FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > The Death Penalty
The Death Penalty
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The problem is that when the death penalty was phased out we were promised that life would mean life etc, then the do gooders got to work over a longish period and now people get as little as 10 to 12 years for murder or burn your kids to death and get 7.5 years, less time on remand! If murderers got life as intended then no death penalty but as it is, yes bring it back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Absolutely not - and no government will ever do it. It was repealed for very very good reasons after much lengthy and well-reasoned debate. "
Well said DB.............very well said!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Again, I'm gonna be a hypocrite here and I know I'll probably get torn to shreads, but...
I DO think it should be brought back, but only for REPEAT offenders of murder/rape/child abuse, ect (basically people who show no improvement or rehabilitation despite multiple chances).
And yes, I don my tin hat here because despite feeling like that I admit that I wouldn't want to be the one to pull the switch. x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No I don't think so, but I do think sentences should be tougher. I imagine this thread has come off the back off what the Philpotts got as sentences. In that case the charge was manslaughter, from what I can gather Mick Philpott got the maximum penalty. Should we kill him? No, he deserves to suffer for a long time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bfoxxxMan
over a year ago
Crete or LANCASTER |
Yes Yes. Y E S
Why ?
Brady, Hindly, Sutcliffe, West, Shipman, Huntley Philpott,
Names ring a bell ?
Guess what they have in common . .
At least we didn't have to pay to keep Wesr and Shipman alive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
Every time there is an emotive case - usually involving children - like the Phillpot case, there is a call of 'bring back the death penalty'. This is not logical reasoning and which is why we have people who make these decisions calmly and coldly with logic and reason. Because if we were to give in to the baying mob this country would be no better than those we criticise for lopping off body parts, whipping, and, as in a case in Saudi Arabia, potentially deliberately paralysing someone in retribution of said crimes.
Mick Phillpot was not found guilt of murder. For a murder conviction to have been obtained there had to be absolute proof that he planned on killing those children. The fact is that he planned on SAVING them to make himself look like a hero.
Now - a heinous as that crime was, he was not tried for murder as there was no intention to kill. He was convicted of manslaughter. And, even if we brought back the death penalty for murder, he would still not have been executed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *quirrelMan
over a year ago
East Manchester |
We have had over the last 5 decades many instances of the police not doing a thorough job and innocent people have ended up in jail.
leslie molseed was 11 years old when she was murdered and an innocent man went to jail for 16 years due to the police not doing a good enough job.
He was released when the case was re-examined and then the charge was kicked out as a gross miscarriage of justice, 1 year afterwards he died.
How can you rectify a miscarriage of justice if an innocent man is executed?
If someone commmits a crime and is punished thats the end of it, there should not be the idea that they are rotten to the core so are easy prey for someone too lazy to do a proper job and thereby a known criminal is the ideal person to frame for something they didnt do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Like it or not the death penalty is and always has been a deterent not for all but after a sustained period would deter many"
No, it would not. During the time when the Moors Murderers were active the death penalty was on the statute books. It did not deter them. In fact, it was not repealed until a month after they were caught.
Most murderers genuinely do not believe they will get caught so have no fear of being executed anyway.
Look at the death rows there are in the US, Middle East, China. The overwhelming evidence is that it is NOT a deterrent - one reason for abolishing it in the first place! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Every time there is an emotive case - usually involving children - like the Phillpot case, there is a call of 'bring back the death penalty'. This is not logical reasoning and which is why we have people who make these decisions calmly and coldly with logic and reason. Because if we were to give in to the baying mob this country would be no better than those we criticise for lopping off body parts, whipping, and, as in a case in Saudi Arabia, potentially deliberately paralysing someone in retribution of said crimes.
Mick Phillpot was not found guilt of murder. For a murder conviction to have been obtained there had to be absolute proof that he planned on killing those children. The fact is that he planned on SAVING them to make himself look like a hero.
Now - a heinous as that crime was, he was not tried for murder as there was no intention to kill. He was convicted of manslaughter. And, even if we brought back the death penalty for murder, he would still not have been executed."
God well put......you should become a QC |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bfoxxxMan
over a year ago
Crete or LANCASTER |
"No I don't think so, but I do think sentences should be tougher. I imagine this thread has come off the back off what the Philpotts got as sentences. In that case the charge was manslaughter, from what I can gather Mick Philpott got the maximum penalty. Should we kill him? No, he deserves to suffer for a long time. "
Scum like Philpott don't deserve to live.
Money spent keeping him alive would be better spent by the NHS, or Oxfam, or RSPCA |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"17 years is not life "
The wife and the friend were given 17 years, the husband was given life but definitely should never be allowed out ever again. The death penalty should never be brought back.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Two wrongs don't make it right , but it sure as he'll makes you feel better !
For scum like philpott and other sick fucks bring it back , and join the queue to flick the switch .
