Woolwich killing

[Veggie Dave]

Ah, I was right:
Woolwich attack: terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack - Telegraph

Which brings us back to hypocrisy...

 

[cr0ft]

LOL so you think we should pay £40k a year to keep people in prison who kill in cold blood like this??

 

[R1CKY]

if you use that philosophy then what gives one human the right to imprison another for their entire life? The decision is made by the culprit as soon as they decide to carry out an act such as this, theyve only got themselves to blame. Your only entitled the same rights of the victim, an eye for an eye and all that.

Because imprisoning someone as a punishment and to protect innocent people from a dangerous person is on a whole different scale to killing someone. What gives one human being the right to kill another? Not to mention people being falsely accused of crimes, you can release someone from prison, but you can't un-kill someone. You do know the end of that saying? An eye for an eye and soon the world will be blind.

I'm quite happy for my tax to be spent keeping dangerous criminal behind bars.

You may want to have a read of this, seems it costs a considerable amount of money to kill someone too.

 

[R1CKY]

Costs of the Death Penalty | Death Penalty Information Center

Link would help......

 

[Ray Stafford]

I'm quite happy for my tax to be spent keeping dangerous criminal behind bars.

I'm with you on this one Ricky.

I'm not squeamish, and if the armed police had shot these people dead, I wouldn't have turned a hair, and I don't give a monkeys if a householder kills a burglar they discover in their house.

But there is a difference between police (or an armed householder) killing in self defence or defence of others, and the state coldly and calculatingly killing someone, even lowlife scum like this.

I like to think that I am better than these people, my friends and neighbours are better than them, and the society I live in is better than them. If the price of proving that is that we spend money keeping them alive in jail, then thats a price I am prepared to pay.

I also remember several cases where supposed criminals were found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of what would be capital crimes, and subsequently turned out to be innocent. As you correctly point out, you can release someone from prison, but you can't un-execute them.

 

[Nostrum]

Because imprisoning someone as a punishment and to protect innocent people from a dangerous person is on a whole different scale to killing someone. What gives one human being the right to kill another? Not to mention people being falsely accused of crimes, you can release someone from prison, but you can't un-kill someone. You do know the end of that saying? An eye for an eye and soon the world will be blind.

I'm quite happy for my tax to be spent keeping dangerous criminal behind bars.

You may want to have a read of this, seems it costs a considerable amount of money to kill someone too.

The fact that this human in question took someone else's life, in this case undeniably. He now has no rights, under the same principle as locking him up and throwing away the key. Unfortunately the police didn't do a goo job at shooting him (they always intend to shoot to kill according to the chap on the radio this afternoon)

I'm not saying kill every criminal that goes through our courts, but there are exceptional cases like this where the evidence cannot be argued. Sorry but you sound like one of all to many do gooders who are putting this country to shame with fictional equality. If only everyone played by the same rules it might work, but whilst there re nut jobs like this walking the streets, human rights go out the window.

 

[cr0ft]

Because imprisoning someone as a punishment and to protect innocent people from a dangerous person is on a whole different scale to killing someone. What gives one human being the right to kill another? Not to mention people being falsely accused of crimes, you can release someone from prison, but you can't un-kill someone. You do know the end of that saying? An eye for an eye and soon the world will be blind.

I'm quite happy for my tax to be spent keeping dangerous criminal behind bars.

You may want to have a read of this, seems it costs a considerable amount of money to kill someone too.

DNA evidence is undisputable, sorry. There would need to be the same trial to put someone in prison for murder as there would to hang them or whatever for murder. I don't quite understand the logic where someone who has no job and prospects can kill someone and end up in prison with a better life (in many cases) than the soldier that was killed will have.

When DNA evidence is 100% accurate why would you want to un-kill a murderer, am I missing the point?

 

[cr0ft]

I'm with you on this one Ricky.

I'm not squeamish, and if the armed police had shot these people dead, I wouldn't have turned a hair, and I don't give a monkeys if a householder kills a burglar they discover in their house.

