CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

[david and julie]

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?

 

[david and julie]

david and julie, surely "davidnjulie" would remove claimed confusion on this forum without adding confusion to other forums, and make it a one person handle. as soon as you have spaces either side of "and" it is such a common seperator/combiner in English it will be read as such.

Remember the old copiers "Banda"? Always referred to as a "Banda copier", the name being made from "Block and Anderson" if it was written "B and a" it appears very different.

PS how do you sent PMs on this forum?

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.

 

[hermes]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[dg123]

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?

It's reliable as long as it's trustworthy. There is will still be corruption amongst those who have power.

 

[empip]

......Current DNA tests show that, for example, sperm in a rape case is "exceptionally unlikely" to have come from a source other than the perpetrator.
Which is why, in criminal trials, forensic experts talk about the probability that a sample came from the defendant, rather than answering "yes" or "no" when asked if it matches.

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'.

 

[david and julie]

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.

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.

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

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.

Where did I said it was OK to kill innocent people? indeed I said the opposite.

None of us know how many mistakes there have been and fair enough, one would be too many.

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.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

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.

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?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well f##k anybody if you think they shouldnt be executed, you are nothing but sick and no better than the fithy fiddlers yourself---

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?

and i am against the death penalty but this i make an exception

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

i hate cruelty of any kind and never understand what must be in the sick mind of these people.

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?

I am totally against the death penalty because of reasons stated months back but these were caught red handed and fiddlers have always said they will always re-offend, so death i must be.

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

You almost defend these people,

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

but if you had your way they would escape justice

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.

and most likely do it again, and this time 3 of them together--forming fiddler gangs now it seems.

Please read what I've previously written:

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.

Could anyone with doubts tell me truthfully what they would do with this pile of utter lowlife.

Lock them up forever.

Forever as in early release and days out for good behavior?

No - forever as in for ever. Well - until they die, at any rate

and explain how if they were locked up until they died they could do it again?

 

[oilman]

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.

Hermes didn't say you did. Pot calling kettle black?

 

[Moz]

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 !!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

More rubbish from Ban-all-sheds eh, sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic to me.

Ooohhh - careful - that sounds like abuse to me...

We have been through all this name garbage before, yet you always bring it back when defunct of comment.

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.

Facts are you offended Julie, even when you knew it was nothing to do with her, but you are not big enough to acknowledge your pathetic wrong doing, which I will put the down to a combination of your arrogance and ignorance.

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.

The only time this becomes an issue is when ban starts to lose a debate

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.

and starts getting nasty,

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

I don't recall anyone having any problems with it really. This will be less of an issue now anyway as Julie is not very happy at being called a liar by a liar.

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.

This is what Julie said along with lying R-soles reply.

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.

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?

The problem is we dealing with a particularly nasty person with Ban.

Nastier that a murderous torturer? Hmmmm...

Here the post that started it.

masona wrote:
I would bring back the death penalty.

Then you are an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****.

For jeez sake Masona is one of the most helpful and inoffensive people on the site and gets a mouthful like that just for having an opinion!!

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.

Any future posts will be in the name of D&J will be solely mine.

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.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Right back to the death penalty, I have changed my mind. I think the best way is to lock them up for life and I mean life by throwing the keys away until they died. Also then, they have a choice of death penalty during the prison spell if they wish but must be their own decision and nobody else (?)

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?

 

[Slogger]

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

 

[masona]

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?

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(?)

 

[david and julie]

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.

Hermes didn't say you did. Pot calling kettle black?

Here is what hermes said, anyone can make their own mind up on its interpretation.

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.

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.

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.

Why are some people quoting my comments out of all proportion?