CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by markie, 2 Jan 2006.

  1. david and julie

    david and julie

    Joined:
    9 Apr 2004
    Messages:
    1,752
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    None of us know how many mistakes there have been and fair enough, one would be too many. That said, how many people have died at the hands of re-offenders? Obviously the DP would have saved those.

    Whilst talking of mistakes, we must also consider the vast scientific improvements made in the collecting and interpretation of evidence. The crime wave in this country, particularly violent and drug related, bears no resemblance to the UK of 40 odd years ago, when these decisions were made.

    I think it is the "nasty" cases that concerns people most though, particularly when involving the young or old.I don't think anyone seriously suggested the DP for manslaughter, euthanasia or spur of the moment cases, etc.

    To me, the general consensus of the "pro's" was that the cases which were proven beyond doubt, should carry the ultimate penalty.

    Whilst some have made accusations about "pros" being uncivilised, I say there is nothing civilised about closing hospitals and schools because of funding issues, whilst giving garbage 3 square a day and a warm bed. We should get our priorities right.

    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know whether the public were ever consulted prior to the abolishment of capital and corporal punishment?
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. david and julie

    david and julie

    Joined:
    9 Apr 2004
    Messages:
    1,752
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Not all people have their E mail address listed, but Julie did. You have to click on their name (in blue)and have a look in their profile to see.

    I may of caused confusion because I said PM, I actually meant a personal message by E mail, not through the site as with other forums.

    I notice yours(albeit yahoo) is listed, whilst mine isn't.
     
  4. hermes

    hermes

    Joined:
    3 Jan 2006
    Messages:
    1,782
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You seem to be saying that it's ok to kill a few innocent people to prevent a few more innocent people being killed. What an awful attitude you have.

    Who decides whether a case is proven beyond doubt. According to you, those poor women who were wrongly imprisoned for murdering their children when the kids died from cot death would have been killed by the state, after all, they were imprisoned because their case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
     
  5. dg123

    dg123

    Joined:
    15 Jun 2005
    Messages:
    366
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It's reliable as long as it's trustworthy. There is will still be corruption amongst those who have power.
     
  6. empip

    empip

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2005
    Messages:
    6,323
    Thanks Received:
    172
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Between "yes", "The probability is.." and "No" .... The whole thing balances very precariously.

    0.001% or one thousandth of one percent, actually means 600 out of 60 million. Now that gives you a one in 600 chance of picking the winner, or more to the point 599 chances of not picking the winner.
    Which sounds like the iffy one??
    If you are quoted a percentage, then invariably the 'actual' numbers are a little more sobering.
    BTW 0.001% is just an illustrative number pulled out of the air.
    Makes you think tho'.
    ;)
     
  7. david and julie

    david and julie

    Joined:
    9 Apr 2004
    Messages:
    1,752
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Where did I said it was OK to kill innocent people? indeed I said the opposite.
    I don't have an awful anything, I just don't have the same opinion as you which is my right. YOU are the one with the attitude as you have chosen to ignore parts of my comment, for your own ends.

    Where did I say I would have killed women who's kids died from cot death? Your learning to read and properly digest information would help before making spurious comments.

    Like others, you have taken posts out of all proportion by your emotive response and accusations. I meant the likes of Sutclife, West, Huntley etc. I never suggested all types and clearly said so, more than once.

    Believe it or not, some of us don't like seeing kids raped and murdered or pensioners being robbed and battered in their own homes either, but eh, I forgot for a minute, I'm uncivilised so shouldn't comment. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  8. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Given that i did not use any obscenities or swear words, I would like clarification of the following:

    1) Just what words may I use, and how clear may I make my utter disgust and contempt for people when they post opinions that I believe to be utterly disgusting and contemptible?

    2) Why do you do nothing about posts where people say that they would like to torture and kill other people? What do you think is more harmful to the environment of a "family" forum? Advocating extreme violence and murder, or criticising the advocacy of extreme violence and murder?

    I know that you love to impose your will on this forum, and refuse to ever justify yourself, but I think in this case I have the right to demand that you do answer this simple question:

    People here are free to say they they would like to carry out, or have others carry out, obscene acts of violence.

    I am not free to use every non-obscene, non-swear word I can think of to illustrate just how obscene I find them.

    Why is this?
     
  9. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Interesting that you think it is sick to not want to kill people, particularly if you're against the death penalty. If it is sick to not want to kill people, how many people should a person want to kill for him to be healthy in your eyes?

    So you're not, actually, against the death penalty then, are you?

    Me neither, but sick they must be. Armed robbers I can understand - if it works it's a quick way to "earn" a great deal of money, and when you see the sorts of things Slogger says it's quite easy to see how someone could care so little for life that they'd be prepared to kill to get money.

