[Archived] Parents Warn Your Kids!

[blue phil]

The taking of a human life by the state can never be justified.

That's your opinion . There are many who believe it can .

One question , Al . What would you have done with the war criminals after the Nuremberg trials ?

Don't say you'd have left them to rot in a cell without any comforts . By your standards that would surely constitute "cruel and unusual punishment " and deprive them of their human rights and be just as immoral as killing them .

What is this thing called morality anyway - other than the weak conscience on the part of those who are unwilling to grasp the truth that society has to protect its own ?

Soft measures for criminals are "immoral" if anything . Violent crime (barbarism) is on the increase and its the vulnerable who suffer . Save your morality for them , not the criminals.

[Eddie]

Blue Phil, many of those put on trial in Nuremberg were actually just given prison sentences. They had a special prison made for them. While all of our present day war criminals are sent to prison.

[blue phil]

I think it's fairly obvious I was referring to the ones who were executed , Eddie....!!

PS - When did Blair get sent down then ..?

[adopted scouser]

Soft measures for criminals are "immoral" if anything . Violent crime (barbarism) is on the increase and its the vulnerable who suffer . Save your morality for them , not the criminals.

Let's hope the authorities can catch and successfully rehabilitate the two little darlings who stabbed a fella to death in front of his nine year old daughter in Chelsea yesterday.

[thenodrog]

  Soft measures for criminals are "immoral" if anything . Violent crime (barbarism) is on the increase and its the vulnerable who suffer . Save your morality for them , not the criminals.

Let's hope the authorities can catch and successfully rehabilitate the two little darlings who stabbed a fella to death in front of his nine year old daughter in Chelsea yesterday.

Not wanting to be flippant but it could have been much worse. The poor chap could have disarmed and killed the intruders with their own knife. Then he'd really have been for it!

No doubt it'll turn out that the poor bloke simply tripped and fell onto the knife that the youth was using to peel an apple at the time.

It's not funny in the slightest but given hindsight what does the law permit this poor bugger to have done to protect himself and his family? Self defence / necessary force are the usual phrases trotted out in the courts, but in reality ferkin about trying to circumnavigate those two principles is impossible when the other bloke(s) is definitely not playing to the same rules. Put the lights on, plead for em to leave and say your prayers is about the only steps that anyone can take with impunity from the law! The Tony Martin / Fred Barrass case illustrates exactly how much the welfare of the guilty party takes precedence over that of the innocent one.

Edited December 1, 2004 by thenodrog

[adopted scouser]

What galls me about any situation like this, is the insistence by many that you are 'over reacting', we shouldn't let our 'emotions rule our heads'.

Why not ?

A state plunged into 'nannydom', fuelled by the welfare state, the judiciary, social services and the PC brigade.

What happened to the days when the authorities spoke softly but carried a big stick ? Sod the lot of them. Anyone found climbing through a window in my house in the early hours is going straight to hospital.

[broadsword]

How on earth are you meant to weigh things up when battling an intruder in your home?

"Gee if I smack him over the head with this bottle, would it be unnecessary force? Probably, let's give him a chinese burn instead!"

Never been in that situation I do admit but I think if I was then I wouldn't have the composure to stop to think. Crazy to think I could well get a criminal record for it.

If these guys don't have the right to be in my house then they don't have the right not to get a wallop! It's all well and good the police saying "They're only possessions, don't disturb them", but how do you know they only want your video and your Barry Manilow records? How many coppers would roll over for a burglar?

[Al]

The taking of a human life by the state can never be justified.

That's your opinion . There are many who believe it can .

One question , Al . What would you have done with the war criminals after the Nuremberg trials ?

Don't say you'd have left them to rot in a cell without any comforts . By your standards that would surely constitute "cruel and unusual punishment " and deprive them of their human rights and be just as immoral as killing them .

What is this thing called morality anyway - other than the weak conscience on the part of those who are unwilling to grasp the truth that society has to protect its own ?

Soft measures for criminals are "immoral" if anything . Violent crime (barbarism) is on the increase and its the vulnerable who suffer . Save your morality for them , not the criminals.

