oh dear, what a shame.

Alejandrosdog

essexian wrote:

I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

The Death sentence is was wrong, is wrong and will always be wrong.

Killing people in the way the victim here was killed is also wrong and yes, he was the victim of a crime. The fact he was a nasty piece of work does not make that any less true and the killer should remain behind bars for the rest of their life once convicted of the crime.

I agree with most of what youre saying. But isnt remaining behind bars for the rest of your life a sentence without hope or opportunity for redemption?

Much cheaper to flick the off switch.

tangled_metal

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

lesfirth wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

The problem with the death penalty is that
a) it's far more costly than actually putting someone in prison (to the tune of over $1m per inmate)
'

I think that statement needs some backing i.e. source, explanation before I can accept it.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documen ... enalty.pdf

But were not in America and anyway i thibk this way is a cheaper and satisfying way to deal with people like this.

And we don't have the death penalty but that's irrelevant because the question was about backing up the fact that death penalty costs more than locking them up. Since you have to look at countries with the death penalty to study that then looking at America makes sense.

I suppose, but by the same token we ahould look at japan or belarus where theyve killed hundreds. They dont publish the costs but i bet its not a million pounds.

Interesting choice of countries. I think you can see how we are closer in most legal, political and cultural respects to USA than Japan and Belarus. It therefore makes sense to look at American costs. I mean their legal systems are probably closest to ours.

haydenm

I don't really care that he's dead but I don't support the death penalty. I'd probably want him dead if I was directly affected by his crimes but that is why we have a criminal justice system rather than mob justice.

imposter2.0

I haven't read the rancid troll's OP, but just to say that the 'death penalty' and 'extra-judicial killings' are not really comparable. There are arguments for the death penalty (few of which I agree with), but there can be no reasonable argument for extra-judicial murder.

rolf_f

john80 wrote:

Whilst he may have got his come uppance as some seem to believe. I do question what risk the killer poses if he gets out of jail. We have taught him that killing someone appears to have no consequence. Maybe he is a maniac on a life tariff but then maybe he is not.

I think Adog would probably kill the killer as well. Unless he thinks that it is generally OK to kill someone as long as they are also a killer in which case you'd just have to hope another killer killed the first one etc etc. Sounds like what is needed rather than prisons is a big pit full of knives. Or maybe Lions. We could have a sort of arena thing and watch it. Sounds like a very forward idea - very 21st century.

Alejandrosdog

Imposter wrote:

I haven't read the rancid troll's OP, but just to say that the 'death penalty' and 'extra-judicial killings' are not really comparable. There are arguments for the death penalty (few of which I agree with), but there can be no reasonable argument for extra-judicial murder.

Name calling and not reading the post but commentating anyway? Loser

mr_goo

There was a time when I was all for the death penalty for the most serious offenders.
However in my dotage, I now believe that removing evil people from society and lifetime incarceration is the best sentence. Letting them sit inside 4 walls for 23 hours out of 24 for the rest of their lives with heavy restrictions is the best punishment I can think of.
It's what sets the right minded apart from the evil people in the world.

shirley_basso

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Imposter wrote:

I haven't read the rancid troll's OP, but just to say that the 'death penalty' and 'extra-judicial killings' are not really comparable. There are arguments for the death penalty (few of which I agree with), but there can be no reasonable argument for extra-judicial murder.

Name calling and not reading the post but commentating anyway? Loser

Top quality name calling from the rancid OP there.

imposter2.0

Shirley Basso wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Imposter wrote:

I haven't read the rancid troll's OP, but just to say that the 'death penalty' and 'extra-judicial killings' are not really comparable. There are arguments for the death penalty (few of which I agree with), but there can be no reasonable argument for extra-judicial murder.

