Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Dale Cregan
This person has today been sentenced for 4 murders, two were the WPCs in Manchester. Judge stated he will die in prison. Why should we pay to keep him in prison ? Realise there are lots of schools of thought but would like to read your comments. Thanks.
FBG40
FBG40
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fbg40. 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.
I have been watching all the CTV film of Cregan and they don't seem to be the actions of a sane man. Why did he surrender himself at the Police Station, knowing that he was going to face the sentence that has been passed down today ? For someone like him him, spending the rest of his life cooped up in jail has to be a sentence far worse than an execution. He is 30 years old, so he realistically faces spending the next 50-60 years in prison.
A very strange troubled person.
A very strange troubled person.
It's an interesting case. His motives for killing the two civilians seems clear, and I will stick my neck out, understandable to some degree if you choose to live in a subculture where you take enforcement into your own hands and disregard law. The first man, attempted to extort money from him, so he killed him ( a business rival if you will), the second was the first man's father and threatened to abduct, rape and burn alive Cregan's four year old son. I think more people than will probably own up, would kill someone who threatened to do that to their child if they genuinely thought it was likely to really happen, probably myself amongst them.
The two police officers are the really interesting thing. Had he simply handed himself in and not killed them he might have had a sentence he could have one day walked free from, or even if very lucky a badly constructed case by the prosecution that fell apart, but he chose to kill two unarmed police women, and maybe that's why, because they were police women. His father left the family when he was a young boy to marry a police woman. I think he's certainly mentally unstable but do I thoink we shoudl kill him? No not at all, because if we do that we make the same choices he did about who lives and dies and that is no-one's right in a civilised society. Just leave him in prison for the rest of his life.
The two police officers are the really interesting thing. Had he simply handed himself in and not killed them he might have had a sentence he could have one day walked free from, or even if very lucky a badly constructed case by the prosecution that fell apart, but he chose to kill two unarmed police women, and maybe that's why, because they were police women. His father left the family when he was a young boy to marry a police woman. I think he's certainly mentally unstable but do I thoink we shoudl kill him? No not at all, because if we do that we make the same choices he did about who lives and dies and that is no-one's right in a civilised society. Just leave him in prison for the rest of his life.
Sharigan - you add your voice to a large number of the population who love to convince everyone (and themselves) that they would jump at the chance to execute a murderer - even if it was for a murder which had no personal conection at all.
I have always maintained that this is a triumph of emotion over reality, which is why our laws are made and implemented dispassionately because there is no place for emotion in a functioning leegal system.
I suggest that although you feel sure you would be able to execute a murderer of one of your loved ones, that when it actually came to it, you would be unable to do so.
It takes a certain kind of person to take the life of another human being in cold blood - most of them are sociopaths like Cregan who have no concept of the understanding of right and wrong.
The rest of us hopefully possess a sense of humanity that would disbar us from killing someone, no matter how apparently deserving they may be.
I do entirely agree that executing him would be morally wrong, and that debate continues on here on a regular basis.
I have always maintained that this is a triumph of emotion over reality, which is why our laws are made and implemented dispassionately because there is no place for emotion in a functioning leegal system.
I suggest that although you feel sure you would be able to execute a murderer of one of your loved ones, that when it actually came to it, you would be unable to do so.
It takes a certain kind of person to take the life of another human being in cold blood - most of them are sociopaths like Cregan who have no concept of the understanding of right and wrong.
The rest of us hopefully possess a sense of humanity that would disbar us from killing someone, no matter how apparently deserving they may be.
I do entirely agree that executing him would be morally wrong, and that debate continues on here on a regular basis.
/you feel sure you would be able to execute a murderer of one of your loved ones/
andy - i don't think shar said that
she was not hypothesising on a cold blooded execution - more of a defensive piece of aggression in a lawless state; i understand Cregan walked into a pub and shot the guy he had an issue with at close range
andy - i don't think shar said that
she was not hypothesising on a cold blooded execution - more of a defensive piece of aggression in a lawless state; i understand Cregan walked into a pub and shot the guy he had an issue with at close range
Andy, I have most certianly NOT added my voice to the ranks of those who think we should execute a murderer, quite the opposite.