Don't try to put words into my mouth. I never said anything about leaving people to rot without comfort.

They should not have been killed. Killing in cold blood is always barbaric. It makes the state as bad as the criminal. They should have been jailed for life and I mean for life.

There are many people who share my views too Phil.

What is your opinion of the ones who were murdered by the state and later found to be innocent. Bit difficult to release them and give them compensation isn't it?

[adopted scouser]

The situation's amplified when your loved ones are fast asleep in the house with you.

Luckily (despite the cliches) I've never been in that predicament, but if it should happen I would act to protect me and mine and worry about the consequences afterwards.

If someone's in your house, they leave their human rights outside.

End of.

PS - Bryan, how many coppers etc ? None mate, trust me.

[blue phil]

Killing in cold blood is always barbaric. It makes the state as bad as the criminal.

What is your opinion of the ones who were murdered by the state and later found to be innocent. Bit difficult to release them and give them compensation isn't it?

Firstly , the state is never as bad as the criminal IF the latter is given a fair trial . The victim of a murderer is NEVER given a trial by his peers . To confuse the two and brand them the same is simply ridiculous and an insult to real victims of crime .

Your second point has more validity . Quite simply , though , such mistakes are bound to happen . Any legal system has to have the strength and cvourage to accept that this will always be the case and to attempt to minimise such cases .

A better way of looking it - and a more logical one - is to balance the tragedy of an innocent man hanging , with the far greater number of innocents who die at the hands of those who kill again after being released for a similar crime . This is especially the case with sex offenders who are notorious for re-offending .

To put it bluntly , more innocents would live if execution were introduced . Not a nice choice but then again the law has to be dispassionate if it is to work.

[thenodrog]

From aol news........Two more who by their own actions have forfeited their right to draw breath on this planet.

"Killers: Your Husband Won't Be Coming Home

Joseph Mee and Christopher Smith

Two sick thugs kicked a man to death and then sneered down the phone at his wife: "Your husband won't be coming home."

Robin Chard, 47, was returning from a night out in Newcastle when he was attacked by Joseph Mee and Christopher Smith.

Mee, 27, bragged to friends how he posed like rugby star Jonny Wilkinson, with bent knees and clasped hands, before he kicked his victim's head like a ball.

He also told friends he had taunted Mrs Chard when she phoned her husband's mobile to find out where he was, telling her: "Your husband won't be coming home."

The pair then went to Smith's house and listened to Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, constantly replaying the line: "Mama, just killed a man."

The killers are now facing life in jail after admitting to the murder. They changed their plea to guilty after being presented with evidence from CCTV pictures.

Detective Superintendent Steve Wade, who led the investigation, said after the case was adjourned for reports: "These are evil and dangerous men for whom life sentences should mean life. They used a sickeningly excessive amount of violence against a stranger walking home after a night out. It could have been anyone. They targeted him because he was smartly dressed and using his mobile phone."

Judge John Milford told the pair, who between them have 67 earlier convictions: "The only sentence I can pass and will pass is life imprisonment."

Mee and Smith will be sentenced on December 22."

and if Judge John Milford had the option of the death sentence available then these two would surely have qualified. There is absolutely no requirement for them to continue living imo and anyone who attempts to offer such in reply is an irresponsible, uncaring and hard-hearted fool.

[adopted scouser]

More bleeding heart posts to follow, how could you kill them in cold blood ? We would be reduced to a nation of savages .... what about the savagery inflicted on this poor sod ?

Pink Floyd had it in the bag:

"Just a little pin prick ... their'll be no more aaagghh aa aaggh"

[broadsword]

So just before Christmas they have to face the prospect of spending the rest of their natural lives in prison ... hardly the soft option.

Life sentences (in principle, I do not agree with lifers being let out early) are a deterrent. It is not a sign of a weak-willed liberal to hold this view.

Whereas someone who wants to kill a murderer to show them violence is wrong has a warped morality. Maybe you could watch beheadings on Channel 5, wouldn't that be neat?

