Baby Peter Connelly

[Nosferatu]

My question is really about how the State can then decide to kill the murderers. If murder is wrong then to me it seems rather hypocritical to then kill others who kill.

 

I don't really understand the whole 'rehabilitation' stuff in respect of prisons. It isn't exactly the environment to 'rehabilitate'. But those who are a certain danger to others need to kept apart, not for punishment but for society's safety.

It might not be right to kill them either but would you rather pay a few quid for a bullet and the fee for the guy pulling the trigger or see these scum leech off your taxes for the next x years .

How about just dumping them in the middle of the arctic during polar bear breeding time they can fend for themselves and let nature take its course . Only the cost of a flight to the arctic and suitable clothing such as this nice coat that the bloke is wearing . Then we have no major costs and a bit of extra food for the bears in these times of climate change .

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It might not be right to kill them either but would you rather pay a few quid for a bullet and the fee for the guy pulling the trigger or see these scum leech off your taxes for the next x years .

How about just dumping them in the middle of the arctic during polar bear breeding time they can fend for themselves and let nature take its course . Only the cost of a flight to the arctic then and a bit of extra food for the bears in these times of climate change .

 

Well firstly I would want no connection (such as funding) for them to be killed. And although society (as a whole) would probably be better off without them and not miss their death I cannot condone the ending of their life as a means of removing 'unwanted' aspects of society.

 

I recognise that the paying of taxes is to some degree acceptable given that these people are the same society that has led to their development as such awful people. It is the price incurred for accepting such a society. But when we are talking millions it just seems to highlight a massive problem with how justice is not perceived to be done in these cases and how we deal with such people. Seems very messed up.

 

I suppose it is a fact that someone will do something stupid and attack these people if they found out who they are. But is this any other way around it?

 

Polar bear breeding time, that made me giggle.

[Nosferatu]

Well firstly I would want no connection (such as funding) for them to be killed. And although society (as a whole) would probably be better off without them and not miss their death I cannot condone the ending of their life as a means of removing 'unwanted' aspects of society.

 

I recognise that the paying of taxes is to some degree acceptable given that these people are the same society that has led to their development as such awful people. It is the price incurred for accepting such a society. But when we are talking millions it just seems to highlight a massive problem with how justice is not perceived to be done in these cases and how we deal with such people. Seems very messed up.

 

I suppose it is a fact that someone will do something stupid and attack these people if they found out who they are. But is this any other way around it?

 

Polar bear breeding time, that made me giggle.

You would be indirectly funding their death by paying tax , however in the grand scheme of things it would be a much smaller amount than the millions pissed away on keeping them jailed for life or changing of identities .

They probably will be attacked in jail and very possibly if they are released . They would stand a much greater chance of being attacked if there was no segregation , maybe we should let nature take it's course in that way .

Or put them to good use clearing land mines in africa or vietnam , ok one man one mine is a pretty poor clearence rate but if other countries caught on it would make a difference .

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You would be indirectly funding their death by paying tax

 

Well yes, I don't see capital punishment as being justifiable. Or it isn't to me anyway.

[Vulgarian]

It's whether we want a retributive or rehabilitative justice system. My natural reaction to how these people should be treated is frankly to do away with them in a most painful way, but that would achieve very little except to remove them cheaply and efficiently from society and prevent them reoffending.

 

However, i don't believe that the state has to right to murder its citizens for any reason. As LDV has pointed out, these people are products of the society that we have created and enjoin in and so we must take some of the responsibility when they commit crimes. Then we must remove them from society immediately to prevent them doing any further harm, and then look to their possible rehabilitation. What we actually do is put them in prison, where their chances of improving their social conscience are nil. If there is no hope of rehabilitation then what can we do but detain them indefinately, whatever the fiscal cost of that might be?

 

If they are deemed fit for release and the state releases them into a situation where they are in danger of their lives from people looking for retribution, then that is tantamount to murder anyway. The government has a duty to protect them, and if that involves paying for their continued safety then that's what they must do.

 

In this case though, the rehabilitation of the offenders seems extremely unlikely, and i think it would be better that they are never released.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In this case though, the rehabilitation of the offenders seems extremely unlikely, and i think it would be better that they are never released.

 

It would be if they are to remain a certain threat to society. I don't know their situation, I don't know if 'rehabilitation' is even a useful or appropriate term. They appear to harbour some extreme anti-social views and behaviours.

[bellyup]

Why is there no problem at all?

In a case such as this where the convicted are habitual re-offenders of violent and horrific crimes and there is absolutely no doubt that they are guilty why the hell should we spend £££££ keeping them in prison and supposedley trying to rehabilitate them for release . No amount of counselling or any other psychobabble bollocks is going to change the fucked up minds of these bastards so I would have no problem seeing them shot .

