CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

[masona]

So, what's the answer then?

Keep them in prison until they died bearing in mind the government are letting them out early to kill again because the prisons are full up.

So are you saying if a murderer admitted killing a number of people, death penalty is not the answer only on the condition that they stay in prison until the end, if so, then I agree.

 

[dg123]

Stronger sentences should be handed down for the 'lesser' crimes, that would discourage many from further offending and 'promotion' to the hard core crimes such as murder.

Why should someone with many previous convictions be allowed on the streets under the guise of 'one last chance'? How many last chances should they be given? Cold blooded murderers should be placed in dungeons and forgotten.

 

[hermes]

murderers should be placed in dungeons and forgotten.

Would this apply to someone who killed their terminally ill and suffering partner, or a doctor who overdosed a terminally ill and suffering patient at their own request?

Would it apply to someone who shot the rapist and murderer of his daughter or wife?

 

[Thermo]

stiffer sentances in the main will not stop someone from commiting murder. most are cariied out in the heat of the moment and involve a relative or someone known to the victim. Mosy people dont consider the consequnce of their actions, unlike a burglar, car thief etc.

 

[Richardp]

Stronger sentences should be handed down for the 'lesser' crimes, that would discourage many from further offending and 'promotion' to the hard core crimes such as murder.

Why should someone with many previous convictions be allowed on the streets under the guise of 'one last chance'? How many last chances should they be given? Cold blooded murderers should be placed in dungeons and forgotten.

I agree with the first part of this but

Cold blooded murderers should be placed in dungeons and forgotten

hardly reflects a civilised society reminds me of some of those African countries like uganda.

I prefer the bury them up to their knecks in the hottest desert and cover their heads in honey and let the ants do what ever they did in that clint eastwood film idea................not

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So, what's the answer then?

Keep them in prison until they died bearing in mind the government are letting them out early to kill again because the prisons are full up.

So are you saying if a murderer admitted killing a number of people, death penalty is not the answer only on the condition that they stay in prison until the end, if so, then I agree.

I have no problem whatsoever with the concept that some people have done things so appalling that they forfeit the right to live with the rest of society ever again, and that they spend the rest of their lives in prison. I do believe that a society has the right to say to someone "you have shown beyond doubt that you are not prepared to conform to the standards of behaviour that are required of a member of a civilised society, and accordingly you may no longer live amongst us".

And I think a lot of people here would probably be surprised at the types of offenders I'd support that for.

But they are not killed, and when they are in prison they are not tortured or starved or beaten or worked to death, for that is not what civilised people do.

I believe that some people are so sick that they can never safely be released, and that they have to be confined forever, but that in those circumstances, which are no more their fault than it is the fault of someone with a physical disability that they cannot perform certain physical acts, they should be given as comfortable a life as possible.

Expensive? It certainly is, but if you think having a society is expensive, try anarchic barbarism.

Regarding the death penalty, the situation is very, very simple.

I believe, utterly, that there is an absolute moral imperative that the state does not, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, put anybody to death as a punishment.

I find any belief to the contrary, that there can be any circumstances where a civilised society should decide to take someone's life, morally wrong. For no matter what that person has done, as soon as the state is prepared to take a life then it has lost all moral authority to say that taking a life is wrong.

I find any arguments to the contrary, that there can be any reasons why a civilised society should decide to take someone's life, particularly for reasons of cost, as arguments against morality, and therefore utterly disgusting, vile, abhorrent, obscene, contemptible.....

 

[david and julie]

ban-all-sheds said.

I believe that some people are so sick that they can never safely be released, and that they have to be confined forever, but that in those circumstances, which are no more their fault than it is the fault of someone with a physical disability that they cannot perform certain physical acts, they should be given as comfortable a life as possible.

Which confirms you have indeed lost the plot. WHAT ABOUT THE INNOCENT VICTIMS BAN.
Violent criminals do not deserve any comforts whatsoever, our sympathies and responsibilities should be restricted solely to the victims.

Regarding the death penalty, the situation is very, very simple.

True.

