Lad breaks into a house and is killed...

[Nitefly]

Not an activity in which both parties consent to the rules and regulations.
With paintballing (and even drunk driver driving a sober friend) both parties had agreed to the arrangement.

The key issue you are overlooking is torts which occur. A former tort does not excuse a more severe subsequent tort.

By your own admission, a farmer has permission to shoot a boy who climbs into his field to collect his football. The force used by the farmer is grossly unreasonable, as is the use of a knife. There can be nothing other than severe injury with a knife.

If the boy was to attack the farmer with intent to kill, as a the theif might have attacked a house owner with intent to kill, you would have a right to defend yourself. But entering the house or the field is not enough to justify such excessive force by itself.

 

[rypt]

The key issue you are overlooking is torts which occur. A former tort does not excuse a more severe subsequent tort.

By your own admission, a farmer has permission to shoot a boy who climbs into a field to collect his football. The force used by the farmer is grossly unreasonable, as is the use of a knife. There can be nothing other than severe injury with a knife.

At what point did I say trespass on land should be subject to being shot?

Trespass in a building (with or possibly without the intention to burgle or with the intention to be a chav) and I have no problem with shooting / stabbing / beating the crap out of the person

The key point is INTENTION, a boy getting his ball has no intention of doing any harm, this scrote did.

 

[Meridian]

I'm still trying to work out when being called a Mongol became an insult?

About thirty years ago - it has been "Down's Syndome" for at least that long now.


M

 

[semi-pro waster]

I'm thinking more of prevention though rather than punishment, the idea of burglary should be completely out of their minds, because it should bring a fear of pain and dying with it... Burglary should be stopped as a whole and not the burglars killed... Perhaps shooting is indeed too harsh, but imo they shouldn't get away with less than a broken leg or arm from a burglary, they should learn that burglary equals pain.

Do you have anything to back up the whole harsh(er) punishments deter criminals argument? Because if not is sounds like you want a form of retribution rather than a deterrant which is an entirely separate argument. I'm also decidedly unsure how you propose to institute the "burglary = broken bones" policy - what if the thief does it while no one is home and is subsequently caught after police work, do you take them back to the homeowner and say 'ok sir, have at him, one swing with the cricket bat only but make sure to fracture his tibula when you do'?

 

[rypt]

Do you have anything to back up the whole harsh(er) punishments deter criminals argument? Because if not is sounds like you want a form of retribution rather than a deterrant which is an entirely separate argument. I'm also decidedly unsure how you propose to institute the "burglary = broken bones" policy - what if the thief does it while no one is home and is subsequently caught after police work, do you take them back to the homeowner and say 'ok sir, have at him, one swing with the cricket bat only but make sure to fracture his tibula when you do'?

No, just allow the police to leave the ***** thief and the home owner in a room for 5 min, no questions asked

 

[Noel Gallagher]

Im laughing at this on news now, on about how the tribute page got took down and some woman said "would like to hear them say it to his friends face"

lmao, chavs.. scum.

 

[Andy]

I've been giving **** in the facebook group all day. The only people who care abit this worthless scum are more scallywags who appear to have obtained their literature skillz from watching boyz 'n' the hood.

LoL Thuglife my arse, they come in my house i cut their legs off

 

[Chimerical]

I've been giving **** in the facebook group all day. The only people who care abit this worthless scum are more scallywags who appear to have obtained their literature skillz from watching boyz 'n' the hood.

LoL Thuglife my arse, IF they come in my house i will cut their legs off

Irony.

I'm assuming those parts of your post weren't deliberate.

 

[semi-pro waster]

No, just allow the police to leave the ***** thief and the home owner in a room for 5 min, no questions asked

What if the home owner is a non-violent type? I'm sure there must be some kicking about in Britain still but then where does the supposed deterrent effect of a beating go? Do the police have to step in and say "no Sir, you can't just leave him alone, you've got to give him a backhand like this...whap..., you see how easy it was Sir? Now you try it."?

 

[rypt]

What if the home owner is a non-violent type? I'm sure there must be some kicking about in Britain still but then where does the supposed deterrent effect of a beating go? Do the police have to step in and say "no Sir, you can't just leave him alone, you've got to give him a backhand like this...whap..., you see how easy it was Sir? Now you try it."?

No, but 5 minutes in a room with no camera and no retribution for you should be an option for any crime victim imo

 

[semi-pro waster]

No, but 5 minutes in a room with no camera and no retribution for you should be an option for any crime victim imo

Would I be right in thinking that you don't believe proportionality to be a big issue in this sort of situation? Are you really sure you'd want it for all crimes? That would include for those who see people urinating in the street, people who graffiti etc etc.

