Terror Plot Foiled

VIRII · 7 Sep 2006 at 21:56

Sleepy said:
I think the US system is a piece of **** But its the only model we've got. Its unlikely that convicted felons wouldn't be granted leave to appeal a sentance. Thus guarenteing two trials. You can hardly skimp on the legal resources that the defendant has access to. Both of these measures will cost a lot.

We don't have to follow the US system or its failings. We used to hang people so presumeably we have a workable system and i don't recall its abolishment as being on monetary grounds.

Sleepy said:
Nope but you have to know the details of T4 to make the association between nazi policy and your comment.

I sometimes read T3 but they only seem to review new technology :confused:

Sleepy said:
You said earlier "[a]lthough some here seem to wish to excuse or "understand" such actions." @if ®afiq et al excuses whereas I've talked of understanding. Two issue by two seperate posters.

Which is why I used the word "or" as in "excuse or understand". Would you prefer that I edit my comment to say "although some seem to try to excuse such actions whilst others try to understand them"? I thought excuse "OR" understand was fairly clear myself.

Sleepy · 7 Sep 2006 at 22:07

The wiki on Action T4

Overlag · 7 Sep 2006 at 22:39

Sleepy said:
The wiki on Action T4

why does him wanting criminals punished properly make him a nazi? i still fail to understand this.

why do you think that Rapists, Pedo's and Murders deserve to live? when they have destroyed someone else's life?

Sleepy · 7 Sep 2006 at 23:28

Overlag said:
why does him wanting criminals punished properly make him a nazi? i still fail to understand this.

It doesn't. And I never said it did.

why do you think that Rapists, Pedo's and Murders deserve to live? when they have destroyed someone else's life?

You have to remeber that they've been convicted of those crimes by humans working in a system designed by humans. It makes mistakes, even in this modern age. Angela Cannings was wrongly convicted in 2002. If she'd been executed for her crimes that would have us all murderers.

VIRII · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:10

Sleepy said:
It doesn't. And I never said it did.You have to remeber that they've been convicted of those crimes by humans working in a system designed by humans. It makes mistakes, even in this modern age. Angela Cannings was wrongly convicted in 2002. If she'd been executed for her crimes that would have us all murderers.

Then we shouldn't forget that people who have been convicted and released have gone on to kill and harm others. I wonder which results in the most innocent people dying?

VIRII · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:11

Sleepy said:
The wiki on Action T4

Suggesting that people who have committed offences so serious as to warrant a life prison sentence are executed instead is similar to murdering disabled people ......... um ok ......

Overlag · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:21

Sleepy said:
It doesn't. And I never said it did.

then why are you bringing up T4? or was that someone else?

Sleepy said:
You have to remeber that they've been convicted of those crimes by humans working in a system designed by humans. It makes mistakes, even in this modern age. Angela Cannings was wrongly convicted in 2002. If she'd been executed for her crimes that would have us all murderers.

If there is *ANY* doubt, then its the standard 25years or whatever. Not death. Plus for example you could also put them in jail for 5 years just incase any new evidence comes about and to allow appeals...

...but i wouldn't have it for "first offence" anyway. however if someone is convicted of like 4 rapes he'd be on his way to hell ASAP. Why devil's like this only get 20 years is beyond me.

But then is there ANY point of talking about the justice system if theres no chance of catching them anyway....the lack of police on the steets is shocking.

Sleepy · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:21

VIRII said:
Then we shouldn't forget that people who have been convicted and released have gone on to kill and harm others. I wonder which results in the most innocent people dying?

There were 5(?) woman alone recently released due to one 'experts' testimony being deemd unsatisfactory. How many killers in the Uk have reoffended?

Sleepy · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:23

VIRII said:
Suggesting that people who have committed offences so serious as to warrant a life prison sentence are executed instead is similar to murdering disabled people ......... um ok ......

try "wheras simply removing these people from the gene pool to prevent them causing further harm is simply logical" but can we let this drop as its pointless.

VIRII · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:23

Sleepy said:
There were 5(?) woman alone recently released due to one 'experts' testimony being deemd unsatisfactory. How many killers in the Uk have reoffended?

