At last, someone locked up for life!!!

[Deleted member 18243]

I'm not normally a fan of the death penalty but I'd quite happily see the guys responsible for this torn limb from limb in Liverpool city centre.

I agree with you about the death penalty in this case, but why are you "not normally a fan"? The murder of Olivia is especially horrible, but there are murders every day now; also drug dealing is rife - this is a form of murder. Thousands die on the roads every year; in many cases that will be murder.

Joseph Nee, the man shot in Olivia's house, is not co-operating with the police. This makes him equally guilty of Olivia's murder and he should, unless he reveals the identity of the gunman, be sentenced to death also. At the very least he should be jailed for life - unless he speaks out.

 

[albaPhenom]

I agree with you about the death penalty in this case, but why are you "not normally a fan"? The murder of Olivia is especially horrible, but there are murders every day now; also drug dealing is rife - this is a form of murder. Thousands die on the roads every year; in many cases that will be murder.

Joseph Nee, the man shot in Olivia's house, is not co-operating with the police. This makes him equally guilty of Olivia's murder and he should, unless he reveals the identity of the gunman, be sentenced to death also. At the very least he should be jailed for life - unless he speaks out.

I don’t believe civilised societies should be murdering people in general, the scope is always there for innocent people to be found guilty of a crime he didn’t commit.

Let’s say this Nee character gives up a false name, of someone no one in the underworld will care about and looks similar enough that the family might think it was him.

You’d have a case where an innocent man was killed by the State for a crime he didn’t commit and we would all be behind it while the right guy walks.

There also doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the death penalty acts as enough of a deterrent to reduce crime, like the USA for example… therefore we would have to accept that our sole motivation is a desire to see revenged acted out … which I’m not immune to, which is why I’d like to see this murderer violently killed.

Although my base instinct wants that, sometimes it’s not a great idea to give into those instincts.

 

[The Baker]

You are all a lot closer in what you want than you all think,

What you all want is that kids are not subjected to the evils of men like Joshua Carney.

So to make up for the fact that there is nothing any of us can do to prevent the first offence of monsters like Carney you argue amongst your selves.
Perhaps if parents were able to take up the means to defend themselves and their families then the cost of incarceration could be better spent on providing health care for those who need it.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

I don’t believe civilised societies should be murdering people in general, the scope is always there for innocent people to be found guilty of a crime he didn’t commit.

As inhumane as I might sound, finding the occasional innocent person guilty and sentencing him to death is a price to pay for justice. Do you worry very much about the thousands of innocent people that are killed every year by cars, and would you suggest abolishing cars to prevent this?

There also doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the death penalty acts as enough of a deterrent to reduce crime

The death penalty did deter crime in Britain. Look up the murder rate and see how it has grown since abolition. (The murder rate actually began to climb a few years before abolition; this is because very few people were actually hanged in the last few years before abolition, some having escaped the death sentence on the newly-invented grounds of "Diminished Responsibility"). Also, consider the fact that modern medicine can save more lives than it could in the past; therefore many of today's "attempted" murders would have been actual murders in the old days.

The USA for example

The USA is a very different place.

 

[JohnD]

The death penalty did deter crime in Britain

No it didn't.

 

[Pat ex]

As inhumane as I might sound, finding the occasional innocent person guilty and sentencing him to death is a price to pay for justice. Do you worry very much about the thousands of innocent people that are killed every year by cars, and would you suggest abolishing cars to prevent this?

That argument falls at the first hurdle. You are putting the innocent, executed people in the bracket of their life was worthless, the very opposite of your argument about the innocent victims of murder.
Either all lives matter, or none do. You can't pick and choose which do and which don't, in your support for capital punishment.

pp, please don't re-start the old BLM argument all over again. If you want to, then please start a new thread. You may use my comment in that thread if you wish.

 

[noseall]

Do you worry very much about the thousands of innocent people that are killed every year by cars, and would you suggest abolishing cars to prevent this?

It's a stupid analogy, so why did you post it? Equally as stupid would be to say people drown - let's get rid of water. One flaw in your logic is that more people would die as a result of ridding the world of cars or water than there would if they remain.

The death penalty does not work as a deterrent and is hugely costly to implement.

The death penalty did deter crime in Britain

Nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

One flaw in your logic is that more people would die as a result of ridding the world of cars or water than there would if they remain.

Water is naturally occurring and is essential to human life, there is no moral element in the matter. Murdering people and cars are unnatural, man-made things and we make a conscious moral choice when we decide to commit murder or drive a car.

 

[noseall]

there is no moral element in the matter

more idiotic nonsense from andy. Explain what is moralistic about enforcing the death penalty?

 

[Pat ex]

Water is naturally occurring and is essential to human life, there is no moral element in the matter. Murdering people and cars are unnatural, man-made things and we make a conscious moral choice when we decide to commit murder or drive a car.

Your argument seems to consist of "when people are accidentally killed by negligence, including the state not providing them with a free and fair trial, they're not as dead as if they were murdered intentionally.
One was an accident and is therefore excusable, the other is intentional and punishable by death.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Thomas Cashman, 34, charged with the murder of Olivia. In court on Monday.

Man charged with murder of Olivia Pratt-Korbel after

Olivia died in Liverpool's Alder Hey Children's Hospital after being shot in her home when a gunman chasing burglar and drug dealer Joseph Nee burst into the property about 10pm on August 22.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Justin Passing]

Unfortunately, the degree of corruption and incompetence in the police at all levels is such imo that no conviction is safe enough.

 

[denso13]

As inhumane as I might sound, finding the occasional innocent person guilty and sentencing him to death is a price to pay for justice

Of course you do, you are actually all for the murder of innocent women and children after all.

 

[Pat ex]

As inhumane as I might sound, finding the occasional innocent person guilty and sentencing him to death is a price to pay for justice.

Of course you do, you are actually all for the murder of innocent women and children after all.

It would appear that andy11 is a twisted and troubled person who's bigotry frequently gets the better of him.
In another thread he has highlighted the case of a relatively minor sexual assault simply because the assailant was assumed to be an immigrant.

 

[transam]

under Transams criteria innocent people or those were there is doubt to there guilt would NOT be bumped
Off