Mother killed her kids because they got in the way of her sex life is jailed for life.

[Freakbro]

[

She deserves no chance at rehabilitation,

And that's where we will disagree.

and is probably well past that stage anyway.

Exactly why I discount your ideology which is based on your preconceived notions of how the world is.

She’s an abhorrent excuse for a human being and should never see the light of day again.

You're proving why emotion isn't the best basis for justice, it's great for lynchings though!

 

[GGizmo]

People will always want the harshest punishment possible, they want to see people getting punished for their crimes. You see it everywhere, someone gets sentenced to prison and people think it should be double. Someone gets their car seized for no insurance/tax, people want police to crush it. A terrorist gets shot by police and survives, people say the officers should have killed them. Unsurprisingly aren't too concerned about how proportionate the punishment is to the offence or what measures are in place to prevent the harshest penalties from being misused, they just want to see it happen.

I agree where you're coming from. Like certain media publications will follow an ex offender around that as previously been in the papers and splash it all over the front page even though nothing as happened.

There will always be a cry for punishment. But I think the biggest cry out is for justice. This woman should never be let out of prison. Her life should be done even if its 80+ years in prison. That McGreavy guys life should be done too. We talked about the cost of executions earlier. I'd say it costs more to be monitoring him, as well as taking resources away from other criminals that have a chance to be redeemed. I'm all for the rehabilitation of offenders. But I think some crimes are beyond the pale and it should mean they are no longer members of our society.

I have to wonder how someone who murders a child, or multiple children, can be rehabilitated? Rehabilitation relies on making the person see sense, as though they didn't know right from wrong. What if they did know right from wrong and just don't care?

There are some psychopathic people out there who know they are doing wrong by societies standards. But they don't care.

 

[Wizzfizz]

[

You're proving why emotion isn't the best basis for justice, it's great for lynchings though!

I get this and it's why I couldn't be a lawyer defending such people, it's a bloody hard job to probably defend the undendable.

 

[robfosters]

[

And that's where we will disagree.



Exactly why I discount your ideology which is based on your preconceived notions of how the world is.



You're proving why emotion isn't the best basis for justice, it's great for lynchings though!

I bet you thought Myra Hinckley should have been released.

 

[dowie]

Well yes, that's the only answer to that question isn't it. But then you are dismissing any notion of rehabilitation within the justice system and treating it as punitive only.

I think some crimes (involving murder) are serious enough that attempting rehabilitation shouldn't matter, the person should simply never be let out as a result of what they have done.

 

[GGizmo]

You're proving why emotion isn't the best basis for justice, it's great for lynchings though!

It isn't possible to rehabilitate a psychopath.

If justice was based on pure logic then they wouldn't be allowed out. It's with emotion that you think a psychopath can be redeemed.

How are you going to convince this woman that what she did was wrong? Do you think she didn't know it was wrong before?

For regular people it is difficult for us to understand evil, and when we do we try to rationalise it. I used to think when we were born that we all started from the same mind set and just went different ways through life experience. But some people are born selfish narcissists.

 

[robfosters]

It isn't possible to rehabilitate a psychopath.

If justice was based on pure logic then they wouldn't be allowed out. It's with emotion that you think a psychopath can be redeemed.

How are you going to convince this woman that what she did was wrong? Do you think she didn't know it was wrong before?

For regular people it is difficult for us to understand evil, and when we do we try to rationalise it. I used to think when we were born that we all started from the same mind set and just went different ways through life experience. But some people are born selfish narcissists.

To murder ones own children is a level of depravity that’s too far to recover from.

 

[Malevolence]

But if it's anything like the American legal system, it's more costly in legal fees for a death sentence than it is for life time incarceration!

How can it be more expensive to take her from the court, feed her and then put a rope around her neck? Hell, you can save a bit more money by simply not feeding her.

 

[Wizzfizz]

How can it be more expensive to take her from the court, feed her and then put a rope around her neck? Hell, you can save a bit more money by simply not feeding her.

I'd happily pay for her to live a very long and horrid life. Forget this crappy one way easy ticket. Break her then break her again until she bleeds all her emotions into herself and make her relive a living hell, not a fantasy based one.

 

[rare]

I think some crimes (involving murder) are serious enough that attempting rehabilitation shouldn't matter, the person should simply never be let out as a result of what they have done.

Exactly. In such instances the main purpose of their sentence is their exclusion and removal from society. An individuals right to possible rehabilitation when they’ve committed such a crime is not equal to wider societies protection.

 

[Freakbro]

I bet you thought Myra Hinckley should have been released.

Why do you think that? It's a totally different case, since I earlier said about the difference between a case like this and one where violence was committed on random members of the public. And again, it would all come down to the parole board determining if they weren't a threat anymore. So no, it's a bit silly to say i'd carte blanched think hindley should be released, just as i'm not saying that in this case either.