 

My question is really about how the State can then decide to kill the murderers. If murder is wrong then to me it seems rather hypocritical to then kill others who kill.

 

I don't really understand the whole 'rehabilitation' stuff in respect of prisons. It isn't exactly the environment to 'rehabilitate'. But those who are a certain danger to others need to kept apart, not for punishment but for society's safety.

 

Why not for punishment?

These are adult sadists who tortured a helpless baby.

Judicial retribution is not murder.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Why not for punishment?

These are adult sadists who tortured a helpless baby.

 

It is a rather purposeless punishment really. And it doesn't matter who it is and what they have done. If taking a life is wrong then you can't take another to make people feel a bit better about it all.

 

Judicial retribution is not murder.

 

I think it is. And whose retribution is it really?

[Vulgarian]

In this case though, the rehabilitation of the offenders seems extremely unlikely, and i think it would be better that they are never released.

 

It would be if they are to remain a certain threat to society. I don't know their situation, I don't know if 'rehabilitation' is even a useful or appropriate term. They appear to harbour some extreme anti-social views and behaviours.

 

I think rehabilitation is possible with most people who are not mentally ill, but not the way we are doing it now. To detain them in the company of other offenders, offer little in the way of constructive or meaningful work, and then release them to live in the same circumstances they started in and probably caused their problems, with no prospect of work is hardly going to improve someone with anti-social views or behaviour.

[Nosferatu]

It's whether we want a retributive or rehabilitative justice system. My natural reaction to how these people should be treated is frankly to do away with them in a most painful way, but that would achieve very little except to remove them cheaply and efficiently from society and prevent them reoffending.

 

However, i don't believe that the state has to right to murder its citizens for any reason. As LDV has pointed out, these people are products of the society that we have created and enjoin in and so we must take some of the responsibility when they commit crimes. Then we must remove them from society immediately to prevent them doing any further harm, and then look to their possible rehabilitation. What we actually do is put them in prison, where their chances of improving their social conscience are nil. If there is no hope of rehabilitation then what can we do but detain them indefinately, whatever the fiscal cost of that might be?

 

If they are deemed fit for release and the state releases them into a situation where they are in danger of their lives from people looking for retribution, then that is tantamount to murder anyway. The government has a duty to protect them, and if that involves paying for their continued safety then that's what they must do.

 

In this case though, the rehabilitation of the offenders seems extremely unlikely, and i think it would be better that they are never released.

I don't think society is entirely to blame for the way these fuckers have turned out . There have been horrible murdering bastards throughout history and at all levels of the social ladder .

Lets have a look at this example

Herr X was born in Munich to a Roman Catholic Bavarian middle-class family. His father was Joseph Gebhard X, a secondary-school teacher and principal of the prestigious Wittelsbacher Gymnasium , His mother was Anna Maria X(maiden name Heyder), a devout Roman Catholic. He had an older brother, Gebhard Ludwig X, who was born on 29 July 1898, and a younger brother, Ernst Hermann X , born on 23 December 1905.

 

X was named after his godfather, Prince X of Bavaria of the royal family of Bavaria, who was tutored by Gebhard X.[7] In 1910, X attended Gymnasium in Landshut, where he studied classic literature. X's father, the principal, sent him to spy on and punish other pupils. His father even called him a born criminal. While he struggled in athletics, he did well in his schoolwork. Also, at the behest of his father, X kept a diary from age 10 until age 24. He enjoyed chess, harpsichord, stamp collecting, and gardening. Throughout X’s youth and into adulthood, he was never at ease in interactions with women.

 

X’s diaries (1914-1918) show that he was extremely interested in war news. He implored his father to use his royal connections to obtain an officer candidate position for him. His parents eventually gave in, allowing him to train (upon graduation from secondary school in 1918) with the 11th Bavarian Regiment. Since he was not athletic, he struggled throughout his military training. In 1918 the war ended with Germany's defeat, thus ending X's aspirations of becoming a professional army officer.

 

So all told we have a lad who comes from a quite well to do family , slightly spoilt perhaps but certainly no hardships as such , yet even at a young age his father notices him to be a bit different . Fairly innoccuous up til now .

 

In his diaries he claimed to be a devout Catholic, and wrote that he would never turn away from the Church. However, he was a member of a fraternity (and later the Thule Society) and felt both associations to be at odds with the tenets of the Church. Biographers have defined X’s theology as Ariosophy, his own religious dogma of racial superiority of the Aryan race and Germanic Meso-Paganism, developed partly from his interpretations of folklore and mythology of the ancient Teutonic tribes of Northern Europe. During this time he was again obsessed with the idea of becoming a soldier. He wrote that if Germany did not soon go to war, he would go to another country to seek battle.