Of course it may not be a deterrent , and the evidence may not show it has any value but why should we pay to keep them locked up ?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No I don't think so, but I do think sentences should be tougher. I imagine this thread has come off the back off what the Philpotts got as sentences. In that case the charge was manslaughter, from what I can gather Mick Philpott got the maximum penalty. Should we kill him? No, he deserves to suffer for a long time.
Rightly or wrongly he was found guilty of murder.so wouldnt apply to him anyway hey.?!
Scum like Philpott don't deserve to live.
Money spent keeping him alive would be better spent by the NHS, or Oxfam, or RSPCA"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Why cant we use lie detectors ? Dna? Profilers? Confesions? There are alot of very bad people in our prisons who we have no doubt about guilt and are also repeat offenders "
Lie detectors do not work and can easily be 'outwitted' which is why the British Legal System do not use them. DNA is used and has actually helped solve crimes which, otherwise, would have gone unresolved - but, again, there are instances where this can be masked or faked. Confessions have their own problems - coercion, etc, not to mention strangely ill people who claim to have done crimes they have not actually committed.
Profilers are limited - they may help a little in detection but not as much as you would think. They can help narrow a wide search for a culprit but the reality of life is not like the cosy and easily wrapped-up stories of CSI. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Every time there is an emotive case - usually involving children - like the Phillpot case, there is a call of 'bring back the death penalty'. This is not logical reasoning and which is why we have people who make these decisions calmly and coldly with logic and reason. Because if we were to give in to the baying mob this country would be no better than those we criticise for lopping off body parts, whipping, and, as in a case in Saudi Arabia, potentially deliberately paralysing someone in retribution of said crimes.
Mick Phillpot was not found guilt of murder. For a murder conviction to have been obtained there had to be absolute proof that he planned on killing those children. The fact is that he planned on SAVING them to make himself look like a hero.
Now - a heinous as that crime was, he was not tried for murder as there was no intention to kill. He was convicted of manslaughter. And, even if we brought back the death penalty for murder, he would still not have been executed."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The process of putting some one to death is more expensive than life in prison.
Mistakes get made and innocent people die.
It's not a deterrent.
No one should have the power to take another persons life (other than in self-defence)
So no. It's gone and wont come back, thankfully. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"nope... what do you say to the people who you get it wrong for? oops?????"
There are some who would argue that that is a price worth paying.
However, is it a price they would consider worth paying if it were THEIR life hanging in the balance? Or one of their loved ones? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Every time there is an emotive case - usually involving children - like the Phillpot case, there is a call of 'bring back the death penalty'. This is not logical reasoning and which is why we have people who make these decisions calmly and coldly with logic and reason. Because if we were to give in to the baying mob this country would be no better than those we criticise for lopping off body parts, whipping, and, as in a case in Saudi Arabia, potentially deliberately paralysing someone in retribution of said crimes.
Mick Phillpot was not found guilt of murder. For a murder conviction to have been obtained there had to be absolute proof that he planned on killing those children. The fact is that he planned on SAVING them to make himself look like a hero.
Now - a heinous as that crime was, he was not tried for murder as there was no intention to kill. He was convicted of manslaughter. And, even if we brought back the death penalty for murder, he would still not have been executed.God well put......you should become a QC"
Or, to paraphrase, 'Please meet me' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Like it or not the death penalty is and always has been a deterent not for all but after a sustained period would deter many"
Disagree...it isnt a deterrent in the State is it?..
And it wont deter the loons, the psycho killers out there..in my opinion they should definitely hang..waste of money keeping them alive.
The thing is we probably wouldnt even be debating this if life actually meant life..or some limp wristed fucking liberal didnt start waving the human rights act for some of the scum out there.
If you take a life then you should lose any 'human' right you have... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself."
Define child.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There have been a lot of cases where evidence hasn't been accurate and innocent people have been put away for life, but if they were given the death penalty how would you rectify this? You can't.
I don't believe any court should have the power over life and death, as no man should have the right to choose the life or death of another man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Like it or not the death penalty is and always has been a deterent not for all but after a sustained period would deter many"
If that were true countries that have the death penalty wouldn't have murderers would they: like the States...oh wait! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Every time there is an emotive case - usually involving children - like the Phillpot case, there is a call of 'bring back the death penalty'. This is not logical reasoning and which is why we have people who make these decisions calmly and coldly with logic and reason. Because if we were to give in to the baying mob this country would be no better than those we criticise for lopping off body parts, whipping, and, as in a case in Saudi Arabia, potentially deliberately paralysing someone in retribution of said crimes.
Mick Phillpot was not found guilt of murder. For a murder conviction to have been obtained there had to be absolute proof that he planned on killing those children. The fact is that he planned on SAVING them to make himself look like a hero.
Now - a heinous as that crime was, he was not tried for murder as there was no intention to kill. He was convicted of manslaughter. And, even if we brought back the death penalty for murder, he would still not have been executed."
...there you go! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Like it or not the death penalty is and always has been a deterent not for all but after a sustained period would deter many
Disagree...it isnt a deterrent in the State is it?..
