shouldn't this guy have been sentenced 2 death?

AJUK · 17 Mar 2006 at 12:44

Visage said:
If prison is so great, why arent people committing crimes in order to be locked up? Surely that would be the logical consequence of what you are saying?

They are, that is why the prison population is so high.

lemonkettaz · 17 Mar 2006 at 12:47

Instead of wasting money rotting in a jail

why dont we whack them in factories to do the cakky jobs. that is their life sentence... they dont get money... but at least they will be doing something constructive rather than just wasting tax payers money.

I suppose that too would be some infringement of human rights right? Forget the rights of those been murdered... as long as we are sensible and mature in the way we find justice

Visage · 17 Mar 2006 at 12:48

lemonkettaz said:
I suppose that too would be some infringement of human rights right? Forget the rights of those been murdered... as long as we are sensible and mature in the way we find justice

Surely if we were really forgetting about the victims rights we wouldnt be bring the perpetrators to jsutice?

daz · 17 Mar 2006 at 12:49

It costs more to have someone sentenced to death than it does to keep them in prison due to the number of appeals and the actual process isn't cheap either.

Dj_Jestar · 17 Mar 2006 at 12:59

AJUK said:
They are, that is why the prison population is so high.

:rofl:

You actually think Prison's are overcrowded becuase the convicts want to be in them?

So you don't think it's due to the cut-backs in the prison services we have seen over the past years?

Try and come up with an actual argument, please.

Now be a good lad, and don't quote this reply with a one liner, followed by a wink smiley, try and provide some actual content, thanks.

AJUK · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:03

Dj_Jestar said:
:rofl:

You actually think Prison's are overcrowded becuase the convicts want to be in them?

So you don't think it's due to the cut-backs in the prison services we have seen over the past years?

Try and come up with an actual argument, please.

Now be a good lad, and don't quote this reply with a one liner, followed by a wink smiley, try and provide some actual content, thanks.

Don't patronise me.

It was a joke, you are clearly unable to make the distinction between the two. That is why we have smilies.

Now run along and play, the adults are talking.

lemonkettaz · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:03

Visage said:
Surely if we were really forgetting about the victims rights we wouldnt be bring the perpetrators to jsutice?

?eh?

confusing

Gilly · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:03

AJUK said:
Don't patronise me.

It was a joke, you are clearly unable to make the distinction between the two. That is why we have smilies.

Now run along and play, the adults are talking.

Tell me you aren't referring to yourself as an adult!

goreblast · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:05

What if it was your parents he had killed (aimed at everyone) would you be happy for him to be in Broadmore for the rest of his years? Or would you want him swinging from a rope? I know which one I would choose.

AJUK · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:05

Gilly said:
Tell me you aren't referring to yourself as an adult!

You can be very childish sometimes. :rolleyes:

Arcade Fire · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:07

AJUK said:
Don't patronise me.
It was a joke, you are clearly unable to make the distinction between the two. That is why we have smilies.
Now run along and play, the adults are talking.

A little hypocritical, given that you've just accused somebody else of being patronising!

Caged · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:07

goreblast said:
What if it was your parents he had killed (aimed at everyone) would you be happy for him to be in Broadmore for the rest of his years? Or would you want him swinging from a rope? I know which one I would choose.

Either way he's off the streets and being punished for his crimes, why does it make any difference?

Yours is an emotional response, fortunately judges are above that when sentencing.

Mr_L · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:09

ethan said:
Shouldn't this guy have been sentenced 2 death?

IMO, no.

goreblast said:
What if it was your parents he had killed (aimed at everyone) would you be happy for him to be in Broadmore for the rest of his years? Or would you want him swinging from a rope? I know which one I would choose.

I'd prefer him in a little cell for 23 hours a day.

Sic · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:09

dirtydog said:
Shouldn't this thread have gone in 2 GD?

haha. you're a git

Pudney · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:10

goreblast said:
What if it was your parents he had killed (aimed at everyone) would you be happy for him to be in Broadmore for the rest of his years? Or would you want him swinging from a rope? I know which one I would choose.

I would choose prison. In fact if they were sentenced to death I'd be the first one challenging the sentence demanding that they not be put to death.

Sequoia · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:11

anarchist said:
Only the state should be allowed to kill people - because they are of course totally moral and trustworthy...

Excuse me while I wipe the coffee from my monitor. Cracking remark, Anarchist ..... especially right in the middle of a 'peerages for loans' scandal.

As for the death penalty for this particular bloke, I'm not convinced. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-death penalty, but only in the right circumstances. Where an individual kills others, both illegally and in a cold, calculating manner (usually for profit), I have no problem with it. But .... this looks like a rather more murky situation, to me. One major question is .... "mad or bad?" I have no problem with the DP in the case of 'bad', all other things being appropriate, but I do with the 'mad' scenario.

I wasn't on the jury, haven't seen all the facts and don't have any expertise in psychiatric disorders. So my opinion on this is limited to a reaction to news stories. If I'd been on the jury, and especially if death was an option (which it isn't in the UK and probably never will be again), then I'd have to give it a LOT more consideration. But, based on my limited knowledge, I'm certainly not convinced that this bloke isn't mad. The whole thing reeks of mental problems .... as does the fact that he ended up in Broadmoor.

He may not have been able to pass the legal test for diminished responsibility for which, I assure you, the bar is set pretty high. Based on what I know, he's guilty of the acts, without doubt, and therefore needs to be locked up. But I'm not convinced he's fully in control and fully responsible for his actions. Even if he isn't fully responsible, he STILL needs to be locked up, and locked up until such time as he is a minimal risk, at worst, to the public. But killed? No, I can't see it.

What he did was disgusting and sickening. But I have trouble seeing him as entirely sane and, despite being very firmly pro-DP, I can't support killing people because they're ill.

So the direct answer to the OP's question is, in my view and with the above caveats, "no". Not in this case, and circumstances.

Arcade Fire · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:11

goreblast said:
What if it was your parents he had killed (aimed at everyone) would you be happy for him to be in Broadmore for the rest of his years? Or would you want him swinging from a rope? I know which one I would choose.

Thankfully, we don't have the victims or relatives of the victims deciding the fates of criminals, and are thus able to largely avoid such emotional pitfalls.

Gilly · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:11

AJUK said:
You can be very childish sometimes.

Try re-reading your post. You asked someone not to patronise you, then patronised him and told him the adults were talking.

I was just saying you aren't exactly putting across the archetypal adult projection here.

And keep your childish rolleyes to yourself.

Sequoia · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:19

daz said:
It costs more to have someone sentenced to death than it does to keep them in prison due to the number of appeals and the actual process isn't cheap either.

That entirely depends on the system you have. This will deteriorate into the usual DP argument, yet again, if we aren't careful, but that argument is always (or always to my knowledge anyway) based on US figures. Anyone that knows the US legal system knows it is an utter farce in this respect.

It isn't the DP that is hugely costly - it's the US implementation of it. Saddam Hussein's method, or Pol Pot's, were somewhat cheaper. What's a 9mm bullet cost these days?

I'm not advocating Saddam's standards or "due process", but you can't use the US costs to argue the DP is expensive if we don't use the US legal system. And we wouldn't.

daz · 17 Mar 2006 at 13:21

When sentencing a fellow human being to death in a democratic society though, surely it's the right thing to go through the due process before any such punishment is handed out?

shouldn't this guy have been sentenced 2 death?

Wise Guy

Wise Guy