[ Society is like a pyramid. The peak of left wing media outlets cascade down to the masses at the bottom and spread this wishy washy mindset. The frightening thing is that so many become afraid of thinking with their own brains.[/QUOTE] If you say so.
Yet it's worse than just languishing at taxpayers expense. Take the case of the animal Levi Bellfield. He kills at least three young girls, gets put away, gets attacked in prison and then sues the authorities for not protecting him. Claims £30 000 using legal aid (our money) and then more of our money is wasted either fighting it in the courts or the cheaper option of giving him the cash. He'll be out in 7-10 years by which time that'll have accured interest. Who are the mugs here?
Criminals in prison should not be afforded human rights. Criminals on the streets should be given larger fines, lengthier prison sentences (without all the little 'perks' such as sky sports and snooker tables) and a bloody good kick up the arse. One of the problems is that people are no longer afraid of the consequences of their actions. In my mind we have to tackle this first before going after other root causes.
So are you saying that some of those found guilty are DEFINATLY guilty and can be put to death, while others are guilty but with reservations, and can be imprisoned but not hung (or whatever cruel and unusual punishment the sun-readers-brigade are hoping for this morning). At the end of a trial, the jury have to decide between guilty and innocent. There isn't a 'definately' guilty and 'probably' guilty area. If the jury find you guilty, you get whatever sentence the law and the judge allow, and if that is a death sentence, then it will apply to everyone, not just monsters like Huntley. If you think you can create a law which divides different sorts of levels of probable guilt and see it upheld in front of lawyers and a judge, you're a better man than I am. At a personal level, I am a father of two girls and the idea that Huntley and other paedophiles continue to live and breathe is repellant to me, but we are trying to make a civilised society, and a death penalty would almost certainly not have deterred Huntley, nor brought the two girls back to life. I certainly don't think the man should ever walk free again, and (if this is true), the money he is claiming in damages for a prison attack should go to the girls family in compensation or to the prison services to continue feeding him, but the death penalty while probably deserved is not a solution. Sorry to be so long winded, you touched me on a nerve! ;-)
Plenty of debate about the rioters and looters, but what about those most affected, ie those who have been made homeless by acts of arson? I haven't seen or heard any one of these people being interviewed in the media, and I hope they are not being left to fend for themselves.
Ken, I'm glad you answered Ponders response, because for me you summed it up exactly right. Because there are some very sick and vile people in this world but as you state who defines between definitely guilty and probably guilty! Also a point that was not picked up on, is Ponders seems to like putting people into categorised boxes, he denounces the media but he talks like a 'wishy washy' (his words) journalist! So because they don't condone the death penalty, all their other views also fall under his defined opinion. Is he a psychic, because I cannot ever remember stating my views on any of this statement... QUOTE: Those that say they don't want the death penalty seem to be the same who defend the ethnic groups to the hilt and condemn those who question the morality of the gangsta black community. Sorry imo Ponders, you just lost any argument with me with such a statement and it expresses more so, why the death penalty should not be brought back. shockin jus shockin! What's your view on Sheffield firemen btw?
Can you explain why murder is justified in any circumstances and why someone who deliberately takes another person's life is deserved to live their life to the full?
You seemed to miss answering my question yet again, however, I will answer your question, murder cannot be justified in any circumstances and I would not attempt to justify them living their life to the full. Which leads back to my original question and all the statements that have been put to you, what is irrefutable evidence? I'm not talking about the worst most vile criminals of this world, who I find it distasteful to even mention in a human breath - I'm talking about... What is irrefutable evidence? Who defines definitely guilty? Who defines probably guilty? Is one wrong decision acceptable for the many that would be right? In fact many jurors might not even convict on a death sentence, so easily (for want of a better word) than a custodial sentence, so would killers and the like walk free? Maybe a double edged sword.
I agree. The budget spent on the victims of crime and anti social behaviour must be a fraction of what is spent on the perpertrators; their solicitors, social workers, defence lawyers etc etc. There was one woman whose home above a shop was burnt down on the local news last night, felt really bad with her and her child. These are the sort of people who need help and support who are innocently caught up in it, not the rioters, vandals or looters who get most of the media attention, hard labour could be even better for them than prison over a very long period of time.
Spending the rest of your life behind bars is hardly 'living life to the full'. I agree with AllHell, a life sentence should mean exactly that.
Yes it is when jails are so much like hotels these days with all the perks they get. Do many of them fear going to prison, I don't think so and the system is set up to support the offenders not the victims of crime.
I don't think prison is such a soft option, although it should probably be harder for some crimes. But the system is not set up to support offenders, much though rags like the Sun, Mail and late unlamented News of the World would like to say so. The idea of the system starts as a fundamental that people are innocent until proved guilty. The idea is to prevent the innocent from being slung into jail in a desperate attempt by the forces of law and order to arrest anyone rather than have large bacllogs of unsolved crime, which would then be jumped on by the right wing press as evidence of a lawless society which badly needs, the cat o'nine tails, the birch, national service and this strange obsession some people have with a death penalty. Until there is a crime, it is very hard to prevent it (case in point, how would you have stopped that loony in Norway until he started killing people?) You can't convict someone of a crime until they've at least tried to commit it, and then there are victims who need support. How would you stop crime? Lock 'em up before they've started on the basis of a)skin colour? b)nasty looking person? c)previous record? I'm sure most of us would welcome a better system of justice, but it has to protect everyone until found guilty, and sadly the some posters on here seem to have very set views on who to punish and how which don't have much to do with improvements.
The amount spent on offenders and those who commit crime is far in excess of the victims of crime, it's quite clear that if you look at the money spent on these services within the justice system it is totally disproportionate. Victim support is just a tiny fraction of expenditure when compared with the litany of bodies and agencies paid out of taxes for the offender. Funnily enough I've never voted for a party on the right but still support the death penalty for murder and will continue to do so, (just like there are those who are on the right and oppose fox hunting) so you can't stereotype people in that way and I don't think I'm the only one who holds these views either so your attempts to isolate those of us who do aren't successful. You cannot totally prevent crime but you can deter or minimise it starting with instilling values, ethics, morals etc from within the family,providing comprehensive careers advice to young people, early interventions etc etc but the scale of recent violence seen was wanton hatred and an attempt to destroy our communities. I've just heard today that the local Council will take steps to evict those found guilty of involvement in the recent disturbances and I'm absolutely delighted, a victory for those of us against this abuse of social housing.
It has taken me the best part of seven hours to bring myself round to typing this. My view on fireman is: my father was a fireman. I no longer have a father. Private message me and I will explain why I do not have a father, why I despise the black gangsta culture and why I would dearly love to see the death penalty returned. Also, I shall explain why I have a hatred for liberal laws and why I know that prisons are soft on murderers. Ken Shabby said I touched a nerve. You don't know the half of it. In fact, don't bother. I probably won't be coming back.
Unfortunately there are some whose posts seem to attack those of us who support the death penalty rather than those involved in the violence and destruction of the riots, wrong sense of priorities I think.
Ponders - we all touch on our experiences in life with our views, however, some people such as yourself obviously have more personal reasons for those views - it's certainly not for me to question or debate those reasons. I also base mine on life experiences, however, no offence was ever intended and I apologise if I caused offence, I was creating debate and nothing more than that. As for Fireman, I support them whole heartedly unlike some views we have seen in the past and I was only talking in jest to those past comments.
brb hows gillinghams financial situation doing heard scallys bankrupt or near to it?p.s kedwell class
