a lowlilfe contemptable mofo thief who is too lazy to make an honest living. I was injured in my line work and I'm taking court action because of lack earnings." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 i think a point worth mentioning is the fact that these two animals had between them 50+ previous convictions for various violent crimes. Thats where i justice system has failed, ie by not getting them locked away / sectioned before they've done this latest act..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Bobbeh I worked with Forensic police in my previous job and you wouldnt be so certain about some of the things they tell you. We have this DNA testing but its not EXACT yet. Its just used to add to the rest of the evidence, not relied on. Bobbeh, What I mean is, where there is evidence that is 100% (ie: CCTV of them actually doing it etc..) then yes, I think the death penalty is justified. Especially in the example being used at the start of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attilauk Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I do not think the death penalty should be brought back, i like to think we are past such barbaric practices. However i do believe that prison should be a punishment not just a stay in some government run hotel which you cant leave! and life should mean life in cases like these! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Laing Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 The law is too soft, if you steal a handbag from an old lady you should get your hands chopped off, if they knew this then I bet they would think twice… Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by attilauk I do not think the death penalty should be brought back, i like to think we are past such barbaric practices. However i do believe that prison should be a punishment not just a stay in some government run hotel which you cant leave! and life should mean life in cases like these! To be honest Rich, I'm of the opinion that the day that we are completely free of murder .. etc is the day we are past such barbaric practices. I'm pretty sure - tho that prison is not exactly like a pleasant holiday at centre parks. And yes life sentance - should mean life, but then you get these soo called "do-gooders" that were trying to get Mira Hindley released. So the end result is - the taxpayer ends up paying for the incareration of these mutts. Do we really want the likes of people like Ian Brady & Mira Hindly to be imprisioned & then released back into society ? When there is undeniable, 100% proof ... like that CCTV. The law should respond with the same penalty as the crime committed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Just to add a bit of a red herring perspective type thing, if a dog bites someone more than 3 times it gets put down... even if it's a guard dog defending it's property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSteve Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Posted about this story before but read this article before you vote: http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningchronicle/eveningchronicle/page.cfm?objectid=13620515&method=full&siteid=50081 btw both got not guilty coz they couldn't tell who was driving (I know both lads and I'm pretty sure I know who was driving) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Supragal Just to add a bit of a red herring perspective type thing, if a dog bites someone more than 3 times it gets put down... even if it's a guard dog defending it's property. Not sure if that applies to "Dotty" - Princess Ann's bulldog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Clarkey_Sparkey Not sure if that applies to "Dotty" - Princess Ann's bulldog. Must have missed that story...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Remember when the Princess's dog attacked a child .. and has been known on previous occassions for aggressive hostile behaviour ? The princess got fined & community service. The dog is still kicking tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Clarkey_Sparkey Remember when the Princess's dog attacked a child .. and has been known on previous occassions for aggressive hostile behaviour ? The princess got fined & community service. The dog is still kicking tho. No previous occassions - sorry got confused wtih something else .. but here's the story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2497531.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Ad Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Yes, it should be brought back. Firstly, the criminal lost their human rights when they took away the other rights of someones life. Secondly, it will be a good deterrent. Thirdly, with the amount of forensics nowadays, proof is pretty conclusive now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 What's people's main reasons for not wanting it back? If it's because we don't (can't) trust the system enough, and we don't want to be guilty of condemning innocent people, is that the same reason all punishments aren't harsh enough? I.E.: prisons aren't scary to a hardened criminal (I bet they are to the odd innocent that goes in). So what's the point of a justice system at all? We should go for it. eye for an eye plus interest judicial system. If it doesn't work properly and we lose a few innocent people (0.1%?), so what? How many lives will be saved or at least made 1000 times better with NO crime? [PS. I have very extreme views on many subjects, this is one of my weaker ones!!] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by tbourner If it doesn't work properly and we lose a few innocent people (0.1%?), so what? Hmmm - extreme ? You think ? Lol. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ? Why not ship them off to a some siberian concentration death camp and then gas 'em ? Maybe be want to reopen Auschwitz ? It might be pleasant this time of year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Originally posted by Clarkey_Sparkey Maybe be want to reopen Auschwitz ? It might be pleasant this time of year. Don't get me started!! I'm the only person who seems to agree with Hitlers plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 Mein Kampf must've been an interesting bedtime read with the cup of coco! Haha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted December 2, 2004 Share Posted December 2, 2004 I think 'Prevention' is better than cure... (a slight deviation but relevent) we should start by being allowed to educate, and correct our children in a way that is beneficial to them and the world around them. I remember Leon Briton bringing in the so called 'Short Sharp Shock' treatment in the 80's for young offenders...short terms in Prison, hair shaved off (unfortunetly thats quite fashionable now prob as a result he he) and made to get up early every morning to do concreting, or other forms of hard labour. One thing that the Tories did get right. Kids these days dont even know how to socialise, they hide behind the internet text their mates, and cant hold a conversation face to face, some of them would be more upset at losing their mobile phone or getting an internet virus, than if one of their mates get run over and killed...they dont understand the value of human life. I have heard teenagers actually say, they dont believe life is real its just some kind of funky virtual reality computer game, and they dont consider others around them as real matter. The Children/teenagers in this country are out of control...and the older generation have let them down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.