Name calling and not reading the post but commentating anyway? Loser

Top quality name calling from the rancid OP there.

bianchimoon

I suspect I like most people read the news report with sadness, not for the person murdered, but for the the thrill, the mental orgasm that katiehopkins type would get from reading about it. So many good posts on here about extra judicial killings and what if the killer one day is released. Sadly some people don't have the mental capacity to think beyond their next 'trumpian' fix and what it means in real life because trust me, the killer will not receive a knighthood or be set free to be some sort of 'peoples' assassin. Truth is he got his fix by doing the deed, just as some did by reading it.

exlaser

The bottom line with the death penalty is 1) it doesn’t make put people off crime and 2) You always end up killing an innocent person.

tangled_metal

Interesting idea that the prison assassin got a fix by killing him. Probably right which surely would put him in the same category as the child abuser who got a fix from committing those abuses. It's quite possible there's similar stimuli for those actions.

rjsterry

bianchimoon wrote:

I suspect I like most people read the news report with sadness, not for the person murdered, but for the the thrill, the mental orgasm that katiehopkins type would get from reading about it. So many good posts on here about extra judicial killings and what if the killer one day is released. Sadlyt some people don't have the mental capacity to think beyond their next 'trumpian' fix and what it means in real life because trust me, the killer will not receive a knighthood or be set free to be some sort of 'peoples' assassin. Truth is he got his fix by doing the deed, just as some did by reading it.

I think maybe some have been reading too many crime novels if their first thought is that the murderer did it to satiate some need to kill. More likely to be simple hatred.

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

More likely to be simple hatred.

this exactly.

Its not a fix for killing or anything like that - the bloke hated him, shanked him, done. Its kinda how these things roll in that world.

haydenm

Mr Goo wrote:

There was a time when I was all for the death penalty for the most serious offenders.
However in my dotage, I now believe that removing evil people from society and lifetime incarceration is the best sentence. Letting them sit inside 4 walls for 23 hours out of 24 for the rest of their lives with heavy restrictions is the best punishment I can think of.
It's what sets the right minded apart from the evil people in the world.

Bang on. I'd want to top myself if I were in that situation anyway

Alejandrosdog

at least we've moved on from absolving the paedo and blaming society for his choices.

meursault

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

meursault wrote:

I would save yourself some suffering. It's too big a leap for people who believe in capital punishment, to realise that revenge isn't justice. To realise, that there is no justice, and that these crimes, are all our responsibilty in some way. It's our society, we are in it, we can change it.

The creation of monsters and evil are just ways of absconding that responsibilty.

I agree 100% - i am not really arguing with them because i think i'll make them change their mind, just trying to show them that maybe killing a bad man doesn't make the bad he did go away or bad any less likely in the future.

I wonder what crime the guy that killed him did - maybe they think he too should be killed? let's just kill them all and be done with it!

So you think its society to blame for the paedos? you're absolving him of responsibility or are you suggesting that were all responsible for his crimes? well everyone is entitled to their opinion I suppose. Perhaps you'd like to tell the victims of this sort of thing that they're not really victims, its just a feature of society.

I find it amazing that people would come here and say that this paedophile wasn't really responsible for his crimes. More feeble minded liberalism.

Of course society has to take some of the blame. Conditions determine consciousness, not the other way around. I'm not absolving the individual of responsibility, but arguing for investigation of the cause of crime. If we took an honest, objective look at why these things happen, I would expect a sobering conclusion.

Just because some people are not consumed with a reactionary hatred, doesn't make them feeble minded. I empathise with the pain, loss of innocence and psychological trauma of the victims, but those scars may never heal. The life, death or punishment of the offender isn't going to change that. I'd guess that the victims would rather not think of him at all.

bianchimoon

Matthewfalle wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

More likely to be simple hatred.

this exactly.

Its not a fix for killing or anything like that - the bloke hated him, shanked him, done. Its kinda how these things roll in that world.

there's also the kudos he received amongst his inmates? Don't underestimate the power of dopamine

haydenm

Alejandrosdog wrote:

at least we've moved on from absolving the paedo and blaming society for his choices.

I don't think he absolved the guy of anything, he just said that calling him a monster absolves society of any responsibility. I would say that calling this guy a monster and wanting him dead doesn't really help understand how he ended up like that.

Alejandrosdog

HaydenM wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

at least we've moved on from absolving the paedo and blaming society for his choices.

I don't think he absolved the guy of anything, he just said that calling him a monster absolves society of any responsibility. I would say that calling this guy a monster and wanting him dead doesn't really help understand how he ended up like that.

without scrolling back I believe the comment was along the lines of society was to blame. If that's the case and he had no free will then he would have been no more than a dangerous dog to be destroyed.