And it wont deter the loons, the psycho killers out there..in my opinion they should definitely hang..waste of money keeping them alive.
The thing is we probably wouldnt even be debating this if life actually meant life..or some limp wristed fucking liberal didnt start waving the human rights act for some of the scum out there.
If you take a life then you should lose any 'human' right you have..."
Everyone loves to label those who believe in human rights (well, why should we not have rights?) as limp-wristed liberals or something similar. However, were you, or I, ever in a situation where our lives hung in the balance and we were utterly innocent then I think you, or I, would be highly grateful for a vocal advocate fighting our corner.
It is limp-wristed liberals who got us the vote, minimum wage and a lot of freedoms and safe-guards we now take for granted. Be grateful for that or where would we be now - still able to be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread when starving. Even children as young as 10 have been hanged for stealing.
Thankfully we are a more civilised society now. It may not be perfect, no one is claiming it is. But it is certainly an improvement on the 'good old days'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The process of putting some one to death is more expensive than life in prison.
Mistakes get made and innocent people die.
It's not a deterrent.
"
Your first point...it costs Millions to keep some of these scum behind bars...how much does it cost for a cooked breakfast and a quick pull of a lever?...Im sure there's plenty of people out there who would volunteer to do it for free!...
Your second point...I agree, not only mistakes, fit ups by the ol bill.
Third point..I dont think its a deterrent for the psychos...but others might think twice before plunging someone or shooting them...it isnt a deterrent in the States obviously..hard to call that one.
Maybe there is a case for keeping them in prison...they will live in fear for the rest of their days, knowing that someone is waiting to slice them, sling boiling water in their faces or administer a thoroughly good kicking...etc etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Like it or not the death penalty is and always has been a deterent not for all but after a sustained period would deter many
Disagree...it isnt a deterrent in the State is it?..
And it wont deter the loons, the psycho killers out there..in my opinion they should definitely hang..waste of money keeping them alive.
The thing is we probably wouldnt even be debating this if life actually meant life..or some limp wristed fucking liberal didnt start waving the human rights act for some of the scum out there.
If you take a life then you should lose any 'human' right you have...
Everyone loves to label those who believe in human rights (well, why should we not have rights?) as limp-wristed liberals or something similar. However, were you, or I, ever in a situation where our lives hung in the balance and we were utterly innocent then I think you, or I, would be highly grateful for a vocal advocate fighting our corner.
It is limp-wristed liberals who got us the vote, minimum wage and a lot of freedoms and safe-guards we now take for granted. Be grateful for that or where would we be now - still able to be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread when starving. Even children as young as 10 have been hanged for stealing.
Thankfully we are a more civilised society now. It may not be perfect, no one is claiming it is. But it is certainly an improvement on the 'good old days'."
Well made and fair point DB...but you know the types of cases Im talking about.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not sure about the death penalty but I do think that the stocks should come back for repeat offenders. Also, make prison the worst place on the planet. Like Tent City in America. We're far too soft on criminals. There should be no tv/Xbox/smokes/etc.
I know one guy who's been in prison and he said it's "not as bad as you think".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
Define child.
"
Anyone under 18... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Arab states no stealing there and i said a deterent not guarantee and what would america be like without the death penalty certainly worse "
Yes there is stealing there, and murder, and rape, and incest, and child abuse, and fraud, and domestic violence. None of their draconian Sharia-inspired punishments have any affect on crime.
The point of gaol is to remove offenders from society. Simply punishing people actually achieves little. It is proven time and again that without some kind of rehabilitation then recidivism stays at high levels. We should be considering how to create a better society not a nasty, vindictive one -as that simply filters down into day to day life and who would want to bring up children in such a society? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If life meant life then a prisoner only looses their freedom, so crimes need a deterrent strong enough to deter future crime of that nature.
All crimes need a punishment not a reward or there is a breakdown in law and order.
Being soft is not an option but a reward. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The crown prosecution service and police withhold evidence that can prove a innocent person not guilty, so they can secure a conviction,that's been proved over and over again.
Just imagine what it feels like to be hung for something you have not done, I could not possibly imagine the fear that people like Timothy Evans etc etc must have felt that morning being led to the gallows, and the noose put on your neck.
No Thanks 
M |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"If life meant life then a prisoner only looses their freedom, so crimes need a deterrent strong enough to deter future crime of that nature.
All crimes need a punishment not a reward or there is a breakdown in law and order.
Being soft is not an option but a reward."
Failure to rehabilitate offenders is the most costly mistake any society can make. The rate of recidivism is very high in this country where we have little rehabilitation. In countries which do have it then re-offending rates are much lower.
We cannot think only in terms of crime and punishment. We need to address the causes and deal with them or we simply go round in ever expensive circles.