 

[rypt]

Would I be right in thinking that you don't believe proportionality to be a big issue in this sort of situation? Are you really sure you'd want it for all crimes? That would include for those who see people urinating in the street, people who graffiti etc etc.

If there is a VICTIM then yes

 

[E61 Grouphead]

Read the Sun much?

 

[eddiemcgarrigle]

I have every sympathy for the home owner and none for the idiot who broke in. If our laws where to reflect the fact that those who are wronged have legal backing to fight to protect what is theirs, crime in this country would reduce significantly.

Spate of burglaries, anxious community, idiot ned. Hell mend him.

 

[sanaxe1]

I have every sympathy for the home owner and none for the idiot who broke in. If our laws where to reflect the fact that those who are wronged have legal backing to fight to protect what is theirs, crime in this country would reduce significantly.

Spate of burglaries, anxious community, idiot ned. Hell mend him.

So for example if there was the death penalty there would be less crime like the US.... oh wait...

 

[drunkenmaster]

So for example if there was the death penalty there would be less crime like the US.... oh wait...

you're comparing crime here, to crime there, its not comparable frankly and thats where people make a mistake in discussing things like the death penalty.

America is a land of immigrants with a young history, a lot of quickly generated money over the short term, its simply a different country to this one with slightly different ideals and morality issues even if similar. Different types of city, vastly different country.

The only valid questions are would there be more crime in the USA if the death penalty was abolished, or would crime go down if they made it lot easier/quicker to carry out a death sentence. Would we see a drop in crime with a real death penalty brought in that was actually carried out on a largish scale for the most serious crimes.

You have to remember several things, the death penalty is not a real deterrant in the USA because very few people actually end up on death row and very few of those people actually end up executed. Its no where near being every murderer ends up with the death penalty, its so far from that its almost an unused thing tbh. Unless you go completely mental and kill 30 people the majority of crimes simply don't have the death penalty as a viable option so even in the states its still used to some degree its not anywhere near the deterrant it "sounds" like it is when you simply throw around the term.

its simple, if you told the country any and all people found guilty of a burglary WILL get executed the numbers commiting the crime would drop exponentially. The fact is even if you bring in what is deemed an "acceptable" version of a death penalty in the UK it would only be that 0.00001% of criminals that would actually face the possibility anyway so no it wouldn't do anything.

IT would be interesting to know the numbers but say there are 50,000 murders in the US yearly, I would hazard a guess that far less than 1,000 people end up on death row , maybe 500/600, and of them very few are actually killed. if every single last murderer convicted of a pre-mediated, non self defence, non defending others was executed you can be very very sure the next year a lot less murders would occur.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Some very quick numbers, currently around 3500 people in the states are on death row, Texas seems to have the most at 450ish, though since 1975 they've only actually executed 155 people, which is less than are actually on death row right now. ITs 20k murders a year in the states of which the worst state maybe has only killed 155 in the past 30 years, during which time around 750,000 people have been murdered. Its not a deterrant if you barely use it on anyone.

Opps, I missed California with 637 people currently on death row at the moment, the state has executed 5, yes 5 people since 1977, and only 236 in the 45 years previous to that.

The fact is "civilised" western worlds governments will always pretend the death penalty is not useful and doesn't do anything and is barbaric. While using poor examples like an incredibly lax implementation in the states to show it doesn't work. While they are happy to see violent crime rise and let these same people run around killing other innocent people.

I'd be quite happy to see a real death penalty, and i'm very very sure a REAL death penalty would significantly reduce crime.

 

[semi-pro waster]

If there is a VICTIM then yes

So that's a no to proportionality, no to actually meaning all crimes and yes to those crimes with a victim which is a suitable nebulous test then? We're never going to agree on this subject though so perhaps best to leave it.

you're comparing crime here, to crime there, its not comparable frankly and thats where people make a mistake in discussing things like the death penalty.

This is a bit new to me, I'd always been under the impression that murder was murder and theft was theft. Sure the circumstances for people may be different but the essentials of the crime itself remain broadly the same.

America is a land of immigrants with a young history, a lot of quickly generated money over the short term, its simply a different country to this one with slightly different ideals and morality issues even if similar. Different types of city, vastly different country.

To some degree you'd be right but the basis for their legal system is broadly that of ours since it was more or less taken wholesale then adapted which makes it the most suitable to compare with even if it isn't 100% ideal.

