Who'll be next?

Re: Re: Thinking of the victims

Fox, I think you've hit a very important nail on the head here. I think I detect in the lynch mob school so evident in this thread a naïve belief (or a desperate need to believe) in simple solutions. It's the sitcom mentality - all problems and their solution can be compressed into an hour, the baddies get their comeuppance and the goodies are triumphant. Well, life simply isn't like that; our society and the people in it are complex and the problems involved are complex and and not amenable to the equivalent of slapping on a Band-Aid(R).

Moreover, they have divided the world into inherent goodies and inherent baddies, unlike, as it really is, no black, no white but different shades of grey. Of course there will be slipups in legislation and due process - no legislation ever devised can ever address adequately the full range of the human condition, nor can it ever make people do what they should do (or what we think they should do). This makes it even more important that we should always err on the side of mercy and benefit of the doubt, not seize the opportunity to put behind bars people who with the right approach can be recovered to lead useful lives.

 

Re: Re: Re: Tone

No, because, no matter what the cause, it wouldn't bring anyone back. And if it did change my feelings, I would automatically forefit the right to make any judgement, because such judgements should be a matter of rational application of the law, not of revenge.

 

Thats fair enough Tones, (revenge, wasn't the issuse I was looking for here).
This is clearly an emotive subject, and responses are tainted with ones own personal experinaces, which have a very big effect on the vision of the indivdual on this matter. Although strong views have being aired here, its good that this hasn't resorted to warefare. Wm

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tone

A fair comment Tones, i admit my observations are based on personal experiance or personal experience of those close to me.
I am not the one who dishes out punishment for commited crime, and i freely admit i am not the person to do so.
If i have come across as vigilante i apologise, thats not my intention, sometimes we all need to get something off our chest and then emotions can run high

 

Exactly. Most of the people on this thread seem to be confusing justice with revenge. With feelings of revenge, justice can never be fairly administered.

What people need to think about is why criminals are doing what they are doing in the first place - they aren't born like that. Solve those issues and you wouldn't have any crime.

It's no coincidence that Holland, which has one of the "softest" and most forward looking criminal justice systems has one of the lowest re-offending rates. As one of the most forward looking soceities (in Europe certainly) it's also no surprise they have one of the lowest crime rates.

And for all of you think that the death penalty would solve anything, in all the US states which have re-introduced it since 1976 the murder rate has either remained the same or increased. There's absolutely no evidence it has any effect other than to satisfy the disgusting blood lust of people who have forgotten the meaning of justice.

The more brutal and dehumanising methods used to deal with criminals the more brutal and inhuman our soceity will become. Those changes are unfortunately already all too evident in the UK and the US.

Michael.

 

personally i believe that on a first offence the liberal avenue should be taken. the criminal should get whatever help he or she needs in order to become a useful member of society. if this includes rehab, education, whatever then so be it. once rehabilitated they should be able to put his past behind them and legally say that they've not been in prison as this could prevent them reintegrating into society.
if they reoffend then things should start getting tougher up to the point where it's deemed that they are actually unable under any circumstances to integrate with society so they should be locked up with others of their kind and put to work on things like road clearence or other areas where they can make a useful contribution wilst under guard and unable to harm others. there should be no possibility of parole or release ever in this case.
i do believe that for certain crimes the death penalty makes sense however as dom says until detection methods are 100% it's an emotive issue and probably has more to do with revenge than justice.
cheers


julian

 

I'd say that it never makes sense for any crime, Julian, unless you define "sense" as satisfying a primitive lust for revenge and satisfaction that someone has apparently got his just come-uppance. It is a primitive relic of the past and it should be forgotten forthwith. As Michael correctly says, it is not and has never been a deterrent against any sort of crime - people who commit major crimes rarely think that far ahead and in any case, the natural human "but it'll never happen to me" feeling kicks in. Moreover, it is applicable against so few criminals that the economic benefits of murdering them v. keeping them inside for life are non-existent. It serves absolutely no purpose in a civilised society.

 

Stick em in a room with my missus in a bad mood then they will never offend again!!!:JOEL: :JOEL:

 

Cruel and unusual punishment?