What I have said I think is quite the contrary actually.
However I'm very sure in my own mind that I could and would execute someone who was an imminent threat to me or a loved one and I also think that most people could and would. It's hard wired into us to protect our own, our genetic line, our clan,our tribe, call it whatever you like, and it really isn';t muchy of a stretch for most people I don't think to kill someone threateneing that, certainly not for me. You I cannot and would not speak for, but for myself and I think the rest of my family I would kill anyone who was a genuine threat if there was no other suitable means of protection.
What I have said I think is quite the contrary actually.
However I'm very sure in my own mind that I could and would execute someone who was an imminent threat to me or a loved one and I also think that most people could and would. It's hard wired into us to protect our own, our genetic line, our clan,our tribe, call it whatever you like, and it really isn';t muchy of a stretch for most people I don't think to kill someone threateneing that, certainly not for me. You I cannot and would not speak for, but for myself and I think the rest of my family I would kill anyone who was a genuine threat if there was no other suitable means of protection.
For me I think if I had any time to think about it, any at all, I'd never be able to kill someone. Heck, I can't even get over my Mum killing a weevil. The scrunching noise was terrible... anyway, if I had to think about it I probably couldn't kill someone no matter what, but in the heat of the moment... who knows?
Could you really kill someone? Look into their eyes as you do it? I have no idea -- and I think people who aren't hardened criminals are the going to be the same.
Could you really kill someone? Look into their eyes as you do it? I have no idea -- and I think people who aren't hardened criminals are the going to be the same.
Zeuhl - I have re-read the post, and I still think I am right.
It appears that having received the threat, cregan made his way to the place where the individual was, and shot him, which suggests a level of pre-medititation.
Were a child of mine threatened, my first port of call would be the police, rather than the person's local with a gun in hand for a spot of personal 'justice'.
Were it a matter of imminent threat - which is not what appears to be the dicusssion point here - then i am sure we would all defend out children in any way we could, but that is a long way from taking umbrage, and revenge in the way that Cregan did.
It appears that having received the threat, cregan made his way to the place where the individual was, and shot him, which suggests a level of pre-medititation.
Were a child of mine threatened, my first port of call would be the police, rather than the person's local with a gun in hand for a spot of personal 'justice'.
Were it a matter of imminent threat - which is not what appears to be the dicusssion point here - then i am sure we would all defend out children in any way we could, but that is a long way from taking umbrage, and revenge in the way that Cregan did.
andy
sorry but i think you have totally misconstrued
there are those on here (we know who they are) who trot out the 'i'd happily pull the lever' argument
shar is clearly referring to something quite different:
/ if you choose to live in a subculture where you take enforcement into your own hands and disregard law/
Cregan's first killing may well have been /pre-meditated/
that is not necessarily 'cold blooded' in the way a state execution is
sorry but i think you have totally misconstrued
there are those on here (we know who they are) who trot out the 'i'd happily pull the lever' argument
shar is clearly referring to something quite different:
/ if you choose to live in a subculture where you take enforcement into your own hands and disregard law/
Cregan's first killing may well have been /pre-meditated/
that is not necessarily 'cold blooded' in the way a state execution is
Sharigan and Zeuhl -
like the man in the proverbial orthopedic shoes - I stand corrected.
Sharrigan, i did misinterperet your original post, for which apologies. i did not intend to infer that you agree with capital punishment per se, my point was that you appeared to infer that in the situation Cregan found himself, you would do the same.
I think this is entirely academic - one situation precludes the other.
If you mix in circles where genuine threats are made to your children, then maybe you are the sort of sociopath who can exact advance and preventative retribution - as Cregan did.
None of us are, so who knows how we would react in that situation? I maintain that i would be not be able to kill someone unless the threat was immediate, and maybe not even then.
Could the police have protected Cregan's child? Unlikely, my point was that my position, as a thinking reasoning person as opposed to being a socioath as Cregan is - would be to approach the police as my first response.If it was my child, I would take that risk. As a member of society, I must first turn to law and orde for protection. If however, the situation arose where a threat was immediate, and I was facing it, then I would have to act on instinct at the time, but I by no means think that default instinct for a parent is to murder a person threatening harm - surely simple disablement would be a more appropriate default position?
like the man in the proverbial orthopedic shoes - I stand corrected.