I agree with you in so much as I think its useful to understand why he behaved the way he did but I also think its good he's dead.

rjsterry

Alejandrosdog wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

at least we've moved on from absolving the paedo and blaming society for his choices.

I don't think he absolved the guy of anything, he just said that calling him a monster absolves society of any responsibility. I would say that calling this guy a monster and wanting him dead doesn't really help understand how he ended up like that.

without scrolling back I believe the comment was along the lines of society was to blame. If that's the case and he had no free will then he would have been no more than a dangerous dog to be destroyed.

I agree with you in so much as I think its useful to understand why he behaved the way he did but I also think its good he's dead.

You should scroll back. That's not what he said. Child abuse doesn't happen in isolation. It requires others to look the other way. In the sense that society creates the environment where that can happen, society shares some responsibility with the perpetrator.

DeVlaeminck

HaydenM wrote:

I don't really care that he's dead but I don't support the death penalty. I'd probably want him dead if I was directly affected by his crimes but that is why we have a criminal justice system rather than mob justice.

Likewise, and there are some people I'd be glad were dead whilst at the same time opposing the right of the state to kill them.

sniper68

Chris Bass wrote:

People are less likely to inform police of someone if they think they will be sentenced to death and jurors are much less likely to convict people if they know the punishment will be death.

Do you have facts/figures/statistics to back this up?
Jury's seemed to have convicted the people currently on death row/put to death so your theory holds no water!

Chris Bass wrote:

If you think that any of this whole situation is a "good thing" you are a very twisted individual.

If you think the fact this sack of sh!t abused over 200 kids is "a good thing"then yes.If you think that it's good he got shanked then no.
22 life sentences is a joke.He only has "one life" so cannot serve 22.He ruined the lives of 200.Personally I would have tortured the sick bastard slowly making sure he died in as much pain as possible.
If that makes me a "twisted individual" in your personal eutopia then so be it 8)

rjsterry

Sniper68 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

People are less likely to inform police of someone if they think they will be sentenced to death and jurors are much less likely to convict people if they know the punishment will be death.

Do you have facts/figures/statistics to back this up?
Jury's seemed to have convicted the people currently on death row/put to death so your theory holds no water!

You seem to have trouble distinguishing "less likely to convict" from "will not convict". These are two different claims.

Chris Bass wrote:

If you think that any of this whole situation is a "good thing" you are a very twisted individual.

If you think the fact this sack of sh!t abused over 200 kids is "a good thing"then yes.If you think that it's good he got shanked then no.
22 life sentences is a joke.He only has "one life" so cannot serve 22.He ruined the lives of 200.Personally I would have tortured the sick bastard slowly making sure he died in as much pain as possible.
If that makes me a "twisted individual" in your personal eutopia then so be it 8)

Very easy to write. If true, what makes you any different from him? If not true then you'd like someone to murder him for you so you don't have to get your hands dirty or what exactly?

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Sniper68 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

People are less likely to inform police of someone if they think they will be sentenced to death and jurors are much less likely to convict people if they know the punishment will be death.

Do you have facts/figures/statistics to back this up?
Jury's seemed to have convicted the people currently on death row/put to death so your theory holds no water!

You seem to have trouble distinguishing "less likely to convict" from "will not convict". These are two different claims.

Chris Bass wrote:

If you think that any of this whole situation is a "good thing" you are a very twisted individual.

If you think the fact this sack of sh!t abused over 200 kids is "a good thing"then yes.If you think that it's good he got shanked then no.
22 life sentences is a joke.He only has "one life" so cannot serve 22.He ruined the lives of 200.Personally I would have tortured the sick bastard slowly making sure he died in as much pain as possible.
If that makes me a "twisted individual" in your personal eutopia then so be it 8)

Very easy to write. If true, what makes you any different from him? If not true then you'd like someone to murder him for you so you don't have to get your hands dirty or what exactly?

Yes - very easy to write and a perfectly natural reaction - if anyone harmed little slowbike, you'd have to arrest me before I did something I'd regret (my only regret would be that I'd be punished for carrying out retribution taking time away from being with the family.).

It is perfectly natural - if you look at the animal world - it's full of protecting your own kind when under attack. But restraint is what sets us apart.