More than 5 I would imagine, not forgetting of course that not every murder is solved or even treated as a murder.

VIRII · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:24

Sleepy said:
try "wheras simply removing these people from the gene pool to prevent them causing further harm is simply logical" but can we let this drop as its pointless.

Try making causing further harm correlate with killing disabled people because they cost money .......

You can't seriously be trying to say the two are the same. One costs money through no fault of their own and the other deliberately harms other people.

I think I'll be keeping the havanna on that one

Sleepy · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:28

Overlag said:
If there is *ANY* doubt, then its the standard 25years or whatever. Not death. Plus for example you could also put them in jail for 5 years just incase any new evidence comes about and to allow appeals...

If there is any doubt then they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place. Remember its beyond reasonable doubt. And you cant rely on confession alone as the recent events in the JonBenet case highlighted.

There is also the principle that people who commit the same crime should be given the same sentance [ignoring mitigating factors, prior record etc]. By introducing an extra measure you could have one person jailed for a crime and another executed for that same crime. That seems unreasonable and a tad arbitrary.

Sleepy · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:30

VIRII said:
More than 5 I would imagine, not forgetting of course that not every murder is solved or even treated as a murder.

I think though you need more than a gut feeling to justify this line of argument.

Sleepy · 8 Sep 2006 at 00:35

VIRII said:
Try making causing further harm correlate with killing disabled people because they cost money .......

You can't seriously be trying to say the two are the same. One costs money through no fault of their own and the other deliberately harms other people.

I think I'll be keeping the havanna on that one

Removing undesirables [defined by you in this case as serious violent criminals] from the gene pool which you advocated up thread is very reminiscent of nazi racial propoganda, which the T4 program and the Nuremberg Laws sought to enforce.

Thats the correlation in my mind that prompted my initial comment.

Now give ME that damn cigar.

starscream · 13 Dec 2006 at 13:43

Strange how the the ringleader being found to have not done anything wrong isn't quite as newsworthy.

Sleepy · 13 Dec 2006 at 13:47

starscream said:
Strange how the the ringleader being found to have not done anything wrong isn't quite as newsworthy.

Technically the terrorism charges in Pakistan have been dismissed, that does not include other charges such as forgery nor does it have any bearing on any possible charges arising from acts committed in or against the UK.

@if ®afiq · 13 Dec 2006 at 13:55

starscream said:
Strange how the the ringleader being found to have not done anything wrong isn't quite as newsworthy.

I was just going to post that. I wonder how many "terrorists" from the Airplane plot are remaining...

@if ®afiq · 13 Dec 2006 at 14:02

Sleepy said:
Technically the terrorism charges in Pakistan have been dismissed, that does not include other charges such as forgery nor does it have any bearing on any possible charges arising from acts committed in or against the UK.

It doesn't bother you the the supposed ring leader of this attack that was a grave and imminent threat has been found not guilty of terrorism? I suppose as long as other charges are made then that's OK. It's seems to be a case of throw enough mud and hope something will stick.

-|ScottFree|- · 13 Dec 2006 at 14:03

starscream said:
Strange how the the ringleader being found to have not done anything wrong isn't quite as newsworthy.

Just as the survivor of the Tube Bombings that was in the carriage at the time saw no one with a rucksack and claims the explosion came from the floor of the train.

Just as the story that suggested Mendez was wearing a "heavy jacket with wires hanging from his rucksack" was then retracted and a statement was released saying he was wearing a "thin denim jacket and there were no wires seen".

These stories are no newsworthy because they don't whip up public opinion through histeria and they dont have the desired effects that the government want. We are told what they want us to know, the facts are something completely different.

It has not occured to people that all forms of the media is government controlled.

Sleepy · 13 Dec 2006 at 14:07

@if ®afiq said:
It doesn't bother you the the supposed ring leader of this attack that was a grave and imminent threat has been found not guilty of terrorism? I suppose as long as other charges are made then that's OK. It's seems to be a case of throw enough mud and hope something will stick.

Those charges are based on his acitivities in Pakistan, not what happened in the UK. Different jurisdictions. He has not been charged by UK authorities with anything, at this time they merely want to question him. Seems a reasonable response to me. Now do you find this objectionable?