[adopted scouser]

That would be OK if life meant life Bryan. No such thing these days, 15 years ? out to reoffend in 7.

If life meant just that I would agree for most cases, but some cases are so depraved and disgusting the scum should be topped.

In private, of course.

[blue phil]

Whereas someone who wants to kill a murderer to show them violence is wrong has a warped morality.

They should already know that violence is wrong , Bry , but that's an educational problem .

The main reason why they should be executed is primarily to stop them committing similar crimes again . Vengeance may or may not be a satisfactory experience for the family of the victims , but I'd like them to die solely because I wouldn't trust a future gutless Gov't - or Brussels - to let the scum out to kill and maim again. Death is final ; people like those in Theno's article deserve it . Talking about TV is trivialising the subject . (Those so inclined can see that kind of thing on the net anyway....)

[thenodrog]

Life sentences (in principle, I do not agree with lifers being let out early) are a deterrent.

Quite obviously not Bryan! Please think things through before posting.

In considering that they have not been offered the soft option you have completely discounted all thoughts of Mrs Chard facing the rest of her life alone never mind piggin Christmas? How exactly do you describe her option?

All this fine resolve about life meaning life will never survive through the european courts will it? Execute em.

btw you talk about TV, well how ironic that it was cctv that caught em bang to rights enough for them to have to change their plea to guilty. I suggest clear enough eveidence to hang em too.

Edited December 1, 2004 by thenodrog

[broadsword]

Life sentences are not a deterrent, but presumably death sentences are? Would you point me to the evidence that shows a 0% murder rate when we still had capital punishment in this country? As clearly, to your mind, the only proof that we have an effective deterrent is that no such crimes are committed.

I would like to pose a question. Fred West committed suicide on New Year's Day a few years ago, now why did he do this? Out of concern for his victims, ie he thought dying was a greater punishment and thought suicide was in some way an atonement? Or out of concern for himself, ie he thought spending the rest of his life in a cell would be unbearable compared to dying? I'd suggest it was not out of concern for the victims!

I'd not like to see a death row style system over here, where it costs an absolutely insane amount of money to incarcerate people for years whilst their sentence is ratified. How is that different to someone going to prison for a (real) life sentence and dying inside?

[broadsword]

All this fine resolve about life meaning life will never survive through the european courts will it? Execute em.

So the European courts will stop us incarcerating criminals for life, but can't stop us topping criminals where we think it appropriate. Er yes ... quite.

[blue phil]

Well you've argued about the retribution and deterrent aspect , Bryan . How about the most important role of execution - that of preventing the culprit in the most final way possible of ever inflicting misery on innocents like Mr and Mrs Chard again?

BTW - Past prisoners in the UK were never on death row for very long . Executions were carried out within days . The best way - saves money on food etc ...

Edited December 1, 2004 by blue phil

[BuckyRover]

Yes, let's sign up to be like the American's

Where the Los Angeles Times made a statement saying that "For every 7 persons on death row, at least one of those is found to be innocent"

Oh and remember that on average 2 people a day are 'gunned down' in Los Angeles

Nice to see a good working judicial system. We should take note.

[broadsword]

You just don't let them out ever again, Phil! Can't do much harm then!

Seems quite simple to me. Just because sentences currently are too lenient doesn't mean we should progress right to teh other end of teh scale and start marching people up Tyburn Hill.

I know some will disagree though!

[blue phil]

Not necessarily Bryan . If there was an ABSOLUTE guarantee that the culprit would never be released I 'd settle for that . But that would mean no Euro laws for the UK and no more luvvy Govt's .......

[thenodrog]

Fred West committed suicide on New Year's Day a few years ago,

Oh did he?

[thenodrog]

and remember that on average 2 people a day are 'gunned down' in Los Angeles

In America approx 90 people in every hundred (thats 90% Bucky ) own a gun whereas in the UK the figure is 10 people in every hundred.

[BuckyRover]

What's your point?

Has your dementia kicked in again?

10% of people in the UK own a gun? Are you sure?