ancientsaint Posted December 4, 2008 Report Share Posted December 4, 2008 read this on Monday. This could of been any normal fight that you get at a Amateur football match, but the lad has given the old boy one unlucky punch and knocked his lights out. I'll defer my opinion until I hear the facts. good point noose..............if a fight has taken place between 2 or more and one person has been punched causing them to fall and die -then its not premeditated and would be reduced to manslaughter. As for the debate about the death penalty - no one is saying everyone that murders should be killed....there are always reasons for murder......but to kill a child there is no reason and this is the only arguement i personally would have to kill the killer of an innocent baby/child that cant or couldnt fight back at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beagriestache Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 Capital punishment is not defensible for two reasons: 1. You can rarely be 100% sure that the convicted and condemned person is actually guilty. Even if they say they are, they may in fact be mentally ill or just plain lying. If you are prepared to take someone's life you should be 100%certain they're guilty. One innocent person executed is one too many and there have already been hundreds if not thousands throughout the world. 2. By murdering murderers the state is simply lowering itself to their debased standards when it should be setting a higher example. Having said that, I think anyone convicted of murder (and paedophilic crimes and probably crimes of sexual violence) should be locked up for life which should mean life. The dead person doesn't get a reprieve so why should the murderer? Also, anyone wrongly convicted would still be alive should the real culprit be found in future years, and available for release. Locking people up for life would cost an awful lot of money (approx £50k per year per person) but this is something a civilised society should have to accept. One way round this would be to allow convicted lifers to take their own life if they've had enough since they're never getting out. Why we persist in preventing the likes of Ian Huntley and Ian Brady from killing themselves is beyond me. Huntley's got another 40 odd years left in him which is roughly £2million by the time he croaks in jail (he'll never be released). What a pointless waste of money which could be spent on better issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted December 7, 2008 Report Share Posted December 7, 2008 Capital punishment is not defensible for two reasons: 1. You can rarely be 100% sure that the convicted and condemned person is actually guilty. Even if they say they are, they may in fact be mentally ill or just plain lying. If you are prepared to take someone's life you should be 100%certain they're guilty. One innocent person executed is one too many and there have already been hundreds if not thousands throughout the world. 2. By murdering murderers the state is simply lowering itself to their debased standards when it should be setting a higher example. Having said that, I think anyone convicted of murder (and paedophilic crimes and probably crimes of sexual violence) should be locked up for life which should mean life. The dead person doesn't get a reprieve so why should the murderer? Also, anyone wrongly convicted would still be alive should the real culprit be found in future years, and available for release. Locking people up for life would cost an awful lot of money (approx £50k per year per person) but this is something a civilised society should have to accept. One way round this would be to allow convicted lifers to take their own life if they've had enough since they're never getting out. Why we persist in preventing the likes of Ian Huntley and Ian Brady from killing themselves is beyond me. Huntley's got another 40 odd years left in him which is roughly £2million by the time he croaks in jail (he'll never be released). What a pointless waste of money which could be spent on better issues. Your "arguement" was looking presentable until your closing remarks concerning Huntlet and Brady being "allowed" to take their own lives and thereby you are agreeing that this form of "assisted suicide" is ok -wher in actual fact it is Against the laws that you state should remain in place regarding the "eye for an eye" arguement. I can see arguements for "errors" in proving guilt.......but there is No arguement in my mind that some animal/person who murders a defensless baby should not be legitimately be removed from society by lethal injection...my view, but one that many will not call for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beagriestache Posted December 8, 2008 Report Share Posted December 8, 2008 No, you misunderstand. You are sanctioning state murder. I am saying the state should be prepared to provide a safe prison for murderers if that is what is required. That is the mark of a civilised society however unpleasant the taste it leaves in your (and my) mouth. However, keeping lifers like Huntley alive when they want to die seems utterly pointless (and vengeful actually, when we should all be striving to rise above vengeance). You're right though, assisted suicide is currently illegal, but laws can change and hopefully this one will in due course to allow the terminally ill and full-term prisoners with no chance of reprieve to take their own lives. Sadly, I don't suppose it'll ever happen with regard to prisoners which is a) a waste of money and in the current prison system, ensures murderers and other violent crims eventually walk our streets again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slf Posted December 8, 2008 Report Share Posted December 8, 2008 kill all peados .those beasts do not deserve to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 No, you misunderstand. You are sanctioning state murder. I am saying the state should be prepared to provide a safe prison for murderers if that is what is required. That is the mark of a civilised society however unpleasant the taste it leaves in your (and my) mouth. However, keeping lifers like Huntley alive when they want to die seems utterly pointless (and vengeful actually, when we should all be striving to rise above vengeance). You're right though, assisted suicide is currently illegal, but laws can change and hopefully this one will in due course to allow the terminally ill and full-term prisoners with no chance of reprieve to take their own lives. Sadly, I don't suppose it'll ever happen with regard to prisoners which is a) a waste of money and in the current prison system, ensures murderers and other violent crims eventually walk our streets again. Does the "state" not already "sanction murder".........ie WAR - Police marksmen in a siege (to name 2) ? Im not saying every murderer should die - but kids cant defend themselves and those who destroy their lives have NO defence in what they have done ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beagriestache Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Yes it does. And what a