Heartland

Markfiend: our innocent victim would have had a trial, at which evidence would have been presented. On that basis a 12-strong jury would have reached its verdict and the judge would have taken into account the details of the case before enacting a sentence. Therefore a clear link was established between our victim and the crime. Unfortunately the link may not have existed in reality.

It's not a great system, but it's hard to see any viable means of improving it.

Quiff Boy: I know you don't believe in an eye for an eye. I'm not convinced I do either. But I do believe that the majority would support it. Why, in a democracy, can the majority not have what it wants just because your minority thinks otherwise? With respect, you've still not addressed that issue because you've been too busy telling us capital punishment is inherently wrong.

paint it black wrote:i would think P1 wouldn't actually happen for fear of P5, besides isn't most violent crime in the family and spur of the moment

That's why my manifesto for the upcoming election will contain a ban on all families. And on Spurs.

Mrs RicheyJames wrote: Dirty bast*rd paedo tw*t released early

And people wonder why there's Daily Mail induced lynch mobs. After all the research that proves these people are mental and really believe they've done nothing wrong, they are STILL getting let out to do it again.

IT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL.

I agree with you Mrs.RJ

andymackem wrote:Quiff Boy: I know you don't believe in an eye for an eye. I'm not convinced I do either. But I do believe that the majority would support it. Why, in a democracy, can the majority not have what it wants just because your minority thinks otherwise? With respect, you've still not addressed that issue because you've been too busy telling us capital punishment is inherently wrong.

you're right, and to be honest i just don't know. its a tautology or something isnt it?

maybe its about educating the public and changing perceptions and values, and above all stopping them being so god damn f**king stupid (see debaser's post about jane goody etc) so that they can be trusted to make an informed, reasonable, considered decision. because despite what you say about your own opinions being informed and considered etc i just dont think that the majority of the general public work like that. certainly they have done nothing to prove to me that i am wrong in my assumptions

btw. If your a victim or you have a close friend who was brutally raped for seven hours and died two weeks later, I'm bloody sure your views would change completely about corporal punishment and the death penalty!?

Go figure.

I think that if the death penalty was re-introduced it would cheapen our value of life. Although tempting, an eye for an eye society ends up with everybody blind.
The cold calculating method of society putting another human being to death sickens me as much as random murder, at least the latter could say it was something they did in the heat of the moment.
Another tempting idea is that Goverment should do what the majority would vote for on a particular issue such as bringing back hanging, castrating kiddie fiddlers etc.
Over the years then there would be no foreign people allowed to live in the UK, anti-establishment music would be banned, violent films would be banned and everyone would have a free car, pay no tax and do whatever the f**k they liked. And the Royal Family would have to be worshipped.
It doesn't seem good to me

elamanamou wrote:btw. If your a victim or you have a close friend who was brutally raped for seven hours and died two weeks later, I'm bloody sure your views would change completely about corporal punishment and the death penalty!?

Go figure.

no they wouldn't.

seriously.

don't tar me with your own reactionary brush.

and do you ever post anything except stuff that will cause "heated debates"?

in some circles deliberately trying to start online arguments could be seen as trolling.

In my perfect world, if I caught someone deliberatly scratching my car, I would like to chop their f**king hands off. Thankfully law and a civilised society prevent me from doing such things. Thats what they're there for!

elamanamou wrote:How would you react if you had two young children and a paedo lived next door to you?

Oh this is just puerile bullsh*t now. It's not particularly likely to happen, and even if it did, the chances are I wouldn't even f*cking know.

Quiff Boy wrote:

andymackem wrote:Quiff Boy: I know you don't believe in an eye for an eye. I'm not convinced I do either. But I do believe that the majority would support it. Why, in a democracy, can the majority not have what it wants just because your minority thinks otherwise? With respect, you've still not addressed that issue because you've been too busy telling us capital punishment is inherently wrong.

you're right, and to be honest i just don't know. its a tautology or something isnt it?

maybe its about educating the public and changing perceptions and values, and above all stopping them being so god damn f**king stupid (see debaser's post about jane goody etc) so that they can be trusted to make an informed, reasonable, considered decision. because despite what you say about your own opinions being informed and considered etc i just dont think that the majority of the general public work like that. certainly they have done nothing to prove to me that i am wrong in my assumptions

I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but what you've written does sound like you want everyone to educated to think the same way as you.

You can't impose a more tolerant, thoughtful society on the world however much you might wish it.

I'm not convinced we have the right to dismiss them all as being 'f**king stupid'. Why does one person's interest in Jade Goody make them more stupid than your interest in Andrew Eldritch? You may have a low opinion of Big Brother contestants (and I may struggle to disagree with you), but you must recognise that not everyone would share your interests. Personal tastes. Freedom of thought and expression, perhaps?

In respect of the 'what if it was your friend' point, I'd have to reserve judgement. Intellectually I'd like to think I wouldn't be consumed by my anger and hatred. Emotionally, I'm buggered if I know. Hopefully I won't find out.

I'll stop. I'm in danger of sounding even more patronising than usual

andymackem wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:

andymackem wrote:Quiff Boy: I know you don't believe in an eye for an eye. I'm not convinced I do either. But I do believe that the majority would support it. Why, in a democracy, can the majority not have what it wants just because your minority thinks otherwise? With respect, you've still not addressed that issue because you've been too busy telling us capital punishment is inherently wrong.

you're right, and to be honest i just don't know. its a tautology or something isnt it?

maybe its about educating the public and changing perceptions and values, and above all stopping them being so god damn f**king stupid (see debaser's post about jane goody etc) so that they can be trusted to make an informed, reasonable, considered decision. because despite what you say about your own opinions being informed and considered etc i just dont think that the majority of the general public work like that. certainly they have done nothing to prove to me that i am wrong in my assumptions

I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but what you've written does sound like you want everyone to educated to think the same way as you.

You can't impose a more tolerant, thoughtful society on the world however much you might wish it.

I'm not convinced we have the right to dismiss them all as being 'f**king stupid'. Why does one person's interest in Jade Goody make them more stupid than your interest in Andrew Eldritch? You may have a low opinion of Big Brother contestants (and I may struggle to disagree with you), but you must recognise that not everyone would share your interests. Personal tastes. Freedom of thought and expression, perhaps?

In respect of the 'what if it was your friend' point, I'd have to reserve judgement. Intellectually I'd like to think I wouldn't be consumed by my anger and hatred. Emotionally, I'm buggered if I know. Hopefully I won't find out.

I'll stop. I'm in danger of sounding even more patronising than usual

yeah, point taken. i think i'll stop too. not in a good headspace today as regards the general populace.

andymackem wrote:Markfiend: our innocent victim would have had a trial, at which evidence would have been presented. On that basis a 12-strong jury would have reached its verdict and the judge would have taken into account the details of the case before enacting a sentence. Therefore a clear link was established between our victim and the crime. Unfortunately the link may not have existed in reality.

It's not a great system, but it's hard to see any viable means of improving it.

Quiff Boy: I know you don't believe in an eye for an eye. I'm not convinced I do either. But I do believe that the majority would support it. Why, in a democracy, can the majority not have what it wants just because your minority thinks otherwise? With respect, you've still not addressed that issue because you've been too busy telling us capital punishment is inherently wrong.

i read the news today, oh boy

1. getting rid of jury for some cases (money and forensic)

2. only in america, death penalty removed as jury had consulted a higher power i.e. the bible and read leviticus 24

made me laugh anyway

markfiend wrote:

elamanamou wrote:How would you react if you had two young children and a paedo lived next door to you?

Oh this is just puerile bullsh*t now. It's not particularly likely to happen, and even if it did, the chances are I wouldn't even f*cking know.

And that's why the first and most important thing is to speak with your children about these things, make them aware, teach them how to avoid such people, teach them not to trust starngers, and so on. If a child has a good home where it feels safe, and can tell its parents about everything, I think the risk of being harassed is much smaller and serves as much better a "deterrent" (kind of) than death penalty.
I was attacked by a paedo when I was small. I remembered he offered some candy or something if I go with him somewhere. I said okay and pretended to bend over to pick my toys off the ground, picked a stone, hit him with the stone anr run away as fast as I could screeching as loud as I could. He didn't chase me, he run away too.
God knows what I'd have done if my good granny (RIP) hadn't told me what to do if a stranger adult pretends to want to make friends.
Cause let's face it most paedos don't take their victims by pure physical force, do they.
And it's similar with rapes. Some of them happen out of the blue and there's nothing you can do to avoid it, but most hapen in certain circumstances which you can avoid.
As for death penalty, of course I'm all against it. Then again if someone did harm to my cat, I'd chop them to pieces with great pleasure, without a trial, and without a proper sentence. It was illustrated very well in "Eight Millimeter", wasn't it. I mean, the victim (or those who truly cared for the victim in case the victim is dead) are the only party to have the last word and decide whether to take revenge or forgive, according to their conscience. In an ideal world. In the not so ideal one, we have courts of law.

andymackem wrote:


You can't impose a more tolerant, thoughtful society on the world however much you might wish it.

But we can impose a more intolerant one? I for one will never agree to the 'lynch mob' mentality and if the general consensus is that we should bring back the death penalty, I'd seriously have to consider moving.

To bring together the two "major issues" of this thread: No penalty whatsoever could keep a child molester off, because his sexual urge will, at a given moment, terminate his rational thought (got the quote? ) and overcome every deterrent imposed from society. Most of these people have a profound personality disorder with a lack of pulsion control.
Now we can enter the discourse about killing mentally ill people. I guess the majority would love that, wouldnt they, Andymackem?

canon docre wrote:How can you show that it is wrong to kill people by killing people?

on reflection, possibly one could argue that for serial killers (DNA etc.. considered) that a true lifer is already dead. And now we enter the discourse on euthanasia (accepting that to the masses it might be seen as the easy way out )

Canon Docre: I've no idea. It's never cropped up in any of the debates about law and order that I've found myself involved in.

Sadly you could well be right - I'm fairly confident there would be significant support for allowing mentally ill people less integration into society, but that's an instinctive guess without no substance to back it up.

Which brings me neatly to my next point: I've consistently argued that there is majority support for a return to capital punishment, but have provided no supporting evidence for this.

It's interesting, therefore, that nobody has sought to challenge that premise. I'm trying not to draw conclusions

As for your idea that no penalty could stop a child molester, that may be true in the first instance. But a permanent penalty on conviction (which could be life imprisonment, or execution among others) would prevent re-offending.

andymackeem:

It's interesting, therefore, that nobody has sought to challenge that premise. I'm trying not to draw conclusions

I thought about that as well, but came to the conclusion, this must be a given fact, as it is in this thread so much common sense and was never questioned. In addition, I choosed to swallow down any instigating commentaries, to avoid ugly replies about the war.
(I just changed my holiday plans silently.... )

andymackem:

As for your idea that no penalty could stop a child molester, that may be true in the first instance. But a permanent penalty on conviction (which could be life imprisonment, or execution among others) would prevent re-offending.

This opens up another discussion. IMHO, the re-offendings caused by too early institutional release of sexual deviants is due to the fact, that certain forensic psychiatrists need to prove that the yearlong internments actually produced some improvements, solely to keep their own branch busy. I doubt, that in some cases there can be achieved an improvement at all. Still no reason to kill 'em all.

Mrs RicheyJames wrote: Perhaps it was consensual. Isn't the law there for a reason? These boys were STILL underage. They are CHILDREN and the law is there to protect them. He's still a paedo in my eyes and should not be out of prison.

Lets hang everyone who has ever had underage sex...

Dream Weaver wrote:

Mrs RicheyJames wrote: Perhaps it was consensual. Isn't the law there for a reason? These boys were STILL underage. They are CHILDREN and the law is there to protect them. He's still a paedo in my eyes and should not be out of prison.

Lets hang everyone who has ever had underage sex...

Thanks, you've just eradicated about 98% of my school.

canon docre wrote:I m not familiar with this old pervert. On which circumstance is the term "pop mogul" based on?

"Una Paloma Blanca"

Apparantly.

Rivers wrote:I think that if the death penalty was re-introduced it would cheapen our value of life. Although tempting, an eye for an eye society ends up with everybody blind.
The cold calculating method of society putting another human being to death sickens me as much as random murder, at least the latter could say it was something they did in the heat of the moment.
Another tempting idea is that Goverment should do what the majority would vote for on a particular issue such as bringing back hanging, castrating kiddie fiddlers etc.
Over the years then there would be no foreign people allowed to live in the UK, anti-establishment music would be banned, violent films would be banned and everyone would have a free car, pay no tax and do whatever the f**k they liked. And the Royal Family would have to be worshipped.
It doesn't seem good to me

Sound arguments. The hysteria about paedophilia does, however, have some basis in peoples quite understandable altruism towards their children. In a nutshell, it's hard to be objective when you are a parent.

We live in a society based on exploitation and paedophilia is a neat refelction of the particular heart of darkness at the heart of our culture. We know it's rarely the cream that rise to the top these days and given that the qualities one really needs to "suceed" are amorality, ruthlessness and an eye for the other guys weakness is it any wonder the likes of Jackson and King turn out to be THAT WAY ?

Set against that peoples general sense of ennui and helplessness in the face of mickey mouse, commercial / corporate exploitation one wonders if peoples reaction is not merely misplaced ? As such the exposure of these aforementioned persons may contribute to people putting two and two together.

It's not some chap in a raincoat who lives over the local Netto. It is, and always has been those with power who tend to abuse it.

Blimety. I've gone cross eyed.

Debaser wrote:

andymackem wrote:


You can't impose a more tolerant, thoughtful society on the world however much you might wish it.

But we can impose a more intolerant one? I for one will never agree to the 'lynch mob' mentality and if the general consensus is that we should bring back the death penalty, I'd seriously have to consider moving.

As a matter of interest, to where would you consider going?

Which nation, society or culture do you believe is a bastion of enlightened thought and attitude?

The reason the lynch mob exists (and it exists within every one of us somewhere, if the buttons are pressed in a certain sequence) is because we are human beings.

Vengeance, rightly or wrongly, is a fundamental part of what we are. We remain tribal, fiercely loyal to those we perceive as 'our own' and basically hostile to those we perceive as a threat to 'our way'.

I don't believe you can find a human society where this issue won't recur in some form ... but I'd love to hear of the Shangri-La you're seeking. Good luck!

very well put Mr. mackem