News0 min ago
A Sentance So Richly Deserved.
218 Answers
http://
At last a sentence to fit the crime, he will be 75 years old before he is released.
Yesterday Tia's father said that, whatever jail sentence this monster received, he should be hanged at the end of it.
Does anyone agree?
At last a sentence to fit the crime, he will be 75 years old before he is released.
Yesterday Tia's father said that, whatever jail sentence this monster received, he should be hanged at the end of it.
Does anyone agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you want to adopt that position, why not do away with prisons altogether? Let each town have its own cadre of vigilantes (self-appointed of course!) and they can dish out beatings, castrations, amputations electrocutions, all to their own particular agenda of who deserves what.
And if we are saving money - let's not bother with welfare anymore, for anyone - let everyone sink or swim on their own merits.
----------------------------------------------
Yet again you fail to grasp that we are discussing a child murderer. Why do you need to argue that those on welfare ought to suffer also, or anyone else who has not committed the most heinous of crimes?
Hazell will doubtless die in prison. He has very little chance of rehabilitation and release as a result of his lengthy sentence, nor should he.
Those similar to him (Whiting, Huntley) cannot be rehabilitated, will never be released either and nor should they. Death by lethal injection is what they deserve, for that is the only proper justice, which deep down everybody knows.
It's just de rigeur for some to deny it.
As for 'I am mystified by this argument that execution 'saves the tax payer money', to spell it out the Government spend more per day feeding an inmate than they do a member of HM Forces. Add on top the general daily living costs of their incarceration, then calculate that over 30/40 years.
Were that offset by execution, that would be the amount of saving to the taxpayer.
Do you get it now?
And if we are saving money - let's not bother with welfare anymore, for anyone - let everyone sink or swim on their own merits.
----------------------------------------------
Yet again you fail to grasp that we are discussing a child murderer. Why do you need to argue that those on welfare ought to suffer also, or anyone else who has not committed the most heinous of crimes?
Hazell will doubtless die in prison. He has very little chance of rehabilitation and release as a result of his lengthy sentence, nor should he.
Those similar to him (Whiting, Huntley) cannot be rehabilitated, will never be released either and nor should they. Death by lethal injection is what they deserve, for that is the only proper justice, which deep down everybody knows.
It's just de rigeur for some to deny it.
As for 'I am mystified by this argument that execution 'saves the tax payer money', to spell it out the Government spend more per day feeding an inmate than they do a member of HM Forces. Add on top the general daily living costs of their incarceration, then calculate that over 30/40 years.
Were that offset by execution, that would be the amount of saving to the taxpayer.
Do you get it now?
Brady is being force fed because he is detained now under the Mental Health Act. His case came before Mr Justice Kay, who heard evidence from a psychiatrist that the hunger strike was a manifestation of Brady's severe mental illness and an attempt at getting attention. Had Brady been an ordinary prisoner, he would have been allowed to die, because it is not legal to force feed any sane, rational, prisoner who wishes to starve himself
ChilDoubt - "Yet again you fail to grasp that we are discussing a child murderer. Why do you need to argue that those on welfare ought to suffer also, or anyone else who has not committed the most heinous of crimes?"
I assure you I do not fail to grasp the fact that we are talking about a child murderer - or how abhorent that crime is to anyone with the sense to understand it - which is more or less everyone.
But my point is - you have to draw a line in terms of rational unemotional reaction - which is what the law does. My argument about welfare etc. was simply to extrapolate an argument based on some arbitrary financial balance calculation - and on that basis, youo can be equally unfeeling about the poor and disadvantaged.
Except you can't - of course you can't. You cannot base a civilised legal system on the basis of perceived value for money. If you are going to maintain a level of existence for everyone, then that must include those who are not perceived of deseerving of it. That means drawing the line, and not moving based on emotional revulsion - that is not now the law is made or kept.
"Do you get it now?" Of course I 'get it' - i just don't agree with your voiewpoint, which i why i continue to advance mine.
I will reiterate - the notion of a child murderer fills me with at least as much moral outrage and revulsion as anyone else - but dealing with it cannot be based on that emotion. We as a society have to put laws and punishments in place and make them fit, and make them work.
If you start executing child murderers based on emotional reaction, then society would be delighted to stop treating smokers, drinkers, and the obese - based on 'saving tax payers' money'.
But that is not the way a civilised society works - that simply becomes, not even survival of the fitest - just survival of those who don't offend someone's moral code somewhere. It can't work that way, so it has to work the way we jhave - flaws and all.
I find the notion of a child murderer living to an old age a reprehensible thought, but the alternative is more reprehensible, so i will live with the system as it is, because i cannot live with the system as you would wish it to be.