Our legal system assumes innocence until proven guilty - but even then, there are miscarriages of justice - and a terminal punishment cannot be undone.
Do I lose sleep because someone has killed a peado? Not at all - I just feel sorry for those who were victim to him to start with. I also feel sorry for his parents - who have to live with the fact that their son was convicted of such horrific crimes.

Perhaps we should have a death penalty for the undeniable guilty - those that would never be released - but other than saving a few quid for not having to keep them alive - what's the purpose? It doesn't undo what they did, the victims have no chance of hearing an apology or reason and it does nothing to deter people from committing the crime in the first place. If you want retribution, far better to keep them alive and make them suffer.... if not retribution then what? re-education & rehabilitation? Can't do that if you've killed them....

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

Yes - very easy to write and a perfectly natural reaction - if anyone harmed little slowbike, you'd have to arrest me before I did something I'd regret (my only regret would be that I'd be punished for carrying out retribution taking time away from being with the family.).

It is perfectly natural - if you look at the animal world - it's full of protecting your own kind when under attack. But restraint is what sets us apart.

If one is taking retribution for some crime one has manifestly failed to protect against that crime. I guess it's helpful to have an external focus for the inevitable sense of guilt at that failure. Perhaps people should focus on prevention rather than some online p***ing contest about what they'd do after the fact.

tangled_metal

My main focus in life is keeping my son safe. However if any harm happened to him my only objective is to help him cope. I don't see how taking retribution will help him at all. That action is about the person taking that action and I believe is very selfish. Add in the fact you'd be depriving the child of one parent when both will be needed the most.

TBH I'm starting to think all this talk about it being a good thing and if someone did his crimes on my kid you'd have to stop me doing something I'd regret (meaning hurt the person I assume) is pathetic. It smacks of internet warrior response and probably wouldn't happen.

Tbh my earlier comment about the prison assassin who killed the guy getting some mind of fix from it was also wrong. I don't know why he killed him. It's a sign of how horrible events bring the worst out of internet posters. I hope I think more in the future before posting the drivel I have on here and I hope others think more too.

Plenty of big men talking big about things they know nothing about. Doesn't do anything good.

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Yes - very easy to write and a perfectly natural reaction - if anyone harmed little slowbike, you'd have to arrest me before I did something I'd regret (my only regret would be that I'd be punished for carrying out retribution taking time away from being with the family.).

It is perfectly natural - if you look at the animal world - it's full of protecting your own kind when under attack. But restraint is what sets us apart.

If one is taking retribution for some crime one has manifestly failed to protect against that crime.

Yes, those responsible for the children have effectively failed - but in this country at least, there's a system in place for safeguarding children - we have to trust it and assume the authorities are doing their bit too.

Little slowbike is at school - we have to trust that his teachers, assistants & other staff are safe to leave him with. Other than taking him out of mainstream education, we have no choice other than to put this trust in them.
Having been taught by someone who went on to become a convicted pedophile I can tell you that it's not simple to detect - the bloke concerned was a good teacher who had enthusiasm and knowledge of his subject - he was just stupid not to keep it in his pants. His crime wasn't obvious and even those staff closest to him were not aware.

slowbike

Tangled Metal wrote:

TBH I'm starting to think all this talk about it being a good thing and if someone did his crimes on my kid you'd have to stop me doing something I'd regret (meaning hurt the person I assume) is pathetic. It smacks of internet warrior response and probably wouldn't happen.

Aimed at me I guess ...

What would be your response if you walked in on an adult doing something entirely inappropriate with your son? Would you be all polite and say "excuse me please" ... or would you be a bit physical - I know it'll depend on the circumstance - and the build of the adult - but I'll bet that internally you'll be full of rage - I certainly would. There's nothing "Internet warrior" about it.
I'm not suggesting any response would be a good thing though

pblakeney

Slowbike wrote:

What would be your response if you walked in on an adult doing something entirely inappropriate with your son? Would you be all polite and say "excuse me please" ... or would you be a bit physical - I know it'll depend on the circumstance - and the build of the adult - but I'll bet that internally you'll be full of rage - I certainly would. There's nothing "Internet warrior" about it.
I'm not suggesting any response would be a good thing though

There is a huge gulf of a difference between a heat of the moment action and a structured strategy.
The final sentence makes the most sense.