Just getting 'tough' on offenders without rehabilitation has been proven over and over and over DOES NOT WORK! Yet, politicians all talk about getting 'tough' on criminals as it is simplistic rhetoric which gets people voting for them. The moment I hear a politician talk like that I know I will not vote for them. It is like a totally thoughtless throwaway reaction to the whims of voters and such a person I would NOT like leading the country I live in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ex4unowCouple
over a year ago
near you |
Depending on which sort of justice you believe in anyone can find justification for thier views im sure if someone killed your child you would possibly have a different view but as i was saying i believe in prevention not cure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The question I always ask is could you kill someone? if the answers no then I think you have no rights to expect others to do it
Not matter what crime someone had committed I couldn't take someones life there for im against it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"The one that always springs to my mind is the Jamie Buldger case, were the 2 young boys murdered an infant. Would you feel right committing two children to death?
For what they done to that little boy I don't think I'd have any problem with sentencing them to death. They poured paint in his eyes, beat him, shoved batteries into his bum, it was just beyond disgusting.
Playing devils advocate here  "
And what of the parents who created them? There was the suggestion of abuse for one. Both of these children were, at best, neglected. They came from highly dysfunctional families. Think of a 10 year old you know. Could you imagine that child doing that to a two year old? No. I certainly couldn't. So, what was going on with these children that put such things into their heads? Where does that come from?
May Bell killed two toddlers in the 1960s. It later came out that her mother had tried numerous times to kill her, and had used her as a prop for her clients (she was a prostitute). She had been seriously neglected and abused. She was also 10 when she killed - still in Primary school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself."
its different if its your own child, if anyone raped or killed one of my girls I would happily do time for them but that's because I would be emotionally attached to the crime if it was someone elses child I couldn't kill someone for it, even if the law said it was ok, not because I don't care but because that's just in me to do such a thing, where as if it was your own child you wouldn't be thinking normal and would do things against your usual nature |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The one that always springs to my mind is the Jamie Buldger case, were the 2 young boys murdered an infant. Would you feel right committing two children to death?
For what they done to that little boy I don't think I'd have any problem with sentencing them to death. They poured paint in his eyes, beat him, shoved batteries into his bum, it was just beyond disgusting.
Playing devils advocate here
And what of the parents who created them? There was the suggestion of abuse for one. Both of these children were, at best, neglected. They came from highly dysfunctional families. Think of a 10 year old you know. Could you imagine that child doing that to a two year old? No. I certainly couldn't. So, what was going on with these children that put such things into their heads? Where does that come from?
May Bell killed two toddlers in the 1960s. It later came out that her mother had tried numerous times to kill her, and had used her as a prop for her clients (she was a prostitute). She had been seriously neglected and abused. She was also 10 when she killed - still in Primary school."
99% of the time yes it stems from their parents, the problem is will they do it again? There is obviously a part of them which isn't quite right, so is it right to release them into society again? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The one that always springs to my mind is the Jamie Buldger case, were the 2 young boys murdered an infant. Would you feel right committing two children to death?
For what they done to that little boy I don't think I'd have any problem with sentencing them to death. They poured paint in his eyes, beat him, shoved batteries into his bum, it was just beyond disgusting.
Playing devils advocate here
And what of the parents who created them? There was the suggestion of abuse for one. Both of these children were, at best, neglected. They came from highly dysfunctional families. Think of a 10 year old you know. Could you imagine that child doing that to a two year old? No. I certainly couldn't. So, what was going on with these children that put such things into their heads? Where does that come from?
May Bell killed two toddlers in the 1960s. It later came out that her mother had tried numerous times to kill her, and had used her as a prop for her clients (she was a prostitute). She had been seriously neglected and abused. She was also 10 when she killed - still in Primary school."
the nature v nurture argument is a very sensitive subject, yeah there are cases of the abused turning abuser but there are also a great many killers etc that had perfectly normal upbringings, you cant always blame their childhood |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"The one that always springs to my mind is the Jamie Buldger case, were the 2 young boys murdered an infant. Would you feel right committing two children to death?
For what they done to that little boy I don't think I'd have any problem with sentencing them to death. They poured paint in his eyes, beat him, shoved batteries into his bum, it was just beyond disgusting.
Playing devils advocate here
And what of the parents who created them? There was the suggestion of abuse for one. Both of these children were, at best, neglected. They came from highly dysfunctional families. Think of a 10 year old you know. Could you imagine that child doing that to a two year old? No. I certainly couldn't. So, what was going on with these children that put such things into their heads? Where does that come from?
May Bell killed two toddlers in the 1960s. It later came out that her mother had tried numerous times to kill her, and had used her as a prop for her clients (she was a prostitute). She had been seriously neglected and abused. She was also 10 when she killed - still in Primary school.
99% of the time yes it stems from their parents, the problem is will they do it again? There is obviously a part of them which isn't quite right, so is it right to release them into society again? "
Mary Bell received no counselling or help. Neither did the two boys who killed Jamie Bulger. So their problems were not addressed and so it was more likely they would re-offend - as we have seen in the case of one of them. He grew up basically in prison. What was done to help him? Then he is released into a society where there are people who would be happy to kill them. Why are we surprised? We should have dealt with the issues or they are still a potential danger to society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The one that always springs to my mind is the Jamie Buldger case, were the 2 young boys murdered an infant. Would you feel right committing two children to death?