I think some crimes (involving murder) are serious enough that attempting rehabilitation shouldn't matter, the person should simply never be let out as a result of what they have done.

I am assuming, but I would think I could show plenty of murderers that didn't kill again after being released and even turned their lIves around. And again, to completely dismiss any genuine chance of rehabilitation is not something that sits comfortably with me.

It isn't possible to rehabilitate a psychopath.

If justice was based on pure logic then they wouldn't be allowed out. It's with emotion that you think a psychopath can be redeemed.

How are you going to convince this woman that what she did was wrong? Do you think she didn't know it was wrong before?

For regular people it is difficult for us to understand evil, and when we do we try to rationalise it. I used to think when we were born that we all started from the same mind set and just went different ways through life experience. But some people are born selfish narcissists.

Not all psychopaths are evil murderers that need rehabilitation (a lot of them are successful businessmen ) and I'm not saying psycopaths can be rehabilitated, but I'm not against her having the ability to parole after what is a long sentence in prison. If she's a psycopath, and shows no rehabilitation, then I'm perfectly comfortable with her spending life behind bars

 

[Freakbro]

How can it be more expensive to take her from the court, feed her and then put a rope around her neck? Hell, you can save a bit more money by simply not feeding her.

Because that's not how death sentences are carried out, apart from in your fevered imagination

 

[dowie]

I am assuming, but I would think I could show plenty of murderers that didn't kill again after being released and even turned their lIves around. And again, to completely dismiss any genuine chance of rehabilitation is not something that sits comfortably with me.

I didn't say no murderers should ever be released, I said that some crimes involving murder are serious enough to warrant it.

Why take the risk? They've already deprived at least one or more people of their lives, I don't have a problem with them staying inside for the remainder of theirs in the most serious of cases. I mean in this case this isn't someone who got into a fight that went too far or perhaps sought revenge on someone who had seriously wronged them etc.. This was someone who killed two innocent children, her own children. That is getting way beyond what even a more "normal" murderer would do.

Who is to say she wouldn't do the same to say an elderly relative when she's in her late 50s for example, or perhaps her mother/other elderly relative gets a partner she takes a disliking to or who inhibits some aspect of her life etc... This person has gone well beyond the bounds of normal behaviour even for a murderer... so my argument is "why risk it?" what is to be gained from taking a risk on a person like this?

 

[rare]

Because that's not how death sentences are carried out, apart from in your fevered imagination

That’s how they used to be carried out in this country. Damn sight cheaper than the way they do it in America.

 

[Freakbro]

I didn't say no murderers should ever be released, I said that some crimes involving murder are serious enough to warrant it.

Why take the risk? They've already deprived at least one or more people of their lives, I don't have a problem with them staying inside for the remainder of theirs in the most serious of case. This isn't someone who got into a fight that went to far or perhaps sought revenge on someone who had serious wronged them etc.. This was someone who killed two innocent children, her own children. That is getting way beyond what even a more "normal" murderer would do.

Exactly, this is a very specific act against her own children for her own [twisted] reasons. I would postulate a "normal" murderer is a far greater threat to general society than someone like this. And again, I find the attitude of "why take the risk" an uncomfortable basis for judgement, rather than taking an actual assessment. That's not saying I want to be lenient, I just don't think to have the ability to apply for parole after 32 yrs is lenient.

 

[Wizzfizz]

What is a normal murderer?

 

[dowie]

Exactly, this is a very specific act against her own children for her own [twisted] reasons. I would postulate a "normal" murderer is a far greater threat to general society than someone like this.

That seems rather backwards... I even gave examples of murderers who might have more "sane" reasons to have murdered. Murdering your own kids is rather extreme and is something plenty of more "normal" murderers likely wouldn't contemplate doing.

And again, I find the attitude of "why take the risk" an uncomfortable basis for judgement, rather than taking an actual assessment. That's not saying I want to be lenient, I just don't think to have the ability to apply for parole after 32 yrs is lenient.

By the question wasn't about whether you think it is lenient or not the question is why even take the risk in the extreme cases?

 

[Angilion]

Still, it's an insufficient length of time. Thank you for correcting my mistake, like others did, though.

What's your opinion on the matter instead?

I'm fine with life imprisonment for murder. I don't see any point in a longer sentence than life. Why keep a corpse in a cell?

 

[dowie]

What is a normal murderer?

In this context, the cases that are rather less extreme than killing your own kids such as the examples given.

 

[Wizzfizz]

In this context, the cases that are rather less extreme than killing your own kids such as the examples given.

What is extreme and what is not? Isn't a murderer not just what it says on the tin, a murderer?