    But sex with children? No way. Violent sex with children? Is that really the act of a well person?

    So you're not, actually, against the death penalty then, are you?

    I think not. Unless somehow you think that not wanting to kill them is defending them. I don't want to kill David, Julie or Slogger either, but I'm certainly not defending them

    If your only concept of justice is to kill them, then you would think that. I have a more civilised view than that, and if I had my way they would not escape justice.

    Please read what I've previously written:

    and explain how if they were locked up until they died they could do it again?
     
  10. Sponsored Links
  11. oilman

    oilman

    Joined:
    16 Sep 2003
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Hermes didn't say you did. Pot calling kettle black?
     
  12. Moz

    Moz

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2005
    Messages:
    5,132
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    The Death penality doesnt work look at the Yanks they use it to kill poor dumb black kids


    I have said before you Need the old Penal servitude ...like Dartmoor..

    prisoners locked up an in segregation single cell ,bed an toilet nothing else (except books )made to do hard labour every day til yes one day they are allowed to return to society a free reformed charactor ...

    those who are child killers never released but given a tv after say 30 yrs (1hr limit a week ),an nutters should be sent to hospitals never released unless fully medicated an then next door to the parole board peoples homes
    btw it is far crueller to make them work hard every day in prison an the quarries ..look at Brady he wants to die !!
     
  13. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Ooohhh - careful - that sounds like abuse to me...

    Firstly, I am far from defunct of comment, and secondly it isn't garbage. I find it incredible that someone would allow another person to make posts in their name if they were so at odds with their own opinion.
    I cannot conceive of ever tolerating that myself, and since there is a very easy way to stop it, I find it impossible to believe that it wouldn't be demanded.

    I don't believe I am wrong. Facts are that Julie offended me when she thought I'd believe that she would not get you to stop making posts that carry her name if she didn't agree with them.

    I'm not losing. If you think that failing to change your mind means I'm losing then the same applies to you, as you have failed equally to change mine.

    So I'm nasty, but you, who would like to torture, maim, and kill people, are not nasty?

    I'm not a liar. If you think I am, please tell me where I've said something that I know to be false in order to deceive.

    As I've said - it just seems so incredible that Julie would allow you to implicate her in your posts if she was not in agreement with them. Would you?

    Nastier that a murderous torturer? Hmmmm...

    You just don't get it.

    This is not an opinion like "Marmite is nasty", or "I think Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitar player who ever lived".

    Masona said that he wanted to kill people. Killing people is violent, and it is uncivilised.

    That's what she already claimed. IMO it is incredible that anybody would allow their name to go against posts if they were not in support of the posts.
     
  14. ban-all-sheds

    ban-all-sheds

    Joined:
    27 Aug 2003
    Messages:
    69,782
    Thanks Received:
    2,858
    Location:
    London
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I see no reason why someone judged to be rational should not be allowed to commit suicide.

    Having someone else kill them could only be done if that was generally allowed, i.e. voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicides. If not, can you imagine the (justified) howls of anguish from people who saw convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles etc being allowed to ask to be killed when their wife/husband/father/mother/whatever who was in dreadful pain or abject misery because of a medical condition could not ask the same?
     
  15. Slogger

    Slogger

    Joined:
    26 Jun 2004
    Messages:
    1,681
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    think about what your saying and asking of a society to not want to kill or mame these scum


    it is a civilised society that sets high standards and will enforce them with the harshest treatment DEATH

    it is an uncivilised society that lets there young be preyed upon by RELEASING so called reformed characters

    lets cut to the chase

    either never release them and put them in hideous conditions that will ensure they catch pnemonia = death by natural causes

    take there lives in the mannner they took there victims

    WHERES BATMAN
     
  16. masona

    masona

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2003
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Location:
    Essex
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I fully understand ban, this is a difficult one but I think it would have to be all or nothing so anybody can have that rights.

    I understand some people go aboard to have there life ended there because of medical reason which is legally allow in their country, don't quote me on this but I think it maybe Sweden and Australia(?)
     
  17. david and julie

    david and julie

    Joined:
    9 Apr 2004
    Messages:
    1,752
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Here is what hermes said, anyone can make their own mind up on its interpretation.
    I was under the impression most of these women were jailed subject to appeal anyway, the cases were subsequently dropped, due to the unreliability of certain "professional" opinions. To me this says the cases were not proved beyond doubt, so these women would not have received the DP under these circumstances.

    I feel this reply is inline with my opinion voiced here on page No 1. Where I said this.
    Why are some people quoting my comments out of all proportion?
     
Loading...

Share This Page