For what they done to that little boy I don't think I'd have any problem with sentencing them to death. They poured paint in his eyes, beat him, shoved batteries into his bum, it was just beyond disgusting.
Playing devils advocate here
And what of the parents who created them? There was the suggestion of abuse for one. Both of these children were, at best, neglected. They came from highly dysfunctional families. Think of a 10 year old you know. Could you imagine that child doing that to a two year old? No. I certainly couldn't. So, what was going on with these children that put such things into their heads? Where does that come from?
May Bell killed two toddlers in the 1960s. It later came out that her mother had tried numerous times to kill her, and had used her as a prop for her clients (she was a prostitute). She had been seriously neglected and abused. She was also 10 when she killed - still in Primary school.
99% of the time yes it stems from their parents, the problem is will they do it again? There is obviously a part of them which isn't quite right, so is it right to release them into society again? "
99%? id like to know where you got that figure from? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
Define child.
Anyone under 18..."
So if someone kills my kids (they're over 18) they should sit in comfort in jail, but if say they harm someones kid (under 18) they swing?!!
Well that doesn't seem fair does it?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Like it or not the death penalty is and always has been a deterent"
It never has and never should be seen as a “deterrent”
Receiving the DP is for the crime committed, and therefore, yes, it should be brought back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" should we bring it back"
They have the death penalty in some states in america... but weve all seen the documentaries from 'death row'. Most of the convicted men spend up to 15-20 or maybe more on it before or if ever being put to death!! So what the point of it?? They still get a warm bed and 3 square meals for all them years regardless of what they have done.
So in answer to the question....it makes no difference in general. They very rarely get sentenced and die in a short period of time. Just makes laywers richer. Sorry bit of a rant  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The one that always springs to my mind is the Jamie Buldger case, were the 2 young boys murdered an infant. Would you feel right committing two children to death?
For what they done to that little boy I don't think I'd have any problem with sentencing them to death. They poured paint in his eyes, beat him, shoved batteries into his bum, it was just beyond disgusting.
Playing devils advocate here
And what of the parents who created them? There was the suggestion of abuse for one. Both of these children were, at best, neglected. They came from highly dysfunctional families. Think of a 10 year old you know. Could you imagine that child doing that to a two year old? No. I certainly couldn't. So, what was going on with these children that put such things into their heads? Where does that come from?
May Bell killed two toddlers in the 1960s. It later came out that her mother had tried numerous times to kill her, and had used her as a prop for her clients (she was a prostitute). She had been seriously neglected and abused. She was also 10 when she killed - still in Primary school.
99% of the time yes it stems from their parents, the problem is will they do it again? There is obviously a part of them which isn't quite right, so is it right to release them into society again?
99%? id like to know where you got that figure from?"
I wasn't quoting anything, it was a figure of speech, whenever you hear a murder case involving children you generally tend to find that they have been sexually abused or beaten. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
if we are going to talk about the philpotts case there is something we need to clarify...
remember that they were charged with manslaughter... not murder
murder in the eyes of the law is a premeditated action, something you deliberately went out to do...
so the person who went thru the names of the "child killers" there is a difference here
so whilst the act of arson was premeditated...., the death of the kids wasn't, the states case was that he was going to rescue the children, look like a hero and frame the ex....
the state didn't make the case of him deliberately setting out to kill the children because they didn't have any evidence of that....
remember the arson was the deliberate act.. not the killing of the children, that was a tragic consequence of his actions.......
no country in the world gives the death penalty for manslaughter...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As had been said re:philpott he's been convicted of manslaughter not murder and even in countries where they execute people with learning disabilities and teenagers they don't generally execute those convicted of manslaughter. I worry fundamentally about a human being who claims that they'd be first ones to pull the switch as it clearly shows a complete lack of empathy for a human life (something
They'd then have in common with the person convicted)
The nature v nurture debate has long
Been debated and even in behavioural phenotypes there are still heavy elements of nurture being taken into account.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"As had been said re:philpott he's been convicted of manslaughter not murder and even in countries where they execute people with learning disabilities and teenagers they don't generally execute those convicted of manslaughter. I worry fundamentally about a human being who claims that they'd be first ones to pull the switch as it clearly shows a complete lack of empathy for a human life (something
They'd then have in common with the person convicted)
The nature v nurture debate has long
Been debated and even in behavioural phenotypes there are still heavy elements of nurture being taken into account.
"
Couldn't agree more. Consider that new born you see. Is that a murderer? Born evil. Should be executed one day? What makes that baby grow up and kill another person? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As had been said re:philpott he's been convicted of manslaughter not murder and even in countries where they execute people with learning disabilities and teenagers they don't generally execute those convicted of manslaughter. I worry fundamentally about a human being who claims that they'd be first ones to pull the switch as it clearly shows a complete lack of empathy for a human life (something
They'd then have in common with the person convicted)
The nature v nurture debate has long
Been debated and even in behavioural phenotypes there are still heavy elements of nurture being taken into account.
