Barbaric or justice?

[LargeWrench]

Sorry it's totally barbaric and anyone who agrees should take a real look at themselves. Purposely paralysing someone who committed a crime when they were 14 is barbaric and belongs in the middle ages. Anyone supporting something like that is a moron in my eyes. I can just about accept someone supporting the death penalty as it is in the U.S, but not the way it is in Saudi Arabia and other counties. Public beheadings in the street and eye for an eye justice had no place in the 21st century. Lets not forget that the legal system over there is rather questionable, i wouldn't be surprised if half of the people killed have been innocent.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent anyway. The U.S has tough prisons with long sentences and the death penalty, yet they have 2 million people in jail. Eradicating a lack of education, poverty e.t.c is a better deterrent to crime than the death penalty.

 

[JBR]

Most people don't commit crimes because they know right from wrong...

Most of those who do commit crime have either not been taught this principle properly or they commit the crime on the spur of the moment...

Therefore deterrents don't work in the majority of cases!

But if you had your hand chopped off for stealing you wouldn't do it again, would you?

 

[noseall]

Anyone supporting something like that is a moron in my eyes.

No less moronic than freeing murderers form prison that go on to murder again. You think our justice system is bereft of morons or moronic decisions? A dead murderer can not go on to murder again.

There are some very evil people in this world (Ian Huntley for one) whom i would not bat an eyelid if they burnt him at the stake. However, that would be too swift a death, i would want him to suffer much longer for what he did to those girls and their families, who incidentally will go on suffering mental anguish 'till the day they die.

Let us not forget that criminals deserve to be punished, that is our law. It would be more fitting if the punishment fitted the crime.
Some crimes are more heinous than others yet the maximum they know they will get is life in prison regardless of how barbaric the crime or the repercussions for the surviving families.

 

[chapeau]

'Ere you go noseall. Maybe reading this will put a spring in your step on the way to work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-celebrity-prisoner-rivals

I've been into Cat A prisons (in a 'professional' status of course ) and have to say they aren't nice places to hang out.

 

[joe-90]

What professional status would that be? Cleaner?

 

[chapeau]

What professional status would that be? Cleaner?

Nothing wrong with being a cleaner.

 

[mdf290]

Sorry it's totally barbaric and anyone who agrees should take a real look at themselves. Purposely paralysing someone who committed a crime when they were 14 is barbaric and belongs in the middle ages. Anyone supporting something like that is a moron in my eyes.

They wont be maimed . . . dont you see how it works if they were to be maimed that would have happened years ago why the ten years?
basically they languish in jail until they can or their relatives can afford to pay the victim an adequate amount of blood money.

The long jail sentence so far has been because the victim being paralysed required a large amount of money in compensation.
He stays in prison until the family have managed to put together a suitable amount of compensation.

There was another famous case recently of a person who was going to be blinded by acid drops by the judicial system for throwing acid in a womans face. It made all the papers but when push came to shove blood money was taken instead.