Ok starting to look a bit more sinister now , but so far other than racism still nothing stand out alarming .

What I'm getting at is that Herr X would appear to be from a very stable family , no mention of abuse etc , in some ways a decent member of society with some pretty relaxing and harmless hobbies . If he were alive today and brought up in the same manner he would probably be a university graduate with decent grades and probably have a very respectable job , you wouldn't expect him to do anything untowards .

Oh dear our nice Herr X falls in with a bit of a bad crowd .

Time to unveil our subject

 

His father understated that one a bit .

 

It is easy to say that it is societies fault , unemployment , poor living conditions , abuse as a child etc etc . By that reckoning however if it is society that created these monsters then also it is societies duty to remove them . There is no point in issuing utterly meaningless jail terms when the cunts are likely to be released without serving the full term . Life should mean exactly that .

How much money do you try and pour into things to try and improve them , you could pour the entire budget into it and you still wouldn't achieve a thing other than emptying the banks of money . Society isn't at fault , human nature is .

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In his diaries he claimed to be a devout Catholic, and wrote that he would never turn away from the Church. However, he was a member of a fraternity (and later the Thule Society) and felt both associations to be at odds with the tenets of the Church. Biographers have defined X’s theology as Ariosophy, his own religious dogma of racial superiority of the Aryan race and Germanic Meso-Paganism, developed partly from his interpretations of folklore and mythology of the ancient Teutonic tribes of Northern Europe. During this time he was again obsessed with the idea of becoming a soldier. He wrote that if Germany did not soon go to war, he would go to another country to seek battle.

Ok starting to look a bit more sinister now , but so far other than racism still nothing stand out alarming .

What I'm getting at is that Herr X would appear to be from a very stable family , no mention of abuse etc , in some ways a decent member of society with some pretty relaxing and harmless hobbies . If he were alive today and brought up in the same manner he would probably be a university graduate with decent grades and probably have a very respectable job , you wouldn't expect him to do anything untowards .

Oh dear our nice Herr X falls in with a bit of a bad crowd .

Time to unveil our subject

 

His father understated that one a bit .

 

Nobody said it is all society's fault. The individual does have a lot of responsibility. They know right from wrong.

 

Giving the history of Himmler, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein for example is going to explain why they are who they are in respect of the influence of society. Why do you think a stable family and abuse are all that seemingly matter? Through the very process of a person growing up they form their identity and their understanding of a place in the world through their interaction with others - their society. It is quite likely that Himmler would have been a completely different person had he grown up in Sulby and was born in the 1980s for example. But nobody is saying it is as deterministic as having traumatic or very negative experiences or circumstances.

 

It is easy to say that it is societies fault , unemployment , poor living conditions , abuse as a child etc etc . By that reckoning however if it is society that created these monsters then also it is societies duty to remove them . There is no point in issuing utterly meaningless jail terms when the cunts are likely to be released without serving the full term . Life should mean exactly that .

How much money do you try and pour into things to try and improve them , you could pour the entire budget into it and you still wouldn't achieve a thing other than emptying the banks of money . Society isn't at fault , human nature is .

 

I don't see how you come to this reckoning, though that is the way things are dealt with in society - the police, intelligence services, and in some cases the military take the role of the perpetual cleaners or binmen of society. They just exist to make sure that the problems caused by capitalism and state authority are swept under the carpet, hidden, or individually destroyed but the problem never goes away.

 

We are talking about other human beings here, they aren't REALLY monsters. If society has created them then that same society is deserving of the crime it is affected by. Now you seem to be implying that you don't deal with the problem but the result of the problem - kill the individual. But what will society generate next? Someone worse maybe?

 

Human nature? Explain that one please. I am not even sure it exists.

[Nosferatu]

Nobody said it is all society's fault. The individual does have a lot of responsibility. They know right from wrong.

 

Giving the history of Himmler, Hitler, or Saddam Hussein for example is going to explain why they are who they are in respect of the influence of society. Why do you think a stable family and abuse are all that seemingly matter? Through the very process of a person growing up they form their identity and their understanding of a place in the world through their interaction with others - their society. It is quite likely that Himmler would have been a completely different person had he grown up in Sulby and was born in the 1980s for example. But nobody is saying it is as deterministic as having traumatic or very negative experiences or circumstances.