Couldn't agree more. Consider that new born you see. Is that a murderer? Born evil. Should be executed one day? What makes that baby grow up and kill another person?"
no one will ever know
If you blame their parents then surely all children in the same house hold will turn killer if they have all be bought up the same? but how offen does that happen? I cant think of a single serial killer where a sibling has also been convicted of murder, so can it be the up bringing? suppose you can argue it helps but I feel its more to do with the person, some people cope better than others, one abused child may one day turn abuser but another abused child may go out their way to make sure they don't turn out that way as they know how it feel themselves
I think something like rape and murder is just in you, having an abusive childhood may bring it out sooner but even if they have a good upbringing (which a lot of sex offenders and killers do have) they will offend in the end |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No not for it at all nobody has the right to take life even the courts.
Except for murderers. Z"
if the murders have the rights we don't need the death sentence do we  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
With you all the way.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No not for it at all nobody has the right to take life even the courts.
Except for murderers. Z
if the murders have the rights we don't need the death sentence do we "
Murderers take lives - the post said that no one has the right to take a life - but they do? Z
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself."
With you all the way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way."
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No not for it at all nobody has the right to take life even the courts.
Except for murderers. Z
if the murders have the rights we don't need the death sentence do we
Murderers take lives - the post said that no one has the right to take a life - but they do? Z
"
yeah they do, but there's a difference between doing someone and having the rights to do something |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society."
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!"
That would be your choice, and, in a society where we had re-established the death penalty, you would end up on death row. Any remaining family of yours would then have to deal with the double blow of losing you too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
looking for that perfect justice system? one that is 100% accurate?..until we have psychics or the ability to get data from someone elses mind, it never will be..even then, data can be controlled to fool the masses
bleeding hearts from either side of the spectrum arent needed, if that makes me 'on the fence' so be it.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
That would be your choice, and, in a society where we had re-established the death penalty, you would end up on death row. Any remaining family of yours would then have to deal with the double blow of losing you too."
True. But isn't it inherently inbuilt to protect our kids. (well, for normal people anyway). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
That would be your choice, and, in a society where we had re-established the death penalty, you would end up on death row. Any remaining family of yours would then have to deal with the double blow of losing you too.
True. But isn't it inherently inbuilt to protect our kids. (well, for normal people anyway). "
Yes, of course - but that is not protection it is revenge. And I did not appreciate the 'well, for normal people anyway' comment which suggests that anyone disagreeing with you is not a 'normal' parent. Rather insulting actually. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All this bravado about willing to be the executioner or going after someone if they did something to a member of their family is just hot air. Maybe one or two of those that say they can kill may be able to follow up their words with action but you will never know until faced with the situation, and then I doubt any of you will. A life for a life is as barbaric as the original deed and leads up a blind ally. I personally will not lower myself to the standards of a cold blooded killer! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
That would be your choice, and, in a society where we had re-established the death penalty, you would end up on death row. Any remaining family of yours would then have to deal with the double blow of losing you too.
True. But isn't it inherently inbuilt to protect our kids. (well, for normal people anyway).
Yes, of course - but that is not protection it is revenge. And I did not appreciate the 'well, for normal people anyway' comment which suggests that anyone disagreeing with you is not a 'normal' parent. Rather insulting actually."
You what? I was talking about people like the philpotts!! Try not jumping to conclusions please! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
That would be your choice, and, in a society where we had re-established the death penalty, you would end up on death row. Any remaining family of yours would then have to deal with the double blow of losing you too.
True. But isn't it inherently inbuilt to protect our kids. (well, for normal people anyway).
Yes, of course - but that is not protection it is revenge. And I did not appreciate the 'well, for normal people anyway' comment which suggests that anyone disagreeing with you is not a 'normal' parent. Rather insulting actually.
You what? I was talking about people like the philpotts!! Try not jumping to conclusions please!"
Then you needed to make it clearer - taken within the context it was written it reads as if anyone disagreeing with you is not normal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In Saudi Arabia a 14 year old lad stabbed another paralysing from the waist down.
In the next few days his sentence is to be carried out... It's to be forcefully paralysed from the waist down.
If Philpott lived there, should we burn him to a crisp????
Hopefully fellow inmates will Cunt him for life! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!"
So how exactly would you go about doing that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?"
Try using your imagination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?
Try using your imagination. "
Okay, I imagine your threats to be pure bluster, and not remotely based on how you could possibly carry through that threat! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?
Try using your imagination.
Okay, I imagine your threats to be pure bluster, and not remotely based on how you could possibly carry through that threat! "
My, picky aren't we! I said IF anyone harmed my kids, and IF i got my hands on them. I assure you, it ain't bluster! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?
Try using your imagination.