But there is a difference between police (or an armed householder) killing in self defence or defence of others, and the state coldly and calculatingly killing someone, even lowlife scum like this.

I like to think that I am better than these people, my friends and neighbours are better than them, and the society I live in is better than them. If the price of proving that is that we spend money keeping them alive in jail, then thats a price I am prepared to pay.

I also remember several cases where supposed criminals were found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of what would be capital crimes, and subsequently turned out to be innocent. As you correctly point out, you can release someone from prison, but you can't un-execute them.

Hey Ray. Whilst I agree with you that there were people wrongly convincted prior to DNA forensic science being used in criminal cases, has there been a wrong conviction since that? I genuinly don't know so it's more of an ask than an argument!

 

[Ray Stafford]

Hey Ray. Whilst I agree with you that there were people wrongly convincted prior to DNA forensic science being used in criminal cases, has there been a wrong conviction since that? I genuinly don't know so it's more of an ask than an argument!

Hi Kieran

A quick google search of "is DNA evidence reliable" gives a lot of hits with various responses. Unfortunately, its hard to tell who has an axe to grind, and who doesn't. And even if is 100% (doubtful) then in most cases what the DNA evidence is proving is that an individual came into contact with the victim, or was present at the scene of the crime. Thats pretty strong evidence, but not the same as proving exactly what happened.

My objection to the death penalty is not solely about the possibility of miscarriages of justice, important though that is.

Its a moral point. Whilst I absolutely understand the desire for retribution, and if the victim was a friend or family member I am sure that I would feel it very strongly, I genuinely believe that we have to PROVE that our society is better than some of the scum that exist in it.

 

[sheff paul]

All well and good liberal speil,could you front the young lads family and tell them that.

 

[R1CKY]

The fact that this human in question took someone else's life, in this case undeniably. He now has no rights, under the same principle as locking him up and throwing away the key. Unfortunately the police didn't do a goo job at shooting him (they always intend to shoot to kill according to the chap on the radio this afternoon)

I'm not saying kill every criminal that goes through our courts, but there are exceptional cases like this where the evidence cannot be argued. Sorry but you sound like one of all to many do gooders who are putting this country to shame with fictional equality. If only everyone played by the same rules it might work, but whilst there re nut jobs like this walking the streets, human rights go out the window.

I'm by no means "one of all too many do-gooders". Murder is murder, whether carried out by a criminal or by the government. I can understand why people would like the death sentence, but IMO it is too good for the criminals. Most extremists are willing to die for their beliefs anyway. The thought of a human being, like you and I, having the right to kill another human (even though those that performed this horrific murder don't deserve that title) is quite a horrid thought in my mind.

As Ray said, I'd have had no issue with the Police shooting them dead to protect themselves and public. The same way as I'd use any force possible to protect myself and my family from an attacker.

 

[tamz]

Prison for them should be something like solitary confinement in a stinking darkened hole. Eat shyt and sleep until they are carried out in a box.
Something like the solitary in the film Papillon and that would still be too good for them but unfortunately even murdering *******s still have "human rights" no matter how much they don't deserve any.

 

[Ray Stafford]

All well and good liberal speil,could you front the young lads family and tell them that.

Right now, no I wouldn't, because it would be insensitive to a grieving family. In a couple of years time, when the pain has dulled a bit, yes I would be prepared to.

But we shouldn't have laws that are framed entirely to assuage the grief of those affected by a hideous crime, however much we may feel for them.

And I wouldn't consider myself a liberal either - most of my political views would put me very much on the "right" of the political spectrum. I just don't happen to agree with the death penalty.

 

[michael c]

australian gov't have my admiration..

the bnp party have now gained 1%

dont be too quick to vote bnp either Redsaw as many of their members believe those with disabilities should be put down at birth so as not to be a drain on the economy.

 

[R1CKY]

Well said Ray.

I'm going to leave my views on this subject here, there is rarely a good outcome to these discussions. I have respect for everyone's views and opinions and I don't wish to fall out with people because of our differing views.