 

I don't see how you come to this reckoning, though that is the way things are dealt with in society - the police, intelligence services, and in some cases the military take the role of the perpetual cleaners or binmen of society. They just exist to make sure that the problems caused by capitalism and state authority are swept under the carpet, hidden, or individually destroyed but the problem never goes away.

 

We are talking about other human beings here, they aren't REALLY monsters. If society has created them then that same society is deserving of the crime it is affected by. Now you seem to be implying that you don't deal with the problem but the result of the problem - kill the individual. But what will society generate next? Someone worse maybe?

 

Human nature? Explain that one please. I am not even sure it exists.

I'm not going to enter an argument about capitalism as a cause for this sort of thing , some of the biggest mass murders in history have occured under the banner of communism . If you take away government and state authority and resort to anarchy how long do you think child abusers and murderers would last then ?

I picked up on the abuse , poor family conditions bit in particular because it is often mentioned as a root cause . By no means do I see it as a definite indicator of things .

If society truly isn't to blame for some of these people then I believe my argument stands as nothing you can do will change them so killing them or imprisoning them indefinitely does bring about a result as they will most definitely not re-offend.

Human nature in my opinion is an evolution from animal instinct coupled with sets of morals etc. Eg women getting broody if one of their group of friends has a baby and even to pick from one of the other topics the fact that people are all drawn to various physical aspects of others . Or even things such as the different things people would do if they found a £20 note lying in the street , how many would hand it in compared to the number that would pocket it .

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not going to enter an argument about capitalism as a cause for this sort of thing , some of the biggest mass murders in history have occured under the banner of communism . If you take away government and state authority and resort to anarchy how long do you think child abusers and murderers would last then ?

 

Do you want to enter into a discussion or not? In terms of communism, are you referring to the state killings of citizens? It is of a very different quality to what we are talking about here. Some sort of structure would have to be established in such an anarchy to evaluate the person's risk to society, i.e. whether they present a persistent danger. And then have them placed in secure units for separation from society, not for punishment but for everyone's protection. And this only for those who really cannot be helped.

 

If society truly isn't to blame for some of these people then I believe my argument stands as nothing you can do will change them so killing them or imprisoning them indefinitely does bring about a result as they will most definitely not re-offend.

 

Society is largely to blame, but like I said, not completely. Personal responsibility is important. Okay, so you don't want them to re-offend when they really would offend again, the only answer would be to have them imprisoned - not in a gaol, but in some secured home. Killing would certainly prevent them being a threat, but you can't do that.

 

Human nature in my opinion is an evolution from animal instinct coupled with sets of morals etc. Eg women getting broody if one of their group of friends has a baby and even to pick from one of the other topics the fact that people are all drawn to various physical aspects of others . Or even things such as the different things people would do if they found a £20 note lying in the street , how many would hand it in compared to the number that would pocket it .

 

I am a bit unsure of the idea of morality being given the term 'human nature'. But how do you think human nature fits into this?

[Nosferatu]

Do you want to enter into a discussion or not? In terms of communism, are you referring to the state killings of citizens? It is of a very different quality to what we are talking about here. Some sort of structure would have to be established in such an anarchy to evaluate the person's risk to society, i.e. whether they present a persistent danger. And then have them placed in secure units for separation from society, not for punishment but for everyone's protection. And this only for those who really cannot be helped.

Society is largely to blame, but like I said, not completely. Personal responsibility is important. Okay, so you don't want them to re-offend when they really would offend again, the only answer would be to have them imprisoned - not in a gaol, but in some secured home. Killing would certainly prevent them being a threat, but you can't do that.

 

I am a bit unsure of the idea of morality being given the term 'human nature'. But how do you think human nature fits into this?

Structured anarchy with somebody deciding who poses a risk ? Interesting definition of anarchy that one .

A secure unit in which somebody is imprisoned that isn't a jail ? Other than secure psychiatric units I can't really see the difference between secure unit and jail .

I'm not saying that morality on its own makes up human nature I suggested that animal instincts coupled with morals would be my definition of human nature . Why is it relevant here ? Society in general finds infanticide utterly abhorrent yet here we have 3 individuals that went totally the other way so it was something within in them from the start hence my earlier mention of Himmler and the reference his own father made to him being born criminal . It was in their nature . Society or circumstance may act as a trigger but I don't think it can be blamed .

[Addie]

One simple question, to bring things back to Baby Peter.

 

How do you think, had he survived the years of torture, he would have turned out?

 

Would that little boy have turned into a clone of his persecutors?

 

That's what we need to stop, at the very root, don't we? Before his life is broken and he, in his turn, breaks other lives.

 

Punishing 20+ years down the line, although necessary, benefits no-one.