Speaking of such things, at one time, crims on the run joined the Foreign Legion under an assumed name, and then found out that prison would have been a much softer option. This stopped when the Légion Etrangère stopped taking crims. However, a lot of eastern Europeans are taking this as an easy(!!!) way to get French citizenship. Nom d'un chien!

 

Crime is usually associated with poverty, then the BAD ones take advantage of it, if all countries where as rich as Holland, I mean the average citizans, not big corporations only, things would be much easier...

 

There are many countries with a higher or similar average income to Holland but still have much higher crime levels. Poverty in and of itself doesn't generate crime. If everyone was poor there wouldn't be a problem, just as if everyone was rich.

The problem stems from inequality, the gap between rich and poor. The larger the gap, the higher the crime rate - take a look at Brazil That inequality is the primary underlying motive for most crime is not really up for debate, the evidence is so strong and it makes common sense aswell.

Left wing and Right wing thinking have (very) different views on how to reduce inequality. I don't really want to get into a debate about it because it will be totally pointless as neither side will convince the other. Suffice it to say I'm fairly squarely on the left side of the political spectrum

Michael.

 

tones,
my reasoning goes like this... for certain criminals there is absolutely no chance that they can be rehabilitated these criminals will have to be wards of the state for the remainder of their lives. in this case the economic benefits you mention swing across in favour of execution.
i don;t advocate it for vengeful reasons but rather for those cases where the possibility of the prisoner being released or escaping is a horrible possibility. for example the wests, manson, dr shipman etc. society needs to be protected from people like this who have shown no sign that they can be rehabilitated.
it is not something that should be used as a deterrant, it should be a purely last resort protective method of society.
just my opinion.

cheers


julian

 

Re: Ian

No Mick, Penance has just told us of his experience.

There are just as many horror stories from the perpetrators of these crimes, the human psyche is the problem here, if you can understand that, the answers will become apparent.

Heal them, don't abuse them!

I mean lets face it Mick if you ended up in the desert after a plane crash and Kylie Minogue was the last surviver apart from you, would you be thinking of getting in her knickers or eating her? what law would you abide by?

Our goverment sends people to far off places to fight their filthy wars, in the name of freedom, then when they have finished with them, they send them back into society, with their ****ed up psyche's, then these people commit violent crimes and are punished for them..........the world is crazy!

Our goverments allow drugs to be traded, so as the third world countries can pay off there debts.

All the people mentioned in this thread including YOU Mick are victims of this society....................

It looks to me that your answers are just as distastefull as the crimes themselves.

I don't know the answer but one things for sure, nobody on this thread does either.

The closest IMO is Steven Toy

"As regards promoting good behaviour amongst citizens, we law-abiding citizens should lead by example by not promoting state-sponsored inhumanity." S/T

It's a sad state of affairs but as always, the strong will survive!

And music can perhaps help to heal the soul.

Regards

Barnie.

 

I respect your opinion, Julian, even though I can't agree with it. To me, the deliberate judicial taking of life, even that of a hardened, completely unrepentant criminal, is morally repugnant and always wrong. Unfortunately, there will always be killing (e.g., war is sometimes, regrettably, necessary), but in my opinion, the state should never have the power judicially to take life in a criminal matter.

 

couldn't you do both at the same time

 

Someone already seems to have thought of that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3230774.stm

 

Well this would be the best way of getting maximum benifit

Regards

Barnie

 

If they show no signs of rehabilitation then they'll never be released. Even if they do they'll still never be released. Thus the only argument for the death penalty under any circumstances is retribution. The incapacitation argument is irrelevant.

 

Its not the only argument. There is obviously a strong financial argument too. Keeping people in a jail for a lifetime is incredibly expensive with no prospect of financial return. One could easily argue that the money would be better spent giving increased support to the victims of violent crime, better pre-emptive mental health care for people potentially able to carry out this kind of crime etc. The case of Ian Brady is interesting, he knows he will never get out, he desperately wants to be allowed to die, yet he is denied this option at phenomenal expense to the tax payer!

Tony.

PS I'm in devils advocate mode, I don't personally believe on the death penalty…

 

Tony

The only problem with that argument is, you cannot put a price on human life period...... i know some people do but they are the afflicted.............

Regards

Barnie.