I assure you I do not fail to grasp the fact that we are talking about a child murderer - or how abhorent that crime is to anyone with the sense to understand it - which is more or less everyone.
But my point is - you have to draw a line in terms of rational unemotional reaction - which is what the law does. My argument about welfare etc. was simply to extrapolate an argument based on some arbitrary financial balance calculation - and on that basis, youo can be equally unfeeling about the poor and disadvantaged.
Except you can't - of course you can't. You cannot base a civilised legal system on the basis of perceived value for money. If you are going to maintain a level of existence for everyone, then that must include those who are not perceived of deseerving of it. That means drawing the line, and not moving based on emotional revulsion - that is not now the law is made or kept.
"Do you get it now?" Of course I 'get it' - i just don't agree with your voiewpoint, which i why i continue to advance mine.
I will reiterate - the notion of a child murderer fills me with at least as much moral outrage and revulsion as anyone else - but dealing with it cannot be based on that emotion. We as a society have to put laws and punishments in place and make them fit, and make them work.
If you start executing child murderers based on emotional reaction, then society would be delighted to stop treating smokers, drinkers, and the obese - based on 'saving tax payers' money'.
But that is not the way a civilised society works - that simply becomes, not even survival of the fitest - just survival of those who don't offend someone's moral code somewhere. It can't work that way, so it has to work the way we jhave - flaws and all.
I find the notion of a child murderer living to an old age a reprehensible thought, but the alternative is more reprehensible, so i will live with the system as it is, because i cannot live with the system as you would wish it to be.
@Chill.
"Death by lethal injection is what they deserve, for that is the only proper justice, which deep down everybody knows.
It's just de rigeur for some to deny it. "
No. Death is not "the only proper justice", and no, it is not something that "deep down" everyone knows , either. What it usually is is a visceral demand for retribution. Civilisation is about more than just satisfying the bayings for visceral satisfaction from the mob.
And no, its not "de rigeur" for some to deny it. Protesting the use of the death penalty is neither a fashion or simply a custom.
"Death by lethal injection is what they deserve, for that is the only proper justice, which deep down everybody knows.
It's just de rigeur for some to deny it. "
No. Death is not "the only proper justice", and no, it is not something that "deep down" everyone knows , either. What it usually is is a visceral demand for retribution. Civilisation is about more than just satisfying the bayings for visceral satisfaction from the mob.
And no, its not "de rigeur" for some to deny it. Protesting the use of the death penalty is neither a fashion or simply a custom.
My argument about welfare etc. was simply to extrapolate an argument based on some arbitrary financial balance calculation - and on that basis, you can be equally unfeeling about the poor and disadvantaged.
-------------------------------
Not really. They've not committed abhorrent crimes of this nature.
-------------------------------
Not really. They've not committed abhorrent crimes of this nature.
ChillDoubt - read this article about the high cost of capital punishment in the USA.
http://
There are many more articles available should you wish to google them.
I will repeat what I said earlier - it would be harder to get a guilty verdict in a trial by jury if we had capital punishment
The defendant would rarely plead guilty because he'd be agreeing to his own death.
Good men and women would be turned in to killers - somebody would have to give the lethal injection.
http://
There are many more articles available should you wish to google them.
I will repeat what I said earlier - it would be harder to get a guilty verdict in a trial by jury if we had capital punishment
The defendant would rarely plead guilty because he'd be agreeing to his own death.
Good men and women would be turned in to killers - somebody would have to give the lethal injection.
/Death by lethal injection is what they deserve, for that is the only proper justice, which deep down everybody knows.
It's just de rigeur for some to deny it. /
Chill - that is rather assumptive on your part
I (and i suspect many others) do not think (especially not 'deep down') that Hazell deserves lethal injection
Because unlike Hazell (and you it seems) I don't think it's OK to cold bloodedly kill someone
So it isn't just 'de rigeur' for me not to say it
It seems you are falling into the trap of projecting your own 'model of the world' onto others, then being frustrated when we refuse to acknowledge it
I'm not sure what you mean by 'proper' justice, but locking up Hazell in a sh1tty prison with other lowlifes until he dies is as good a version as we have
It's just de rigeur for some to deny it. /
Chill - that is rather assumptive on your part
I (and i suspect many others) do not think (especially not 'deep down') that Hazell deserves lethal injection
Because unlike Hazell (and you it seems) I don't think it's OK to cold bloodedly kill someone
So it isn't just 'de rigeur' for me not to say it
It seems you are falling into the trap of projecting your own 'model of the world' onto others, then being frustrated when we refuse to acknowledge it
I'm not sure what you mean by 'proper' justice, but locking up Hazell in a sh1tty prison with other lowlifes until he dies is as good a version as we have
No. Death is not "the only proper justice", and no, it is not something that "deep down" everyone knows , either. What it usually is is a visceral demand for retribution. Civilisation is about more than just satisfying the bayings for visceral satisfaction from the mob.