The only valid questions are would there be more crime in the USA if the death penalty was abolished, or would crime go down if they made it lot easier/quicker to carry out a death sentence. Would we see a drop in crime with a real death penalty brought in that was actually carried out on a largish scale for the most serious crimes.

Would it be correct to say then that for states that have abolished the death penalty you could expect to see a statistically significant increase in crime if the death penalty had any deterrant effect? Your second question of the sentence reads worrying like you want to dispense with what are somewhat euphemistically called "adequate" safeguards in the system.

I'm not sure what you mean by a real death penalty, has the USA not actually executed those who they say they have?

You have to remember several things, the death penalty is not a real deterrant in the USA because very few people actually end up on death row and very few of those people actually end up executed. Its no where near being every murderer ends up with the death penalty, its so far from that its almost an unused thing tbh. Unless you go completely mental and kill 30 people the majority of crimes simply don't have the death penalty as a viable option so even in the states its still used to some degree its not anywhere near the deterrant it "sounds" like it is when you simply throw around the term.

That is partially a problem with detection and resolution though, if everyone who committed a burglary was caught and sentenced to prison would there be less crime than currently? Do you actually have to kill them?

its simple, if you told the country any and all people found guilty of a burglary WILL get executed the numbers commiting the crime would drop exponentially. The fact is even if you bring in what is deemed an "acceptable" version of a death penalty in the UK it would only be that 0.00001% of criminals that would actually face the possibility anyway so no it wouldn't do anything.

Again your problem is with the clear-up rates rather than actually needing to kill people, for some reason the prospect of "hanging 'em from the yardarm" seems to appeal to the vengeance instinct of certain people.

It seems self-evident to say that if you execute people then crime will drop but you've also discounted the prospect of rehabilitation, you've discounted that some could be innocent and you've discounted that in a situation where getting caught means you will certainly be killed for your crimes you have (presumably) a lot less to lose so all ways round human life has been cheapened.

IT would be interesting to know the numbers but say there are 50,000 murders in the US yearly, I would hazard a guess that far less than 1,000 people end up on death row , maybe 500/600, and of them very few are actually killed. if every single last murderer convicted of a pre-mediated, non self defence, non defending others was executed you can be very very sure the next year a lot less murders would occur.

Yet most murders are crimes of passion, committed by persons known to the victim so how many people extra would your "real" death penalty be useful in the case of?

 

[DampCat]

The key issue you are overlooking is torts which occur. A former tort does not excuse a more severe subsequent tort.

By your own admission, a farmer has permission to shoot a boy who climbs into his field to collect his football. The force used by the farmer is grossly unreasonable, as is the use of a knife. There can be nothing other than severe injury with a knife.

If the boy was to attack the farmer with intent to kill, as a the theif might have attacked a house owner with intent to kill, you would have a right to defend yourself. But entering the house or the field is not enough to justify such excessive force by itself.

At what point did I say trespass on land should be subject to being shot?

Trespass in a building (with or possibly without the intention to burgle or with the intention to be a chav) and I have no problem with shooting / stabbing / beating the crap out of the person

The key point is INTENTION, a boy getting his ball has no intention of doing any harm, this scrote did.

Nitefly is right, and you purposefully missed off the key point of his argument.
He didn't say that you said it was ok for a farmer to shoot a boy in his field for no reason. The point is, by your own admission, the farmer has the right to shoot the boy for being in his field.

You dont know "the scrote" had any intention of harming anyone. He might have entered the house looking for a purse or wallet for easy cash, or maybe he just wanted to rearrange the furniture. On the flip side, the boy in the farmers field will find his ball and might well think to himself "Oh wow, carrots, maybe i'll just take a few of those while i'm here". That is directly comparable to "the scrote" in the house thinking "oh wow, a wallet. yoink", and having it away.

They are, i'm afraid, one and the same. I believe the reason you can't see it is, and quite understandably, because you're not a farmer with a field. You are a person with a house, though, and it's a more tense and frightening situation than standing on the other side of the field... but that doesn't mean you can dish out death as punishment. The field is private property as the house is. The field is also the farmers livelihood, his entire life depends on it.

Is it still ok to shoot a boy getting a football in a field, knowing that maybe, just maybe, that boy want's to half-hinch some carrots on his way out?

You dont know what the lad wanted in the house. You can't just kill people, just in case.

 

[steve-h]

Nitefly is right, and you purposefully missed off the key point of his argument.
He didn't say that you said it was ok for a farmer to shoot a boy in his field for no reason. The point is, by your own admission, the farmer has the right to shoot the boy for being in his field.

it was clear he didn't mean that in the first place :/