So baby P's parents and killers have been named...

dirtydog said:
Not sure I agree with your logic there though ;) (prison isn't a safe place)
Click to expand...

Your quite right, what I meant is safe from the public.

Von Smallhausen said:
What about restrictions on them after release ?
Click to expand...

If the law allows I'm sure a judge would place what ever restriction he is allowed to.

I don't have a problem with what they got, why the identitys where hidden, why they will get knew ones. But sentencing guide lines need to reviewed for whole swaths of laws.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
Hasn't the deterent effect of the death penalty been pretty much debunked? The vast majority of murderers either think they are not going to get caught anway or aren't really thinking of the consequences of their actions. States which have the death penalty do not tend to have lower murder rates either. So the deterrent factor is non-existent. Locking them up for life will also stop them doing it again. So why kill them?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked into the figures and what not, so don't know whether it has an overall positive affect or not in other countries. I'm on the fence with it it anyway by the way.

I guess it would lower costs (in a rather odd way). Several tens of thousands per prisoner per year isn't it..?
 
me227 said:
I'm not one to go baying for blood when these things come around but i'm still for the death penalty.

Not from a revenge point of view but from a punishment point of view and to remove these people from society without the cost of jailing them.

Only in cases where it's very obvious they're guilty though.
Click to expand...

Reasons I oppose the death penalty:

As we know from the US, the cost is not necessarily lower for prisoners sentenced to death.

Some prisoners like Ian Huntley and Ian Brady WANT to be given the death penalty. Or like Fred West who hanged himself. Why give them what they want? Making them live in prison is more of a punishment than giving them an easy exit.

Finally, there is no such thing as being very obvious when they're guilty - where do you draw the line? Mistakes / miscarriages of justice would still occur. At least without the death penalty you can release them one day.
 
The Law is reason, free from passion.

Public opinion was always going to be furious at best. I think it would be best for society if they are detained for the remainder of their natural lives. I doubt they could ever be rehabilitated to the point where they could contribute to, and not pose a danger to society.
 
I imagine they will kill themselves in prison after the treatment they will get from fellow inmates for a few months/ years.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
What about restrictions on them after release ?
Click to expand...

Depends on what restrictions and the purposes of said restrictions. If they are to protect the public then I have no real issue, if they are just a continuation of punishment then I wouldn't agree with them. However as they have received a life sentence if they are still believed to present a risk then they should not be allowed out and additional restrictions on release should not be needed.

me227 said:
I'm not one to go baying for blood when these things come around but i'm still for the death penalty.

Not from a revenge point of view but from a punishment point of view and to remove these people from society without the cost of jailing them.
Click to expand...

If you want them to die for punishment purposes then that pretty much is just baying for their blood. As for the cost issue, if you want to ensure that justice is done then it is going to cost much more to kill someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives.

me227 said:
Only in cases where it's very obvious they're guilty though.
Click to expand...

Surely every case they are obviously guilty because it has been proven "beyond reasonable doubt". The problem with "obviously guilty" is that on occassion our justice system does lock people up that were "obviously guilty" who later turn out to be "obviously innocent". Somewhat harder mistake to rectify when you have executed them.
 
Duke said:
I haven't looked into the figures and what not, so don't know whether it has an overall positive affect or not in other countries. I'm on the fence with it it anyway by the way.

I guess it would lower costs (in a rather odd way). Several tens of thousands per prisoner per year isn't it..?
Click to expand...

not really, as the trials and re-trials for deaths sentences are huge. Also there is no reason why it costs so much to keep a prisoner.
 
RDM said:
Hasn't the deterent effect of the death penalty been pretty much debunked? The vast majority of murderers either think they are not going to get caught anway or aren't really thinking of the consequences of their actions. States which have the death penalty do not tend to have lower murder rates either. So the deterrent factor is non-existent. Locking them up for life will also stop them doing it again.
Click to expand...

Yes, I doubt that these three scumbags would ever at any point thought about the consequences of their actions. I really can't understand what was going through their minds? Were they born evil? Were they abused as kids? Was it drugs?

So why kill them?
Click to expand...

Justice? An appropriate punishment for their actions?
 
How about just executing the ones that plead guilty and freely admit their complicity in the crime? Take them down and if they don't want to appeal and still freely admit their guilt then put a .45 in their head. Simple, quick and cheap!
 
RDM said:
Depends on what restrictions and the purposes of said restrictions. If they are to protect the public then I have no real issue, if they are just a continuation of punishment then I wouldn't agree with them. However as they have received a life sentence if they are still believed to present a risk then they should not be allowed out and additional restrictions on release should not be needed.
Click to expand...

It is a fact, albeit not well advertised, that many people are released while still a threat to the public.

The people responsible for Peter's death should have stringent conditions placed on them when they get released.

Not to have contact with children under any circumstances.

Not to go within a set distance of any school.

To comply and work with police PPU and social services.

Comply with requirements of the Sex Offenders Register.

Not unreasonable requirements given what they were convicted of and for the safety of the public, specifically children.
 
Azagoth said:
How about just executing the ones that plead guilty and freely admit their complicity in the crime? Take them down and if they don't want to appeal and still freely admit their guilt then put a .45 in their head. Simple, quick and cheap!
Click to expand...

because then who would admit being guilty. The only ones who would, would be mentally ill. You then make it a million times harder for the police force.
for what maybe one or two mentally ill people a year. No thanks.

Von Smallhausen said:
It is a fact, albeit not well advertised, that many people are released while still a threat to the public.
.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this, but it requires a fundamental change to law. people should not be released untill there is a good chance they won't re-offend.

On top of that people should nit be able to rack up 10 offenses let alone 60 small offensives and stay free.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
It is a fact, albeit not well advertised, that many people are released while still a threat to the public.

The people responsible for Peter's death should have stringent conditions placed on them when they get released.

Not to have contact with children under any circumstances.

Not to go within a set distance of any school.

To comply and work with police PPU and social services.

Comply with requirements of the Sex Offenders Register.

Not unreasonable requirements given what they were convicted of and for the safety of the public, specifically children.
Click to expand...

To be honest if they require all that because they are still considered a risk to the safety of the public then they should continue to serve their sentence. It is a life sentence after all with minimum tariff.
 
Azagoth said:
How about just executing the ones that plead guilty and freely admit their complicity in the crime? Take them down and if they don't want to appeal and still freely admit their guilt then put a .45 in their head. Simple, quick and cheap!
Click to expand...

Here, Here!

If housing them was cheaper I'd go for that. I just don't like the idea of money being wasted on these types of people just to house them for life where they'll serve no purpose while they're there.

If they want to die then execute them, I don't care. At least we'll be rid of them.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
It is a fact, albeit not well advertised, that many people are released while still a threat to the public.

The people responsible for Peter's death should have stringent conditions placed on them when they get released.

Not to have contact with children under any circumstances.

Not to go within a set distance of any school.

To comply and work with police PPU and social services.

Comply with requirements of the Sex Offenders Register.

Not unreasonable requirements given what they were convicted of and for the safety of the public, specifically children.
Click to expand...

Just wondering.....

Say such a person then got married and had some children, would they be taken of him/her?
 
Adsta said:
lol I have read that sentence about 20 times now and still cannot figure out what it means :p

I fail at the internetz :(
Click to expand...

"Those people will soon be with the devils and demons in hell and baby P [will be] in heaven with the angels."

It did however give me a headache to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom