child sex sentence uner review

[wheresmyplacebo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3638464.stm


what posessed the judge the give this man 2 years in first place

i swear its the judges and their guidlines of this country not the laws themselves:rolleyes:

[BeckyBoo]

Yeah I heard about this story today.

One word for the judge's sentence: Pathetic !!

[Fiend_85]

the girl had been a "willing participant"

Only made ir underage sex, not rape or abuse. 2 years is not unreasonable. At the time.

Under laws brought in May this year, sex with a child under 13 is classified as rape and is punishable with a life sentence.

So if he'd offended since may, which he didn't, it would have been rape.

But the act is not retrospective, this means Barrett could only be sentenced for unlawful sexual intercourse.

So he can't be charged under those new laws.



But he's still a wanker.

[dolly dagger]

If this guy knew the girl was 12 he deft deserves 2 years, maybe more, we can't allow older men to get away with abusing young girls.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by dolly dagger
If this guy knew the girl was 12 he deft deserves 2 years, maybe more, we can't allow older men to get away with abusing young girls.

no, definatly not.

But as posted elsewhere, shy low-confidence girls loose their virginity early, because boys hit on them as an 'easy-lay'. Shy low-confidence boys, loose their viginity late, because girls don't hit on boys in the same way.

[budda]

Its always difficult in cases such as this, because we dont get to hear the testimony in the case.

The judge seemed convinced that the girl was a willing participant. And the guy felt bad enough about it to turn himself in to the police.

Having said that though, 12 is very young and the age gap was considerable.

I dread to think what will happen to him if he only serves even 1 week in jail.

[dolly dagger]

(quote) The judge seemed convinced that the girl was a willing participant. And the guy felt bad enough about it to turn himself in to the police. (quote)

What if the girl was 8 years old and a willing participant?

At 18 this guy is old enough to realise this isn't right, no matter how provocative the girl was, he must have enough self control to stop himself.
If he knew her age and still went ahead, he deserves jail.

[budda]

I wasnt saying that he didnt deserve jail, or that his sentance was right.

What I was suggesting is that this isnt the normal child molestation type case. It just isnt that clear cut.

[SlimeFace]

It is, & is as simple as this.

If the MAN new that this CHILD was only 12 years old.

He should be castrated & given 24 to life..

No argument.

[SlimeFace]

Oh, & if it was my daughter, it wouldn't have reached court.

[dolly dagger]

I disagree, I think it is deft a normal child molestation case. An adult knowingly slept with an underage girl; she may have been sexy, provocative, willing, we do live in a society where this is common, but nevertheless, the guy should have been responsible enough to say no. I know it is imp to look at situations from all angles and not make blind or wild judgements but in this case I do see it as clear cut, no way can we live in society where a man can even slightly justify sleeping with a young girl.

[budda]

Perhaps I'm not putting myself clearly enough.

The case is indeed nasty, BUT, in law and sentancing there should be gradients which take into account the seriousness of the crime.

In the scale of child abuse this was not anywhere near as bad as it could have been.

Therefore his sentance should reflect that.

[dolly dagger]

Ok, I understand your point now, all laws should be gradated.

I just worry that in case such as these, judges are becoming more lenient.

The emotional side of me thinks the guy should get life, but my rational side is unsure, he should at least get a year though.

[budda]

I dont know how much I would have given him if I were sentancing.

But then to me all sex offences should be treated as a mental health issue anyway and wouldnt involve prison.

[dolly dagger]

All of them? I don't think so, i understand that some sex abusers do have mental problems, and they should be treated accordingly, not criminalised.

But in many case the people are just sick, a lot of sex offences are just about power or perverted fantasies, these should be treated like the criminals they deft are.

[budda]

Yes, all sex offences.

I dont see what is to be gained from putting them in prison. It doesnt work as a deterant and it doesnt reform them.

The re-offending rate for sex offenders to stupidly high, no-where near enough is done to actually solve the problem.

The conditions in which they would be kept would be very similar to jail, but they would be monitored and given counselling to help them reform.

[dolly dagger]

But don't all prisons have that in place anyhow, reformation programmes, or am i wrong?

[budda]

They should do, but as with rehabilitation prison system wide its, in the main, rubbish.

[Tweety]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3638464.stm


what posessed the judge the give this man 2 years in first place

i swear its the judges and their guidlines of this country not the laws themselves:rolleyes:

O/T are you a Bristol person then?

[SlimeFace]

In regards to the rehabilitation systems in prison, I can truely believe what Bong is saying.
As far as sex offenders not being put behind bars I can't possibly agree. In fact, like I said, castration is the answer, & no I'm not joking.
If (in the case of a male offender) the offender uses his organ in a non-consensual way, & this is proven, then take his organ away. How he gonna use it then? He definately isn't gonna re-offend. If the sentences were stiffened & punishment made harsher for these kind of crimes, maybe this would even deter people in the first place.
If it is a mental issue, then these people aren't safe in society anyway. So yeah, I do believe prison is an answer, unless it can be diagnosed before an offender gets chance to offend. The chances of this?! Next to none I would have thought.

[budda]

Did I actually say they wouldnt be behind bars? No, I dont think I did.

What I was suggesting is that these people are sick, and like with other mentally disturbed and dangerous people they should be treated in secure mental hospitals.

[SlimeFace]

Appologies on my behalf bong for the slight misinterpretation.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Makoto]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3638464.stm


what posessed the judge the give this man 2 years in first place

i swear its the judges and their guidlines of this country not the laws themselves:rolleyes:

Today in the paper it said that a judge let of a bloke who had sex with a 12 year old girl (is this the same case?).. it's not the first time that has happened this year either. Makes me wonder if these judges who let peopl elike that off are pervs them selfs. 2 years is no where near enough! It should be that child sex offenders who are guilty should serve and not be considered for parole untill they have done at least 20 years.

EDIT: Link works now, see it is.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
A rapist doesn't need a penis to reoffend. He does it for power, not pleasure, therefore his hands, a bottle, anything you can think of could be used as an alternative. Castration's a stupid idea.

It will stop them infiltrating a woman with teir penis will it not?
& don't you think that maybe once they have been castrated it may actually make them think "shit, I don't think I wanna find out what they gonna do to me next if I decide to screw this next womans life up"?
So "Stupid idea" possibly a bit harsh?
Maybe it wouldn't work, but I know for a fact it will deter at least 1 person, & I'd say that this is an improvement.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
A rapist doesn't need a penis to reoffend. He does it for power, not pleasure, therefore his hands, a bottle, anything you can think of could be used as an alternative. Castration's a stupid idea.


Last time rape came up, I pointed out a possible mental process for rapists/sex offenders.

If the punishment for rape (read and other sex offences including paedophilia from here in) is severe, life or physical mutilation that can be considered as bad, e.g. castration. Then the punishment for rape is no worse than murder, and there is therefore no added risk in killing the victim. In rape cases the victim is often the only witness and the major part of the prosecuting case, so if the victim is murdered, after the violation, the only evidence available is DNA/fingerprinting. It's possible that the rapist will just walk away, and if caught, they're getting nothing worse than they would have done.

Just for perspective, there are hundreds of unsolved murder cases from just the last 30 years.

[dolly dagger]

I agree with Slimeface, castration could be a solution, it is very extreme, and is cruel, but i think what these men do is much worse.

And if they were chopped, wouldn't they lose all sexual desire, therefore they wouldn't have the urge anymore, so they wouldn't use other objects or their hands instead.

It is a very good deterrent anyhow. It'd put me off if i was a bloke.

[dolly dagger]

on the other hand, some women do lie, it would be shit if someone was wrongly "chopped," maybe i don't agree with it now, i'm confused:confused:

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by dolly dagger
on the other hand, some women do lie, it would be shit if someone was wrongly "chopped," maybe i don't agree with it now, i'm confused:confused:

That's why we shouldn't have capital punishment. Resurection currently escapes modern medicine, so it's a bit difficult to take back the sentance from a wrongly convicted murderer.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
You people are nuts. Harsh punishments never deterred people from doing things before, so I have no idea why you think it would now.

I don't. Did you read my above post? About criminal mentality?

[Fiend_85]

Just spotted this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3639484.stm)

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
It was directed at the pro-castration lobby.

I thought it was, but wondered what you thought about my theory.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
You people are nuts. Harsh punishments never deterred people from doing things before, so I have no idea why you think it would now.

A weak comparison I know, but :

If the government came out tomorrow & said "If you are caught smoking anywhere outside, it will now be law that we can remove a finger each time you do it"

It is safe to say, that my ass would be quitting all together.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
A weak comparison I know, but :

If the government came out tomorrow & said "If you are caught smoking anywhere outside, it will now be law that we can remove a finger each time you do it"

It is safe to say, that my ass would be quitting all together.

Let me give you an alternative analogy.

Many states in the US carry the death penalty and I'm sure that you would agree that this is a relatively severe punishment?

By your argument, they wouldn't have to carry any such sentences out, because it would be a deterrent.

The facts show otherwise.

[SlimeFace]

In that case, A lot of people would also be fingerless!
Except me.

Our laws are soft to certain crimes & way to lenient.
Increase the punishments & the rate will decrease. Maybe not a lot, but they will decrease non-the-less.

People are on Death Row usually due to murder offences. It is exactly where they should be. If Capital Punishment was not in action, the murder rate would 99% most definately be higher.
Prove me wrong.

[Jim V]

http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072802a.htm

http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/dp200310_4.html

'A report released in September 2000 by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates that states with the death penalty. The Times reports that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.'

[SlimeFace]

These comparisons are comparing different states against each other in part. Not an accurate comparative figure.
The only way you could get an accurate figure is to have exactly the same people in America, in exactly the same place in another Country that is the mirror image of America, with one of these Countries having the death penalty, & the other one not having the Death penalty..
You can not prove me wrong, as the figures can never be compared accurately.
& I stand by my argument, If a man uses his organ unlawfully on a woman/child, in fact on any living creature, then he should be castrated & imprisoned. He can not re-offend the innocent civillians who walk our streets.
You rape, you lose your penis.
If you honestly don't think this would deter people then fair enough, but I would disagree.
PEACE

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
These comparisons are comparing different states against each other in part. Not an accurate comparative figure.


Of course, all the people that live in Texas (state with death penalty) are much more inclined to be murderous bastards than those in New York. Cos that makes loads of fucking sense.


Comparing homicide rates in the United States and Canada and Europe additionally supports the fact that the death penalty does not have any deterrent effect. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population, while in Canada, which abolished the death penalty in 1976, the rate was only 1.8. Likewise, data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States has a murder rate that is more that three times that of many of European countries that have banned capital punishment.

People are not that different because of where they are.


Read below and think about it.

If the punishment for rape (read and other sex offences including paedophilia from here in) is severe, life or physical mutilation that can be considered as bad, e.g. castration. Then the punishment for rape is no worse than murder, and there is therefore no added risk in killing the victim. In rape cases the victim is often the only witness and the major part of the prosecuting case, so if the victim is murdered, after the violation, the only evidence available is DNA/fingerprinting. It's possible that the rapist will just walk away, and if caught, they're getting nothing worse than they would have done.


More to the point, how do you propose reattachment and resurrection in the case of wrongful conviction?

[Aladdin]

I think you have been proved wrong by the date Jim V has posted slimeface, and I think you're now proposing bizarre, impossible scenarios so your beliefs on the death penalty stand.

The comparison between States that have the death penalty and those that done is in fact perfect. Same country, same people, same social issues, different crime rates.

It's all nice and clear for everyone to see. The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and the only thing it achieves is legitimating murder and lowering the State to the same level as the criminals it punishes.

[queenmab_roo]

i have no factual basis for this, but is it actually possible for New York to pass off a criminal to Texas if a crime worthy of death penalty has been committed in both states?

i'm not explaining very well, I read it in a fiction book...patricia cornwell *ahem*

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by queenmab_roo
i have no factual basis for this, but is it actually possible for New York to pass off a criminal to Texas if a crime worthy of death penalty has been committed in both states?

i'm not explaining very well, I read it in a fiction book...patricia cornwell *ahem*


erm... yes. think so, but only if murder has been commited in more than one state, and in the state of destination. Or something like that.

[Aladdin]

It also depends if the the Federal courts get involved.

When the Washington sniper was caught, a deal was struck between the different States where he had killed so he would be tried in the one where he would be most likely to be given the death penalty.

[wheresmyplacebo]

btw they had sex twice...

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
btw they had sex twice...

yes? How does this affect things?

Children who are abused are often abused night after night for years.

[Kermit]

Defence solicitors I know have stated before now that if Joe Public was allowed to sentence then about 70% of the time the sentence passed would be less than what was given by the trial judge.

Never ever forget that Man has sex with 12-year-old, jailed for 20 years isn't a very good headline.

I am surprised that the sentence wasn't higehr, but this man was guilty of nothing other than having sex with a girl under the age of 13. This can be punished by life imprisonment, but it is discretionary.

Unless you have read the case notes for this case then you are in no position to dispiute the discretion applied.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
Unless you have read the case notes for this case then you are in no position to dispiute the discretion applied.

I understand that, but what is this saying to other offenders ?
Thats my worry. Yes we dont know all the inns and outs of this case but what Joe Public sees is a pathetic sentence.

[Fiend_85]

He didn't get away with it though did he mate. He's potentially got something worse waiting in the wings.


I do think that sex offenders should be on the register permanently though.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
He didn't get away with it though did he mate.

Aye, but you know what I mean.
Wrong wording on my part, sorry.

[budda]

Originally posted by queenmab_roo
i have no factual basis for this, but is it actually possible for New York to pass off a criminal to Texas if a crime worthy of death penalty has been committed in both states?

i'm not explaining very well, I read it in a fiction book...patricia cornwell *ahem*

If I commit a crime in one or more states, then move to another state. I will have to be extridited to one of those states, this involves a court hearing. I can not be taken to Texas if the crime wasnt there. But I can be taken to the harshest of the two or more states where I commited crimes to be punnished.

See?

[SlimeFace]

I still stand by capital punishment, castration, & harder sentences.
I abide by moral law, & would have nothing to worry about. If you have nothing to worry about, what's the debate?
A man has had sex with a 12 year old girl.
Cut is balls off & give him at least 10 years. Like I said, if it was my daughter involved he wouldn't even reach court, so in a sense he would still be getting off with his life. Not a good punishment for such a gutterly disgusting crime.
As for the compared figures in regards to capital Punishment, still not convinced, sorry. It's an impossible figure to 'accurately' gain.
PEACE

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[dolly dagger]

Girl with sharp teeth - I am not for capital punishment, one murder doesn’t justify another, but you can’t compare the termination of an innocent life that has no voice with the execution of a cold blooded killer, fully aware of his actions.

[Jim V]

Becky, just to reiterate a point made earlier -

The sentance handed down was based on the old laws because of when the offence took place.

The new laws would allow for a life sentence for the crime.

The case is probably one of the last to be tried under the old laws and as such doesn't really represent a realisitic view of what sentences will be handed out in the future.

Admittedly there is nothing stopping a similar sentence in the future but it's far more likely to see much longer sentences, probably many life sentences, for people who abuse under 13 year olds (the act makes a distinction at that point) and indeed longer sentences for anyone abusing children regardless of age.

As to the castration issue, I have read anecdotal evidence that in the cases of chemical castration the same social and psychological problems that led some toerag to rape still exsist.

Most professionals involved in rape cases would point out that this is about power, not sex. Those same issues exsist whether someone can actually have sex or not.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by dolly dagger
Girl with sharp teeth - I am not for capital punishment, one murder doesn’t justify another, but you can’t compare the termination of an innocent life that has no voice with the execution of a cold blooded killer, fully aware of his actions. Just as the executioners are fully aware of their actions and the sanctity of life.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[dolly dagger]

(quote) Just as the executioners are fully aware of their actions and the sanctity of life. (quote)

Yes, I agree that is with you aladdin, that is why capital punishment is wrong (the same could be argued for people who carry out abortions, but that is another issue), but i still maintain you cannot compare terminating a child, with terminating a murderer.

[Aladdin]

No you couldn't compare it. Then again, you don't terminate a child when you perform an abortion.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
I still stand by capital punishment, castration, & harder sentences.
I abide by moral law, & would have nothing to worry about. If you have nothing to worry about, what's the debate?
A man has had sex with a 12 year old girl.
Cut is balls off & give him at least 10 years. Like I said, if it was my daughter involved he wouldn't even reach court, so in a sense he would still be getting off with his life. Not a good punishment for such a gutterly disgusting crime.
As for the compared figures in regards to capital Punishment, still not convinced, sorry. It's an impossible figure to 'accurately' gain.
PEACE
What are you saying you would do if it was your daughter.
Im not that good with riddles.

[dolly dagger]

Aladdin: No you couldn't compare it. Then again, you don't terminate a child when you perform an abortion.[FONT=times new roman][FONT=century gothic]

That is open to debate....

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
This is not attacking your beliefs Slimeface....

... but how the hell can you justify capital punishment, yet believe that abortion is wrong? How can you call for a fully developed, intelligent, aware organism to be executed but not the removal of a small ball of cells?

An unborn baby never murdered anyone.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by rainbow brite
What are you saying you would do if it was your daughter.
Im not that good with riddles.

I'd bury the bastard that laid a finger on her before he had chance to even smell the courts door.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
Disregarding the fact that it is not a baby....

I can't see why you seem to think the murder of one is justified, but the 'murder' of another is not. Murder is murder. Killing is killing. You cannot justify one and not the other.

Someone who is killed on death row, is killed because they killed someone..
It's justified by that simple equation.

If you kill, you die, that is your punishment. If you inflict a horrific crime on someone, ie, rape, physical abuse, that leaves someone scarred mentally/physically for life, then they deserve the death penalty. They have chosen to destroy somebody elses life, why do they deserve to live. You would defend these people?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
Disregarding the fact that it is not a baby....

I can't see why you seem to think the murder of one is justified, but the 'murder' of another is not. Murder is murder. Killing is killing. You cannot justify one and not the other.

What kind of murder has been justified?
I've done nothing but show disgust for murder. I will not bring abortion into this equation as quite simply, it is insulting to the debate, that is another thread.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
I'd bury the bastard that laid a finger on her before he had chance to even smell the courts door.
but then you would be a worse criminal than the rapist.
although I can understand the feeling behind it.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by rainbow brite
but then you would be a worse criminal than the rapist.
although I can understand the feeling behind it.

My actions would have been provoked. I would never cause such a situation, & would never want to be faced with the situation, but if I was, I would deal with the situation.
PEACE

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
If you kill, you die, that is your punishment. On whose authority? Yours? The government's? God's?

How about if the murderer in question had killed because his victim was a killer himself who'd murdered a member of our man's family? Should he be let go? Be put to death anyway? Be made to serve a couple of years? Given a medal?

State murder is every bit as bad and wrong as ordinary murder. No one, but no one has the right to take another person's life. Not even as a punishment for that very crime in the first place.

You would defend these people? No one is defending them. Please don't lower the debate like that...

[queenmab_roo]

murder is illegal killing, the law does not back it.

killing is legal in wars, as capital punishment etc, when it is backed by the law.

i personally don't agree, but would you like all our army men sentenced to life imprisonment?

[Aladdin]

No. The law- and anyone with an ounce of common sense and brains- can distinguish between 'lawful' killings in wars and a murder.

That's not to say that it is not possible to commit murder in a war, because it is and it happens all the time. It all depends on the situation.

[Fiend_85]

The problem with capital punishment is not only are you lowering the state to the level of the perpetrator in terms of ethics. It is also proven not to be a considerable deterant, nor is it possible to release a wrong conviction after you have executed them. They're dead, and like I've posted before resurection currently escapes modern medicine.

The other problem I will repost below.

If the punishment for rape (read and other sex offences including paedophilia from here in) is severe, life or physical mutilation that can be considered as bad, e.g. castration. Then the punishment for rape is no worse than murder, and there is therefore no added risk in killing the victim. In rape cases the victim is often the only witness and the major part of the prosecuting case, so if the victim is murdered, after the violation, the only evidence available is DNA/fingerprinting. It's possible that the rapist will just walk away, and if caught, they're getting nothing worse than they would have done.

[SlimeFace]

I am not saying to just go ahead & kill someone with no trial.
I'm talking about tried & convicted cold blooded murderers, rapists, paedophiles etc.

If someone killed my Mother, & I then killed them, no, I wouldn't expect to be on Death Row, In fact, you know what, Yeah, I'd expect the Queen herself to award me with a medal. I'd be doing a just service to society, by removing this dangerous being.

[Fiend_85]

People are wrongly convicted everyday. How do you propose to be certain?

[SlimeFace]

By thorough means. If you can't prove anything, then that is unfortunately the case, you can't just put people on death Row, based on "Oh they might have killed that dude, lets fry him"!
People have been proven succesfully for horrific crimes. In these cases, death is justified.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
By thorough means. If you can't prove anything, then that is unfortunately the case, you can't just put people on death Row, based on "Oh they might have killed that dude, lets fry him"!
People have been proven succesfully for horrific crimes. In these cases, death is justified.

There is not often irrefutable proof. Even confessions have turned out to be false, given by the confused and mentally unstable.

You would execute the mentally ill?

[Aladdin]

Whatever happened to the sanctity of human life then?

Do you believe you have a higher authority than God- if you happen to believe in God- and can administer death at will, regardless of the crime the person has committed?

Perhaps God himself gave his seal of approval to the death penalty... though I must have been on holiday when it happened because I never heard the news.

I don't believe in God. What I believe is that no human being has the right to take a person's life- even if that person had just done the same. Two wrongs don't make a right. A murderer is a murderer is a murderer.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
By thorough means.

The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were convicted by "thorough means". If they'd been convicted ten years ago they'd have been executed.

Oh, whoops, they didn't do it.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were convicted by "thorough means". If they'd been convicted ten years ago they'd have been executed.

Oh, whoops, they didn't do it.

Oh woops, they weren't investigated thoroughly then were they.;)

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Jim V
The sentance handed down was based on the old laws because of when the offence took place.

The new laws would allow for a life sentence for the crime.

It was possible to be jailed for life for having sex with a girl under the age of 13 in the old laws too, as far as I am aware.

It wasn't rape, though, becaus ethe girl consented. And the old law dictated that a girl of any age was capable of giving consent (there was one case where a man had sex with a five year old and defended himself on the basis that she consented).

As to the castration issue, I have read anecdotal evidence that in the cases of chemical castration the same social and psychological problems that led some toerag to rape still exsist.

Most professionals involved in rape cases would point out that this is about power, not sex. Those same issues exsist whether someone can actually have sex or not.

Rape is about the power, and the thrill of having the power. If the rapist had his penis lopped off he would just rape with other implements, such as bottles, or with other creatures, such as dogs. It has been done so many times.

This debate shows the difference between justice and revenge, and how just how fine a line it is. The revenge instinct in me thinks "yeah, execute the bastards, they deserve it"; and they do. But that is not justice, that is revenge.

I'm also against the death penalty for two more cynical reasons. Convictions can't be trusted- look at the Birmingham Six- and killing somebody is infinitely more expensive than keeping them locked up forever.

To add to this I would say that death isn't the best punishment- there's a reason why Shipman, West and Brady want (or wanted) to kill themselves. Death is the easy way out for these people, keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives is a far more trying punishment.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Oh woops, they weren't investigated thoroughly then were they.;)

They went through 'due process' though didn't they.

No-one no matter what the punishment should get anything less than the necessary investigation. If murders require more, then so does everything else. Being convicted is not helpful.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Whatever happened to the sanctity of human life then?

Do you believe you have a higher authority than God- if you happen to believe in God- and can administer death at will, regardless of the crime the person has committed?

Perhaps God himself gave his seal of approval to the death penalty... though I must have been on holiday when it happened because I never heard the news.

I don't believe in God. What I believe is that no human being has the right to take a person's life- even if that person had just done the same. Two wrongs don't make a right. A murderer is a murderer is a murderer.

See my post in the Abortion thread in regards to my belief on God & forgiveness etc..

Yes, Admittedly, I have contradictory views, I openly admit this, & I am constantlty searching for answers. You never know, someone on here may change my view ;)

As for now, the evil that surrounds us has to be terminated.

As for the people with mental difficulties, very very difficult issue to debate on. I agree it is not fair to put them in the chair, but it is even less fair on the families they destroy when they commit a terrible crime. Where do you draw a line? This is the part I find impossible to answer.

PEACE

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Oh woops, they weren't investigated thoroughly then were they.;)

They were investigated thoroughly enough to spend 27 years behind bars.

Look at the case of the last man to be executed in the United Kingdom, and then you will see how stupid it is.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
As for now, the evil that surrounds us has to be terminated.

Define evil.

Where is the boundary between evil and mental illness?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
They were investigated thoroughly enough to spend 27 years behind bars.

Look at the case of the last man to be executed in the United Kingdom, and then you will see how stupid it is.

Thorough to me means to the point that something is proven to be fact, no errors. So no it was not thorough obviously, Unless they were actually guilty of course.

Give me a link to that story please.

[Fiend_85]

There is to an extreme degree almost never the point where it is proven fact and not most-likely.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Define evil.

Where is the boundary between evil and mental illness?

To take a life consciously in cold blood. Evil enough?
To sexually abuse a 6 year old child. Evil enough?
To rape an old age pensioner. Evil enough?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
To take a life consciously in cold blood. Evil enough?
To sexually abuse a 6 year old child. Evil enough?
To rape an old age pensioner. Evil enough?

Surely anyone who would do something like that is mentally unstable?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
There is to an extreme degree almost never the point where it is proven fact and not most-likely.

So if this point IS reached?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Thorough to me means to the point that something is proven to be fact, no errors. So no it was not thorough obviously

Type "birmingham six" into the search facility of BBci. It's a very well-known case.

The Birmingham Six were "proven" to have done it- it was a majority jury verdict, and at least one appeal was thrown out as far as I can remember.

The thing is errors only get detected when it's too late. It was too late for the Birmingham Six, but at least they were alive; ten years earlier and they'd be proven innocent, but they'd be but a few bones in the ground.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Surely anyone who would do something like that is mentally unstable?

So all murderers, rapists etc should have the rite to live then right?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
To take a life consciously in cold blood. Evil enough?
To sexually abuse a 6 year old child. Evil enough?
To rape an old age pensioner. Evil enough?

Define consciously.

What if the sexual abuser had been abused himself- children learn what is acceptable and what is not when they are young, so wires could get crossed. Is that acceptable?

Many rapists are loners, lacking in any power in their life. Feeling like that is a psychiatric disorder.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Type "birmingham six" into the search facility of BBci. It's a very well-known case.

The Birmingham Six were "proven" to have done it- it was a majority jury verdict, and at least one appeal was thrown out as far as I can remember.

The thing is errors only get detected when it's too late. It was too late for the Birmingham Six, but at least they were alive; ten years earlier and they'd be proven innocent, but they'd be but a few bones in the ground.

I repeat, it was 'obviously not thoroughly' investigated. If it was, they would not have been imprisoned.

PEACE

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
So all murderers, rapists etc should have the rite to live then right?

No.

They have the right to not be killed.

Geddit?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Define consciously.

What if the sexual abuser had been abused himself- children learn what is acceptable and what is not when they are young, so wires could get crossed. Is that acceptable?

Many rapists are loners, lacking in any power in their life. Feeling like that is a psychiatric disorder.

It is down to society to spot these dangers.

You learn a lot as a child, you also learn as you get older the differences between moral & immoral.

PEACE

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
I repeat, it was 'obviously not thoroughly' investigated. If it was, they would not have been imprisoned.

Either you're stupid or you are willfully ignoring my point.

In hindsight it wasn't "thoroughly investigated", but that was because the police invented evidence. The police evidence was enough to convict them and keep them jailed for 27 years- if the death penalty applied, they would be dead.

Do I need to explain it in even smaller words?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
No.

They have the right to not be killed.

Geddit?

No, not at all, sorry.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
You learn a lot as a child, you also learn as you get older the differences between moral & immoral.

No you don't. You only learn if you have been taught; if daddy taught you that sucking him off was moral, then the behaviour remains.

It's well-known that abusees are stupidly more likely to become abusers.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
So if this point IS reached?

If the point is reached, where it is undenable fact, which is extremly unlikly, then they are probably mentally ill, as to have acted with irrefutable evidence available.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
No, not at all, sorry.

Are you stupid or just willfully moronic?

What gives you the moral right to kill somebody else?

And, on a random tangent, could you stand there, looking at somebody, and pull the trigger of a gun and watch them as the life drained out of them?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Either you're stupid or you are willfully ignoring my point.

In hindsight it wasn't "thoroughly investigated", but that was because the police invented evidence. The police evidence was enough to convict them and keep them jailed for 27 years- if the death penalty applied, they would be dead.

Do I need to explain it in even smaller words?

Yep, I know the case well, I am Birmingham born & bred.
Like you say, evidence was invented, they got ripped off. They are not the ones that should have served time.
I would not put these innocent men in jail, & most definately not in a chair.
Your point is?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Yep, I know the case well, I am Birmingham born & bred.
Like you say, evidence was invented, they got ripped off. They are not the ones that should have served time.
I would not put these innocent men in jail, & most definately not in a chair.
Your point is?

You wouldn't, but would the system? They've had the best part of their lives taken from them by the system.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Are you stupid or just willfully moronic?

What gives you the moral right to kill somebody else?

And, on a random tangent, could you stand there, looking at somebody, and pull the trigger of a gun and watch them as the life drained out of them?

I would personally say neither stupid, nor willfully moronic.
Thankyou for asking though.

If they murdered a child, or physically harmed a child, yes, I would pull that trigger, & yes I would also most probably burn in hell for it. This is where my own self conflicts are most affected.

PEACE

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
You wouldn't, but would the system? They've had the best part of their lives taken from them by the system.

Yep. The system is a mother******* isn't it.
I dislike this system, & have nothing but fear of it's evil & nonlawful, untruthful ways.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Your point is?

:banghead:

They were convicted. Under your plans they would have been killed for what they "did", as their conviction was certain for a very long time.

There is never anything as certainty. That is the point- any arguments about "the death penalty is fine in certain cases" are stupid, because there is no such thing as certainty.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
If they murdered a child, or physically harmed a child

Why just a child?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Why just a child?

Not JUST a child, but especially a child, because they are being poisoned & robbed before they've even had a chance to flourish in this world.
How could someone do such a horrific thing to such a small, innocent, unpoisened mind.

Yes, I would seriously F**K them up if I found out of someone taking part in such barbaric acts.

PEACE

[Fiend_85]

:lol: You don't know many kids do you!

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
:lol: You don't know many kids do you!

?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
:banghead:

They were convicted. Under your plans they would have been killed for what they "did", as their conviction was certain for a very long time.

There is never anything as certainty. That is the point- any arguments about "the death penalty is fine in certain cases" are stupid, because there is no such thing as certainty.

Does your head hurt, That wall looks mighty hard!

I'm not saying it's fine in certain cases am I?

I laid down my reasons, & when the ultimate price should be distributed for the ultimate atrocities.

PEACE.

[Fiend_85]

Personally, the main reason for being against the death penalty, is that you're letting them off easy.

They don't have to live with what they've done. Why should they be able to escape the pain (which, incidentally, studies have shown that emotional pain can be as real and damaging as a badly broken leg). They should be made to live, and to suffer.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Personally, the main reason for being against the death penalty, is that you're letting them off easy.

They don't have to live with what they've done. Why should they be able to escape the pain (which, incidentally, studies have shown that emotional pain can be as real and damaging as a badly broken leg). They should be made to live, and to suffer.

As sad as it is though, Some people unfortunately just don't have a warm bone in their body, & could even go on to have a prosperous & good time in prison. Not as unbelievable as you'd think.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
As sad as it is though, Some people unfortunately just don't have a warm bone in their body, & could even go on to have a prosperous & good time in prison. Not as unbelievable as you'd think.

You know nothing about prison.

Paedophiles are made to suffer.

[SlimeFace]

When did I say paedophiles in regards to my last comment.
Are murderers made to suffer?

How do YOU know, what I know about prison?

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
When did I say paedophiles in regards to my last comment.
Are murderers made to suffer?

How do YOU know, what I know about prison?

Thinking that child killers, rapists and paedophiles walk around having a good time, demonstrates your ignorance.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Some people unfortunately just don't have a warm bone in their body, & could even go on to have a prosperous & good time in prison.

You would think somebody like Shipman wouldn't have a "warm bone" in his body, but even he killed himself to avoid spending another 25 years behind bars.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Kermit
You would think somebody like Shipman wouldn't have a "warm bone" in his body, but even he killed himself to avoid spending another 25 years behind bars.

I wonder why that was, you think the other convicts were getting to him? Maximum security must be loads of fun.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
To take a life consciously in cold blood. Evil enough?
To sexually abuse a 6 year old child. Evil enough?
To rape an old age pensioner. Evil enough? I think company directors taking massive pay increases and bonuses while the company is making a loss and blue collar workers being made redundant certainly qualifies as evil.

Can I have them put to death?

I think G. W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Augusto Pinochet, Ariel Sharon or BNP politicians to name but a few are evil.

Is it okay to kill them then?

I'm sure God would agree... :rolleyes:

[SlimeFace]

Bush, from what I've seen & read is a killer. He just doesn't do it himself.
Hmmm, yes, Kill him. What?

Whats the point in throwing irrelevant points into a debate?

I din't say that everybody has a good time in prison did I, but some people actually go out their way to get back in. I'm talking on a very small ratio, but there are people that do.
Why assume that I am talking about the majority in my posts?

[Fiend_85]

The point is that evil is objective not subjective.

You fail to be specific in your posts that's why it's the majority that you're read to be talking about.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Thinking that child killers, rapists and paedophiles walk around having a good time, demonstrates your ignorance.

Never said they did Frank?

[Aladdin]

Well as you run out of arguments SlimFace trying to defend the death penalty, you have now said "the evil that surrounds us has to be terminated" as an apparent valid reason for the death penalty.

Regardless of the breathtakingly simplistic, misguided and populist nonsense that statement is (do you write the editorials in The S*n by any chance?), I'd like to know what constitutes evil, and indeed if simply being evil without breaking the law merits the death penalty in your book or you have to do something else.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
The point is that evil is objective not subjective.

You fail to be specific in your posts that's why it's the majority that you're read to be talking about.

Read my post without presumption. Not that hard really. I try to show the same courtesy. I agree aswell as disagree with people in this thread, as do I with people in the abortion thread.

PEACE

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Well as you run out of arguments SlimFace trying to defend the death penalty, you have now said "the evil that surrounds us has to be terminated" as an apparent valid reason for the death penalty.

Regardless of the breathtakingly simplistic, misguided and populist nonsense that statement is (do you write the editorials in The S*n by any chance?), I'd like to know what constitutes evil, and indeed if simply being evil without breaking the law merits the death penalty in your book or you have to do something else.

Aaah the sun, the daily comic, your insults are quite comedic oh lamp handling prince..

I'll let you answer for me, as so many people seem to be able to on this site!
Do you think I would put someone on death row for being evil. Don't forget Al' that there has to be a reason or some kind of evidence that they are evil.
Please, go ahead, seriously.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
How could someone do such a horrific thing to such a small, innocent, unpoisened mind.

Rainbow Brite was right, you are seriously hung up on "purity".

Why is a child any worse than an adult?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Do you think I would put someone on death row for being evil. Don't forget Al' that there has to be a reason or some kind of evidence that they are evil.

The second sentence asnswers the first with a "yes".

Who defines what act is evil? I'd put sacking 20,000 workers, ruining the lives of 20,000 familes, 20,000 young children, is evil. But it isn't a crime so wouldn't be "proof".

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
The second sentence asnswers the first with a "yes".

Who defines what act is evil? I'd put sacking 20,000 workers, ruining the lives of 20,000 familes, 20,000 young children, is evil. But it isn't a crime so wouldn't be "proof".

No-one has died have they, I don't see anyone getting raped/pillaged/injured..

Yes it's unfortunate, & yes it is terrible to an extenct, but come on man, seriously, does it compare to someone taking a piece of broken bottle & tearing a womans throat open?

[Fiend_85]

Evil is objective, not subjective

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
No-one has died have they, I don't see anyone getting raped/pillaged/injured..

Yes it's unfortunate, & yes it is terrible to an extenct, but come on man, seriously, does it compare to someone taking a piece of broken bottle & tearing a womans throat open?

Rape isn't death either. Children who've been raped still keep living.

It depends on whether you think pain is only valid in a physical sense. Depression caused by redundancy and losing the family home because of it can be just as severe a pain as broken limbs or a broken neck.

Children who have to move schools and leave the town they've grown up in because all the jobs have gone can be badly hurt by the traumatic experience.

[SlimeFace]

Oh, & by the way, I asked the prince, not the Frog! :lol:


Made meself laugh there, EVIL I SAY!

Nah, seriously I want Alladin to answer that question when he returns.

Your interpretation to my question Kermit, is not what I would have answered. Seems you don't know me too well doesn't it. ;)

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Rape isn't death either. Children who've been raped still keep living.

It depends on whether you think pain is only valid in a physical sense. Depression caused by redundancy and losing the family home because of it can be just as severe a pain as broken limbs or a broken neck.

Children who have to move schools and leave the town they've grown up in because all the jobs have gone can be badly hurt by the traumatic experience.

Losing a son/daughter.
Losing a job.

Sorry, I don't see the comparison.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Losing a son/daughter.
Losing a job.

Sorry, I don't see the comparison.


Have you done either?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Losing a son/daughter.
Losing a job.

Sorry, I don't see the comparison.

Having a depressed wife because she was raped.
Having a depressed wife because she has lost her job and can't pay the mortgage anymore.

Sorry, I do see the comparison.

But even then that is to miss the point.

Where does "evil" stop being "evil" and start being "just a bit naughty"?
Killing may be evil, is rape evil? It doesn't kill anyone.
Rape may be evil, is groping a girl evil? It doesn't traumatise her as much.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Have you done either?

Yep. Lost a job, best thing that ever happened to me in my working life.

I know, I was fortunate.

[Whowhere]

The sick fuck should get his balls cut off.
The girl's parents should be spoken to as well for allowing this guy to stay over.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Having a depressed wife because she was raped.
Having a depressed wife because she has lost her job and can't pay the mortgage anymore.

Sorry, I do see the comparison.

But even then that is to miss the point.

Where does "evil" stop being "evil" and start being "just a bit naughty"?
Killing may be evil, is rape evil? It doesn't kill anyone.
Rape may be evil, is groping a girl evil? It doesn't traumatise her as much.


Give me a break!!!!!!!

I'd much rather me & my wife fight & struggle through a job loss, than a rape..
Do you undestand the difference.
I wouldn't put her boss on death row!!!!
But, yep, you know the rest.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
I'd much rather me & my wife fight & struggle through a job loss, than a rape..
Do you undestand the difference.

Of course I understand the difference. But depression caused by the evil acts of others is depression nonetheless.

I wouldn't put her boss on death row!!!!

You're kinder than I am.

[SuzyCreamcheese]

I wouldnt put the boss on death row either. But then I think I wouldnt want capital punishment for any offence,although Id probably feel quite vigilante-like and vengeful if it was my family violated. I hope I wouldnt act on my feelings.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by rainbow brite
I wouldnt put the boss on death row either.

But I wouldn't put anyone on death row. Unlike SlimeFace.

Id probably feel quite vigilante-like and vengeful if it was my family violated. I hope I wouldnt act on my feelings.

That's the thing. Vengeful Kermit thinks child rapists and murderers should have a short drop and a sudden stop, but I appreciate that vengence and justice are not the same thing. I think a lot of people don't deserve to be alive- school bullies and greedy bank bosses for starters- but that doesn't make it right to kill them.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Oh, & by the way, I asked the prince, not the Frog! :lol:


Made meself laugh there, EVIL I SAY!

Nah, seriously I want Alladin to answer that question when he returns.

No I don't think you would put someone on death row for being evil. But then again perhaps you should... evil is evil after all.

Let me ask you something: what do you expect to achieve with executing a prisoner? Revenge? Justice? Satisfaction? Joy?

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Aladdin
No I don't think you would put someone on death row for being evil. But then again perhaps you should... evil is evil after all.

Let me ask you something: what do you expect to achieve with executing a prisoner? Revenge? Justice? Satisfaction? Joy?

Justice, & the fact that that this menace will never be able to repeat their actions within society again.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Justice

You mean revenge.

Eye for an eye isn't justice, don't you read the Bible?

the fact that that this menace will never be able to repeat their actions within society again.

If they are locked up for life they can't either.

I presume you are not aware that the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment- if you murder someone you are sentenced to life in jail. After that it depends on what you did as to how long you serve, and it is the Home Secretary who decides. Whilst the HS deciding is contrary to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998, as decreed by the House of Lords in ex parte Hindley, it is still the way things are done.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
You mean revenge.

Eye for an eye isn't justice, don't you read the Bible?

[b]

If they are locked up for life they can't either.

I presume you are not aware that the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment- if you murder someone you are sentenced to life in jail. After that it depends on what you did as to how long you serve, and it is the Home Secretary who decides. Whilst the HS deciding is contrary to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998, as decreed by the House of Lords in ex parte Hindley, it is still the way things are done.

You don't read my posts either, & when exactly did I say I a a perfect Christian, when did I say I am a Christian, How do you know I'm not a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, etc?

I allready told you I got quarrels with myself in regards to what I believe.




As for the life imprisonment thing. Yeah it'd be great if it was as simple as that - You kill - you go to prison to stay until you die.

Don't always work.

PEACE

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
As for the life imprisonment thing. Yeah it'd be great if it was as simple as that - You kill - you go to prison to stay until you die.

Don't always work.

No, it DOES always work. When it is just to.

Hindley never got out, Brady, Rose West, Sutcliffe, Huntley will never get out. Fred West and Shipman only got out through killing themselves (which hints to me that keeping them alive would have been a worse punishment for them).

The people who deserve to stay behind bars forever will do so. Those who don't deserve that punishment will be let out, though even then they will be on license for the rest of their lives, which isn't exactly a barrel of laughs.

Most murderers in the US don't get sentenced to death either, y'see. Because it isn't just for that to be the case.