And no, its not "de rigeur" for some to deny it. Protesting the use of the death penalty is neither a fashion or simply a custom.
----------------------------------
The comments and observations of my colleagues in an NHS staff rest room lead me to believe otherwise.
Some people just need to get out into the real world a bit more I guess.....
And no, its not "de rigeur" for some to deny it. Protesting the use of the death penalty is neither a fashion or simply a custom.
----------------------------------
The comments and observations of my colleagues in an NHS staff rest room lead me to believe otherwise.
Some people just need to get out into the real world a bit more I guess.....
ChillDoubt - therefore, by your own admission, you seek retribution - revenge, which is neither justice or an equitable system.
You cannot spend your life hurting your head with your perception that prison means people 'get away with it' - when patently that is not true. Apart from the loss of all status and personal freedom, there is the small matter of the loss of silence. Reggie Kray, a convictted murderer who spent most of his adult life behind bars with no apparent remorse or pity for his victims advised that the loss of silence was one of the hardest things to bear about prison life. We take it for granted - until it is lost to us, and that is a hard punishment to bear day and night.
So, as I have said, as a society, we draw a line in terms of what we will accept as appropriate punishment in a civilised society - and murder for murder is not deemed acceptable in law.
Laws are what make us civilised.
You cannot spend your life hurting your head with your perception that prison means people 'get away with it' - when patently that is not true. Apart from the loss of all status and personal freedom, there is the small matter of the loss of silence. Reggie Kray, a convictted murderer who spent most of his adult life behind bars with no apparent remorse or pity for his victims advised that the loss of silence was one of the hardest things to bear about prison life. We take it for granted - until it is lost to us, and that is a hard punishment to bear day and night.
So, as I have said, as a society, we draw a line in terms of what we will accept as appropriate punishment in a civilised society - and murder for murder is not deemed acceptable in law.
Laws are what make us civilised.
an NHS staff rest room is the real world? Anyway, I grew up in an age of capital punishment, and it manifestly didn't work; not only did crime continue, but innocent people were executed. The latter is the main reason it was abandoned. Nothing has happened to suggest the administration of justice has suddenly become perfect.
/my colleagues in an NHS staff rest room lead me to believe otherwise./
Well that may satisfy you as a valid and meaningful sample but frankly: so what?
/Some people just need to get out into the real world a bit more I guess/
Aha - the old "my 'real world' is more real than yours" argument
Sorry Chill - but Grow Up!
Well that may satisfy you as a valid and meaningful sample but frankly: so what?
/Some people just need to get out into the real world a bit more I guess/
Aha - the old "my 'real world' is more real than yours" argument
Sorry Chill - but Grow Up!
ChillDoubt - "The comments and observations of my colleagues in an NHS staff rest room lead me to believe otherwise.
Some people just need to get out into the real world a bit more I guess..... "
You can find comments like that just about anywhere where two or more adults discuss the issue - the venue and professions of the individuals do not matter at all - you will find people to agree with you.
But you can - under the same circumstances - find people who think dog fighting is a good way to spend a Saturday, as is beating up opposing football fans, or giving the wife a hiding if the dinner isn't ready - just because you can find people to agree with your point does not in itself make your point valid.
As for 'getting in the real world a bit more ..." i was a Samaritan counsellor for three years, I came up against people face to face talking about things they do that would make you want to pull their lungs out through their noses - believe me, I know how the 'real world' works.
Some people just need to get out into the real world a bit more I guess..... "
You can find comments like that just about anywhere where two or more adults discuss the issue - the venue and professions of the individuals do not matter at all - you will find people to agree with you.
But you can - under the same circumstances - find people who think dog fighting is a good way to spend a Saturday, as is beating up opposing football fans, or giving the wife a hiding if the dinner isn't ready - just because you can find people to agree with your point does not in itself make your point valid.
As for 'getting in the real world a bit more ..." i was a Samaritan counsellor for three years, I came up against people face to face talking about things they do that would make you want to pull their lungs out through their noses - believe me, I know how the 'real world' works.
@Chill I could point you to several NHS staff rooms I use where the sentiments are equally fiercely expressed, and equally fiercely contested.
Why do you assume your feedback from your staff room gives greater perspective or greater weight to your argument than the feedback other contributors have received? How is it that those that disagree with you are consigned to living a fantasy life, not "the real world"?
Why do you assume your feedback from your staff room gives greater perspective or greater weight to your argument than the feedback other contributors have received? How is it that those that disagree with you are consigned to living a fantasy life, not "the real world"?
Latest Posts
Crosswords19 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.