Sharrigan, i did misinterperet your original post, for which apologies. i did not intend to infer that you agree with capital punishment per se, my point was that you appeared to infer that in the situation Cregan found himself, you would do the same.
I think this is entirely academic - one situation precludes the other.
If you mix in circles where genuine threats are made to your children, then maybe you are the sort of sociopath who can exact advance and preventative retribution - as Cregan did.
None of us are, so who knows how we would react in that situation? I maintain that i would be not be able to kill someone unless the threat was immediate, and maybe not even then.
Could the police have protected Cregan's child? Unlikely, my point was that my position, as a thinking reasoning person as opposed to being a socioath as Cregan is - would be to approach the police as my first response.If it was my child, I would take that risk. As a member of society, I must first turn to law and orde for protection. If however, the situation arose where a threat was immediate, and I was facing it, then I would have to act on instinct at the time, but I by no means think that default instinct for a parent is to murder a person threatening harm - surely simple disablement would be a more appropriate default position?
No problem andy. I am maybe more of a sociopath than I gave myself credit for.
You said 'If it was my child, I would take that risk. As a member of society, I must first turn to law and orde for protection.'
Really? Even when you think the threat is real and the threat is to abduct, rape and burn alive your four year old son? You would take the risk for a civilised ideal? I'm very idealistic and usually fairly civilised I think but I really don't think I would if I considered the threat to be real.
It's worth noting also that you really don't have to ' move within circles' to encounter people like this, they are sadly all over the place and many perfectly non sociopathic perfectly respectable people come into contact with them every day, and could under the right circumstances incur their ire unintentionally.
You said 'If it was my child, I would take that risk. As a member of society, I must first turn to law and orde for protection.'
Really? Even when you think the threat is real and the threat is to abduct, rape and burn alive your four year old son? You would take the risk for a civilised ideal? I'm very idealistic and usually fairly civilised I think but I really don't think I would if I considered the threat to be real.
It's worth noting also that you really don't have to ' move within circles' to encounter people like this, they are sadly all over the place and many perfectly non sociopathic perfectly respectable people come into contact with them every day, and could under the right circumstances incur their ire unintentionally.
fbg40 - i don;t think you have upset anyone.
I enjoy a vigourous debate, and will always fight my corner, but it is never a personal feud, just a difference in views, which is always healthy and keeps threads interesting.
I hope i can speak for those with whom I have interacted when i say that we have enjoyed exchanging our ideas.
I enjoy a vigourous debate, and will always fight my corner, but it is never a personal feud, just a difference in views, which is always healthy and keeps threads interesting.
I hope i can speak for those with whom I have interacted when i say that we have enjoyed exchanging our ideas.
/In a few years time it will be a slap n the wrist and don't do it again !!! /
don't worry andres
all the evidence is that whole life will remain; several such prisoners have campaigned for review in recent years but been refused.
Nilsen was sentenced to 25 year minimum but is still there after 30 years
Harry 'Cop Killer' Roberts was sentenced to a 30 year minimum in 1966 and is still in there
Hardy and Nielson died recently having been in prison since 1976.
Here's a link you might find interesting:
http://
don't worry andres
all the evidence is that whole life will remain; several such prisoners have campaigned for review in recent years but been refused.
Nilsen was sentenced to 25 year minimum but is still there after 30 years
Harry 'Cop Killer' Roberts was sentenced to a 30 year minimum in 1966 and is still in there
Hardy and Nielson died recently having been in prison since 1976.
Here's a link you might find interesting:
http://
I'm not sure why he handed himself at a Police Station, when he knew that he would be convicted ? This doesn't make sense, especially as he appears to be a very angry and violent man. People like him normally die in shoot-outs, etc. Is there anybody here on AB with some psychiatric background that throw any light please ?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles100 mins ago
ChatterBank138 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News213 mins ago
Film, Media & TV227 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles270 mins ago