For what its worth I didn't suggest the death penalty for all killers either. I said those engaged in violent crime(such as armed robbery) or the ones that harm the old or the young. In reality my post is completely at odds with what you accuse me of. Here it is again,

I don't mean for everyone but definately armed robbery(causing death), premeditated murder etc. I don't mean stringing everyone up, IE when the death was unintended or if the evidence was desputable. But you must admit the cost of keeping the likes of Sutcliffe could be better spent.

Facts are forensic and sometimes video evidence is more reliable now and we are clearly talking about proven beyond doubt cases, particularly those involving children and the aged, which most people see as worse.

I can't see anything contraversial in the above comment, it is how most people see these things, civilised or not.

Just the same as last time.

You are disgusting and violent and I despise you.

I am neither disgusting nor violent, I just happen to have a different viewpoint than you, which is what a democracy is all about.
The term do-gooder is perfectly apt here, you despise someone who has a clean record and has never committed a violent act, but sympathise with murderers. What a pillock, where on earth does this site find them?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is probably no point to this, as you are a pair of barbarians, but I'll give it one more go.

ban-all-sheds said.

I believe that some people are so sick that they can never safely be released, and that they have to be confined forever, but that in those circumstances, which are no more their fault than it is the fault of someone with a physical disability that they cannot perform certain physical acts, they should be given as comfortable a life as possible.

Which confirms you have indeed lost the plot. WHAT ABOUT THE INNOCENT VICTIMS BAN.

What about the notion that somebody who is ill is also a victim?

Violent criminals do not deserve any comforts whatsoever, our sympathies and responsibilities should be restricted solely to the victims.

All criminals deserve to be justly and humanely treated, because that is what makes us better than animals and it is what makes society more civilised than the criminal and it is what gives society the moral right to judge criminals.

Regarding the death penalty, the situation is very, very simple.

True.

For what its worth I didn't suggest the death penalty for all killers either. I said those engaged in violent crime(such as armed robbery) or the ones that harm the old or the young. In reality my post is completely at odds with what you accuse me of.

No it isn't. You want the death penalty, It doesn't matter how much you wriggle, and qualify, and say "oh it's only for this class of terrible person, or that class of murderer". Did you not read what I wrote above?

THE DEATH PENALTY IS 100% UNACCEPTABLE 100% OF THE TIME. IT IS NEVER RIGHT FOR THE STATE TO KILL PEOPLE AS A PUNISHMENT.

Here it is again,

I don't mean for everyone but definately armed robbery(causing death), premeditated murder etc. I don't mean stringing everyone up, IE when the death was unintended or if the evidence was desputable. But you must admit the cost of keeping the likes of Sutcliffe could be better spent.

Facts are forensic and sometimes video evidence is more reliable now and we are clearly talking about proven beyond doubt cases, particularly those involving children and the aged, which most people see as worse.

I can't see anything contraversial in the above comment, it is how most people see these things, civilised or not.

I'm not surprised you can't see anything wrong with it, for you are a pair of uncivilised bloodthirsty barbarians with no moral superiority over the people you wish to kill.

It is not divisible. Either you are a killer or you are not.

You are, and I am not.

Just the same as last time.

You are disgusting and violent and I despise you.

I am neither disgusting nor violent, I just happen to have a different viewpoint than you, which is what a democracy is all about.

Indeed - that is what democracy is all about.

Another thing it is all about is that I am free to express how much I loathe the opinions that you hold, and unless you're making it up as a debating point, that makes you two loathsome as well.

The term do-gooder is perfectly apt here, you despise someone who has a clean record and has never committed a violent act, but sympathise with murderers. What a pillock, where on earth does this site find them?

Look at the line in blue.

You want to kill people just to save money.

MODERATOR

Last line deleted. Please refer to the rules. This is a family forum open to all. Personal abuse of this nature is not and will not be tolerated. please feel free to make your point, but please do so with respect for those both involved in the debate and those who may be reading it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is probably no point to this, as you are a pair of barbarians, but I'll give it one more go.

I'm not surprised you can't see anything wrong with it, for you are a pair of uncivilised bloodthirsty barbarians with no moral superiority over the people you wish to kill.

that makes you two loathsome as well.