waste of lives, innocent and otherwise, state-sanctioned murder is, however you want to dress it up be it war, execution of murderers, police marksmen etc etc. I don't want to be part of a system which lowers itself to the standards of the murderers (be they child-killers or not) by murdering them in turn. Remember also you'll never really KNOW whether they were guilty or not. You're right, these people who kill defenceless kids are beyond the pale and should spend the rest of their days in jail. Incidentally, Britain's last hangman, Albert Pierrepoint, said that capital punishment does nothing other than satisfy the lust for revenge of the public. If anyone should know, I'd think he would. We should take the understandable emotion (largely whipped up by the appalling tabloid media we have) out of decision making about violent criminals and do what's best for the victim's relatives, the state financially, the state morally and I'm afraid the offender too (who might not actually be guilty - no judicial system is infallible). That's why I think we should be prepared to lock them up for good but if they want to save themselves a future in prison we also shouldn't stand in their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 Yes it does. And what a waste of lives, innocent and otherwise, state-sanctioned murder is, however you want to dress it up be it war, execution of murderers, police marksmen etc etc. I don't want to be part of a system which lowers itself to the standards of the murderers (be they child-killers or not) by murdering them in turn. Remember also you'll never really KNOW whether they were guilty or not. You're right, these people who kill defenceless kids are beyond the pale and should spend the rest of their days in jail. Incidentally, Britain's last hangman, Albert Pierrepoint, said that capital punishment does nothing other than satisfy the lust for revenge of the public. If anyone should know, I'd think he would. We should take the understandable emotion (largely whipped up by the appalling tabloid media we have) out of decision making about violent criminals and do what's best for the victim's relatives, the state financially, the state morally and I'm afraid the offender too (who might not actually be guilty - no judicial system is infallible). That's why I think we should be prepared to lock them up for good but if they want to save themselves a future in prison we also shouldn't stand in their way. Life should mean forever and these sub humans should have no privilages what so ever.Cheap and nasty food, no tvs, no music , no mod cons...After all thats what their victims will be getting.Make these c unts suffer for all their natural lives and if the step out of line fukem. Get them into solitary and leave them their..Human rights!!!!!! ****ing joke . They took someones right to life away so their right to a normal life should be revoked.70 years in the pokey is the very least they deserve.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintj Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 giving all the things you here prison is hardly prison as it should be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beagriestache Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 eh?! Agreed Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 ok - get the murderers out and send them out to fight for their country .....NO OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noose76 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 put the paedos in Barlinnie with the rest of the lifers and watch them got torn to ribbons. I'd pay to watch that becuase it'd be better then watching saints anyday. At the moment they're all in Peterhead where they live a happy normal life with people just like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintj Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 ok - get the murderers out and send them out to fight for their country .....NO OK aye guid een if capital punishment isnt appealing for everyone why not give them 50 years hard labour in chains Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 I always laugh when I hear folk call for Murderers/Psychos to be sent to the front. Great idea. Let them out , send them abroad , hone their killing skills and then give them state bought WEAPONS and BULLETS..Mmmmmmmmm, there might be a slight flaw in that plan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancientsaint Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 I always laugh when I hear folk call for Murderers/Psychos to be sent to the front. Great idea. Let them out , send them abroad , hone their killing skills and then give them state bought WEAPONS and BULLETS..Mmmmmmmmm, there might be a slight flaw in that plan... Hey .....you get taught a lot more inside than you would in the army !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 Hey .....you get taught a lot more inside than you would in the army !!!! It's not the teaching/training that worries me....NO....it's the guns, bullets, RPGLs, and other ordnance. There dangerous enough without the government tooling them up....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalSaintee Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 I always laugh when I hear folk call for Murderers/Psychos to be sent to the front. Great idea. Let them out , send them abroad , hone their killing skills and then give them state bought WEAPONS and BULLETS..Mmmmmmmmm, there might be a slight flaw in that plan... That's going to help the situation in Iraq... heavily armed paedophiles and murderers wandering the streets Totally agree with your earlier post, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 That's going to help the situation in Iraq... heavily armed paedophiles and murderers wandering the streets Totally agree with your earlier post, though. That was my point. I was being sarcastic:rolleyes: young man.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalSaintee Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 That was my point. I was being sarcastic:rolleyes: young man.... Double rolleyes, I was being sarcastic too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Double rolleyes, I was being sarcastic too Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Right then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalSaintee Posted December 11, 2008 Report Share Posted December 11, 2008 Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Right then. That's awfully skeptical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broggy Man Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Clearly many have no idea how the system works for those convicted of murder. If the tarriff is 20 years then it means twenty years as opposed to 5 or so years ago when the first parole application came after approx 6 years and very rarely were they detained after 12 years. Take Tobin for instance assuming he lives it will be thrity years before he can make his first application and these applications are no longer paper based they now go to a hearing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.