Okay, I imagine your threats to be pure bluster, and not remotely based on how you could possibly carry through that threat!
My, picky aren't we! I said IF anyone harmed my kids, and IF i got my hands on them. I assure you, it ain't bluster! "
aint picky..simply asked you a reasonable question, which of course you haven't answered |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them "
okay then... let me give you a scenario...
lets say someone is killed in a car accident because the driver was driving thru due lack or attention.. lets say, they were changing a cd.. or dropped something on floor...
still "eye for eye"???? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?
Try using your imagination.
Okay, I imagine your threats to be pure bluster, and not remotely based on how you could possibly carry through that threat!
My, picky aren't we! I said IF anyone harmed my kids, and IF i got my hands on them. I assure you, it ain't bluster!
aint picky..simply asked you a reasonable question, which of course you haven't answered"
So you want me to go into detail and describe what i would do? Get a grip!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them
okay then... let me give you a scenario...
lets say someone is killed in a car accident because the driver was driving thru due lack or attention.. lets say, they were changing a cd.. or dropped something on floor...
still "eye for eye"????"
a crime is a crime no matter what...no need to check what the crime is, deliver the punishment judge dredd style
gets tiresome doesnt it... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My, picky aren't we! I said IF anyone harmed my kids, and IF i got my hands on them. I assure you, it ain't bluster! "
It is bluster because you have no idea how you would act until the situation came up. I am sure 99% of people that say stuff like this would back away but maybe you are the one%, I doubt it though! Basically you are saying if pushed you would act in a violent sadistic way... what an add for a site like this, good luck with that! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?
Try using your imagination.
Okay, I imagine your threats to be pure bluster, and not remotely based on how you could possibly carry through that threat!
My, picky aren't we! I said IF anyone harmed my kids, and IF i got my hands on them. I assure you, it ain't bluster!
aint picky..simply asked you a reasonable question, which of course you haven't answered
So you want me to go into detail and describe what i would do? Get a grip!!"
Exactly, think you are beginning to understand how unrealistic and ridiculous your threat is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Think about it for one second and you see how daft the idea is. So you do harm to the person you believe harmed your child/family member then one of their family members has the same idea about you... It all goes around until there is only one person left standing! Its bonkers at best... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them
okay then... let me give you a scenario...
lets say someone is killed in a car accident because the driver was driving thru due lack or attention.. lets say, they were changing a cd.. or dropped something on floor...
still "eye for eye"????"
Your right Fabio and it wasn't the persons intention to murder someone but it some cases the death penalty should be introduced |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Think about it for one second and you see how daft the idea is. So you do harm to the person you believe harmed your child/family member then one of their family members has the same idea about you... It all goes around until there is only one person left standing! Its bonkers at best... "
FFS!! Of course its an unrealistic idea! It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though! When it comes to our kids being harmed, i don't think i'm the only person that would want to exact some sort of revenge! As i said though, HYPOTHETICALLY!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FFS!! Of course its an unrealistic idea! It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though! When it comes to our kids being harmed, i don't think i'm the only person that would want to exact some sort of revenge! As i said though, HYPOTHETICALLY!!"
So it is just bluster then! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FFS!! Of course its an unrealistic idea! It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though! When it comes to our kids being harmed, i don't think i'm the only person that would want to exact some sort of revenge! As i said though, HYPOTHETICALLY!!
So it is just bluster then! "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"FFS!! Of course its an unrealistic idea! It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though! When it comes to our kids being harmed, i don't think i'm the only person that would want to exact some sort of revenge! As i said though, HYPOTHETICALLY!!
So it is just bluster then! "
Are you having a laugh? Where does it say i'm blustering? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FFS!! Of course its an unrealistic idea! It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though! When it comes to our kids being harmed, i don't think i'm the only person that would want to exact some sort of revenge! As i said though, HYPOTHETICALLY!!
So it is just bluster then!
Are you having a laugh? Where does it say i'm blustering? "
"It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though!"
That says bluster! First you say you would then you say its hypothetical... = bluster. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!"
We ALL say that, kids are killed every day, but how many parents have then taken the law into their own hands?!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"FFS!! Of course its an unrealistic idea! It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though! When it comes to our kids being harmed, i don't think i'm the only person that would want to exact some sort of revenge! As i said though, HYPOTHETICALLY!!
So it is just bluster then!
Are you having a laugh? Where does it say i'm blustering?
"It was a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. It doesn't mean i wouldn't want to though!"
That says bluster! First you say you would then you say its hypothetical... = bluster. "
Yeah, right. Lets just say i know what i'm capable of and not capable of when it comes to my kids. If you want to call it bluster, so be it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There was no debate the few told the many no!