As you talk about 'you two' and 'a pair of' I can only assume you include me here BAS

Of course.

BUT

I thought we put the record straight when it was discussed for several posts last year - I write here as JulieL and Dave has kept his original username of David and Julie - you know this already BAS so why are your insults also directed at me when I haven't said anything?

Because I don't believe you.

For as long as you continue to allow him to make posts in your joint names then you will jointly be tarred with the same brush.

You don't know me - if you did you'd know my politics are very different from Dave's (as we have also discussed before) and whilst I have no objection to you and Dave having your personal spats......I do find it rather unfair and unjust of you to include me - especially when I haven't passed a comment!

If you really disagreed with what he posts under collective names, and really didn't want to accept collective responsibility then you would ask him to change his user name.

The fact that you have not done so can only indicate that you are happy to be associated with his views.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing this in future please

And I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from saying "oh it's nothing to do with me". The posts come from David and Julie. I hold you equally responsible for them all. If you don't like it, tough - get him to change the name.

 

[JulieL]

Ahhh well, this reply was as I anticipated

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, it's not rocket science.

Don't let Dave post as David & Julie if you don't agree with what he is posting.

Do let him do it if you do agree.

 

[JulieL]

Well, it's not rocket science.

You are so funny!

 

[Softus]

I thought we put the record straight when it was discussed for several posts last year - I write here as JulieL and Dave has kept his original username of David and Julie - you know this already BAS so why are your insults also directed at me when I haven't said anything?

I'm going to stick my oar in here - why is it so hard to sort out a user name?

For one thing, anyone can have any (clean) user name, so I could call myself "Uncle Tom Cobbley and all" if I felt like it, and nobody would know how many people I represent. On this basis it's unwise to assume that "David and Julie" are two people.

However, if D&J used to be two people, last year, and now are only one person (forgive the grammer in this nonsensical scenario), then, even if b-a-s knew this 'fact', how is any newbie supposed to understand it?

So, in all this confusion and exchange of hot opinions, one thing reigns as incredibly ludicrous, which is that David continues to post using a user name that used to be used for two users. And the number one idiot act of all time has to be a request that everyone else runs around carefully remembering that "david and julie" is just David.

I ask you. Tch. Here's a thought - what if we passed a law allowing the state killing of all stupid people? Now that's a mandate that would get New Labour back in.

 

[JulieL]

I thought we put the record straight when it was discussed for several posts last year - I write here as JulieL and Dave has kept his original username of David and Julie - you know this already BAS so why are your insults also directed at me when I haven't said anything?

I'm going to stick my oar in here - why is it so hard to sort out a user name?

For one thing, anyone can have any (clean) user name, so I could call myself "Uncle Tom Cobbley and all" if I felt like it, and nobody would know how many people I represent. On this basis it's unwise to assume that "David and Julie" are two people.

However, if D&J used to be two people, last year, and now are only one person (forgive the grammer in this nonsensical scenario), then, even if b-a-s knew this 'fact', how is any newbie supposed to understand it?

So, in all this confusion and exchange of hot opinions, one thing reigns as incredibly ludicrous, which is that David continues to post using a user name that used to be used for two users. And the number one idiot act of all time has to be a request that everyone else runs around carefully remembering that "david and julie" is just David.

Of course Softus you are quite right and having thought about it I can't really be bothered with all of this again.

I'll just delete the post I made in response to BAS

Again having thought about it - it doesn't really matter if people think I'm writing as David and Julie as I feel it's time to move on from the forum and this will be my final post here

 

[Slogger]

BAS SAID
Look at the line in blue.

You want to kill people just to save money.

MODERATOR

Last line deleted, see earlier comment
__________________
Celui qui vit sans folie n'est pas si sage qu'il croit

u sir are a fool to let want to let these ****** live

MODERATOR
AND DONT TRY IT IN FRENCH EITHER!

SOFTUS your just as bad as him

this c*** killed 3 children and you dont want to see him get his just deserves ?

if it was one of your family you would be hunting him down with an axe/knife/pliers/and a blow torch if you say your wouldnt then i woudl call you a coward its your human right to take someones life if they threaten/kill one of your own YOUR RIGHT

i would