[SlimeFace]

Regardless o the cases that do work.
Death is still the only just means to sentence some of the most evil people that cloud this world. Just my honest opinion & in this current time of life, My opinion is not due to change.

This is how I see it in basic terms.

Someone rapes, tarnishes a child, they deserve to die.

Someone rapes. physically & mentally destroys a womans/mans life, they deserve to die.

Someone murders another being in cold blood, they deserve to die.

I just want to know what possible reason they deserve to remain breathing in this exhistence we have all been blessed with?

PEACE

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
I just want to know what possible reason they deserve to remain breathing in this exhistence we have all been blessed with?

West and Shipman wouldn't have killed themselves if being locked up for the rest of their lives was such an appealing and appetising thought. Brady wouldn't be trying to starve himself if being locked up for the rest of his life was so appealing. Would they now?

Keeping them alive is the best punishment. Look at McVeigh- he laughed at everyone before he died, because he wanted it. It's easier than living.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
West and Shipman wouldn't have killed themselves if being locked up for the rest of their lives was such an appealing and appetising thought. Brady wouldn't be trying to starve himself if being locked up for the rest of his life was so appealing. Would they now?

Keeping them alive is the best punishment. Look at McVeigh- he laughed at everyone before he died, because he wanted it. It's easier than living.

In those cases I totally agree with you, but it is not always the case.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
In those cases I totally agree with you, but it is not always the case.

It is always the case.

Serious murderers won't get let out. That is the cold hard fact- no Home Secretary will commit the political suicide that letting them out would bring.

Child murderers (i.e. people who murdered as children) are different.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
It is always the case.

Serious murderers won't get let out. That is the cold hard fact- no Home Secretary will commit the political suicide that letting them out would bring.

Child murderers (i.e. people who murdered as children) are different.

This I do not believe. I wish I did.
& child murderers, Yes I agree. A completely different scenario.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
This I do not believe. I wish I did.

Fair enough.

Name a serious murderer who HAS been let out.

[Aladdin]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Regardless o the cases that do work.
Death is still the only just means to sentence some of the most evil people that cloud this world. Just my honest opinion & in this current time of life, My opinion is not due to change.

This is how I see it in basic terms.

Someone rapes, tarnishes a child, they deserve to die.

Someone rapes. physically & mentally destroys a womans/mans life, they deserve to die.

Someone murders another being in cold blood, they deserve to die.

I just want to know what possible reason they deserve to remain breathing in this exhistence we have all been blessed with?

PEACE There are no end of people who deserve to die.

The crux of the matter SlimeFace is that no person, institution or government in the world has the authority to put them to death.

Such is life I'm afraid.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Aladdin
There are no end of people who deserve to die.

The crux of the matter SlimeFace is that no person, institution or government in the world has the authority to put them to death.

Such is life I'm afraid.

Yes they do have the authority, & yes they do sentence people to death. FACT.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
Fair enough.

Name a serious murderer who HAS been let out.

I know of 3 in Birmingham. One of which the government is funding.
I wish not to speak anymore on these individuals.
A whole new debate, One I wish not to feel any possible repercussions for. I don't know who people on here are from Adam.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by SlimeFace
Yes they do have the authority, & yes they do sentence people to death. FACT.

They decree that they have the authority. That isn't the same thing.

Yes, they do kill people. In China they kill you for disagreeing with them.

Either you agree with all state-sponsored killing or none of it.

[Aladdin]

Indeed. If you're delegating your trust to the State to determine who should or shouldn't be killed, then I presume you don't object to a single exexution or killing carried out by any government in human history, be the Nazis, the Chinese or Saddam.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Kermit
They decree that they have the authority. That isn't the same thing.

Yes, they do kill people. In China they kill you for disagreeing with them.

Either you agree with all state-sponsored killing or none of it.

Why?

I can agree with what I wish, we are in a democracy are we not?

Decree to have the authority.
No, In some places they do have the authority.

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Aladdin
Indeed. If you're delegating your trust to the State to determine who should or shouldn't be killed, then I presume you don't object to a single exexution or killing carried out by any government in human history, be the Nazis, the Chinese or Saddam.

Yes, I agree that they should have all been given the death penalty ;)

[SlimeFace]

Originally posted by Aladdin
There are no end of people who deserve to die.



Yup. You said it.

[wheresmyplacebo]

seriously, doesnt anyone just find it disturbing he only got 2 years suspended sentence and 2 years on register?

so from now on, if a adult male manages to convince a 13yr girls its okay to sleep with him, and then tells the court, he's sorry later even he slept with her more than once, he wont go to prison or face any severity

:( whats society coming to? :(

i'd throw the book at the guy and get him with any technicality i could - that'd still be legal

bloody depressing

on a slightly off note - couldnt have been done with that internet 'grooming' offence that was made up? since he did basically chat her up on net

-------

and on the rape note, castration wouldnt work, as well almost all rapists are in it for power and control, not sex, if he had no penis, he could use other things on her still

[Kermit]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
so from now on, if a adult male manages to convince a 13yr girls its okay to sleep with him, and then tells the court, he's sorry later even he slept with her more than once, he wont go to prison or face any severity

a. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 has made consent irrelevant in cases such as these.

b. Do you know the facts? No.

[wheresmyplacebo]

no i quite happy to admit i dont know the facts, but the new laws wont effect on a 13 year as it still counts as underage sexual activity not rape as she'd be 13 not 12, and the new laws call rape UNDER 13 rape, which is why i said 13

[Kermit]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
no i quite happy to admit i dont know the facts, but the new laws wont effect on a 13 year as it still counts as underage sexual activity not rape as she'd be 13 not 12, and the new laws call rape UNDER 13 rape, which is why i said 13

They didn't pluck the age of 13 out of their arse.

At age 13 it is felt that a girl is capable of giving consent, and understanding what it means to give consent, but that she is not old enough to give informed consent.

Which is how it should be, really.

[wheresmyplacebo]

i just think the punishment for basically abusing someone IMO when theyre unable to give informed consent, is too lenient as the man seriously has problems, whether that requires prison, or at least a few years ina institute i do not know, but there is something wrong with him

kermit dont you find it distressing that this happened?