No if it went to a vote it would win hands down to recall it, but once again it's the few that tell the many
So if that's a debate god help us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All this bravado about willing to be the executioner or going after someone if they did something to a member of their family is just hot air. Maybe one or two of those that say they can kill may be able to follow up their words with action but you will never know until faced with the situation, and then I doubt any of you will. A life for a life is as barbaric as the original deed and leads up a blind ally. I personally will not lower myself to the standards of a cold blooded killer! "
Underpins my point. Atrocities are carried out daily but I don't recall family members taking the laws into their own hands.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"There was no debate the few told the many no!
No if it went to a vote it would win hands down to recall it, but once again it's the few that tell the many
So if that's a debate god help us"
okay.... i'll ask you the same question I ask everyone who always says yes...
what do you say to the family who your death penalty killed, but was in fact innocent??? oops??? my bad!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There was no debate the few told the many no!
No if it went to a vote it would win hands down to recall it, but once again it's the few that tell the many
So if that's a debate god help us"
"Hands down?" So a simple majority of those that vote then?
Countries that have an regularly use the death penalty fall into two categories
1) The USA
2) dictatorships or countries with totalitarian regimes
Both groups routinely execute those who have learning disabilities and some execute people we would consider to be minors. All of them suffer from capital crimes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm afraid I'm one of those "limp wristed liberals" who believes on the HRA because call me old fashioned but I like articles 2,5,7 and 10 especially 10 as it allows people to _xpress the view that they'd like to hang philpott without the risk of prosecution for having said that. However I don't believe the state has the right to take the life of one of its citizens, it has never been proved to be a deterrent since the dawn of "civilisation". Even when the Tudors used to hang draw and quarter you publicly then take away all your family possessions (something akin to roman justice) it has not stopped humans from committing unspeakable crimes.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them "
I can not remember who, but someone much more eloquent than me stated "an eye for an eyes leaves the whole world blind".
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them
I can not remember who, but someone much more eloquent than me stated "an eye for an eyes leaves the whole world blind".
"
someone who stabbed a friend in the back in Saudi Arabia is due to be paralysed from the waist down. an eye for an eye or torture?
but it won't happen if he manages to come up with one million rials.(about £170k) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?"
Obviously it was a hypothetical scenario. But I'm quite capable and have no problem doing so if someone is proven, without question to have harmed one of my children.
Obviously if there is any reasonable doubt then that's a whole other issue. I mean undeniable 100% rock solid proof. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"An eye for an eye is my solution
You murder someone then you should have the same punishment and maybe that would deter some from murdering and raping etc but I doubt it as America still as the death penalty in some states and that's not stopped them
I can not remember who, but someone much more eloquent than me stated "an eye for an eyes leaves the whole world blind".
"
It was Ghandi. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes for certain crimes, it saves people paying for food, clothing, medicine for scumbags in jail."
It doesn't save money because the process of executing people incurs huge costs. Check out deathpenalty.org
Each execution in California costs $300 million. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Yes for certain crimes, it saves people paying for food, clothing, medicine for scumbags in jail.
It doesn't save money because the process of executing people incurs huge costs. Check out deathpenalty.org
Each execution in California costs $300 million."
Unless we do it like China - execution straight away - no appeal. Then, of course, there is no chance at all if you are innocent. Never mind - we'll get the right one next time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadistic child killers who rape then murder children. You feel they should be allowed to exist in a nice warm prison with 3 meals a day and a tv? While the parents/family have to live with knowing they'll never see their children again and that they died scared and in agony.
If anyone harmed one of my kids I'd demand to put the noose around their neck myself.
With you all the way.
But we cannot allow that kind of thinking to determine the policy of society.
To be honert and totally blunt, if ANYONE was to harm any of my kids, then fuck 'the policy of society'! If i got my hands on them first, there wouldn't be the need of a costly trial for the bastards!
So how exactly would you go about doing that?
Try using your imagination.
Okay, I imagine your threats to be pure bluster, and not remotely based on how you could possibly carry through that threat!
My, picky aren't we! I said IF anyone harmed my kids, and IF i got my hands on them. I assure you, it ain't bluster!
aint picky..simply asked you a reasonable question, which of course you haven't answered
So you want me to go into detail and describe what i would do? Get a grip!!"
if one of your kids was getting the death penalty for a crime you know they didn't comment would you feel differantly bout it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Here's the thing right. I have a daughter and if any one did anything to hurt her i'd want the death penalty for who ever did it for sure. How ever if my daughter was gonna get the death penalty for a crime i know she didn't comment i'd feel differant about it! Its hard cos if your gonna give some one the death penalty you have to be 100% sure the person has done the crime there can be no margin for mistake's at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
facebooks been great today too..
as horrible as crimes are, when they involve deaths.. they really shouldnt turn us into the crowds of almost medieval types
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"facebooks been great today too..
as horrible as crimes are, when they involve deaths.. they really shouldnt turn us into the crowds of almost medieval types
"
Quite right too - now, if we could bring back public executions, even better. A grand day out for the family, brings communities together, deters the 'scum'.
I reckon it could be televised - Germy Kyle could host it! Brilliant! And it would keep the teens off those violent video games - give them a turn on the lever and they could do it all for real! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
