Jacka$$ Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Evil is Evil, i don't think age matters. You can't simply grow out of being evil. I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 i agreed with the 1999 ruling at the European Court of Human Rights that they should not have been tried in an adult court, everybody deserves a second chance! Compare this to perpetrators of Mass Genocide who have never been tried! Looks like he's had his second chance ... and fucked that up too. Sorry -born evil and that's it - all you liberal bleeding hearts harping on about rehabilitation may choke on your words next week as the true story breaks. My guess is it has to be a serious current crime as release of his name (which Jack Straw won't do) would prejudice a jury and lead to claims of an unfair trial in the knowledge that he was a child murderer. Look for a big recent event were the perpetrator was a 27 year old male. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 "evil" is a religious concept and therefore entirely irrelevant. I agree, or just a word for very bad acts. I don't know what 'Somewhatdamaged' is referring to though and why he thinks he is right. Sorry -born evil and that's it - all you liberal bleeding hearts harping on about rehabilitation may choke on your words next week as the true story breaks.Born evil? I don't think so. No evidence to show people are born to do bad things. It isn't a bleeding heart outlook to think they should be offered help. Better that than writing-off people because they have done somewhat horrifying and thinking they cannot do good again or be a part of society. Why would people choke on their words? I don't see why they would at all. There could be many factors that led them to breach their conditions. But we can't comment until we know the breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 My guess is it has to be a serious current crime as release of his name (which Jack Straw won't do) would prejudice a jury and lead to claims of an unfair trial in the knowledge that he was a child murderer. Look for a big recent event were the perpetrator was a 27 year old male. Complete speculation. For all you know he could have just gone to Liverpool, or been caught in possession of drugs - that's all it would take. And they won't release his new secret name for the same reason they've never released his new secret name - it's a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right-Wing Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Surely this is a classic case for bringing back the death penalty? Why should these people be allowed to live while their victim is dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 No...it isn't a 'classic' case of anything. What your talking about is just an outlook based on nothing more than exacting revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Surely this is a classic case for bringing back the death penalty? Why should these people be allowed to live while their victim is dead? Yeah, that makes sense. Killing is wrong. You killed so I will kill you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 My guess is it has to be a serious current crime as release of his name (which Jack Straw won't do) would prejudice a jury and lead to claims of an unfair trial in the knowledge that he was a child murderer. Look for a big recent event were the perpetrator was a 27 year old male. Complete speculation. For all you know he could have just gone to Liverpool, or been caught in possession of drugs - that's all it would take. And they won't release his new secret name for the same reason they've never released his new secret name - it's a secret. To quote the Home Secretary on the evening news defending why they cannot name him ... "[We] must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings". Looks like the political shit is hitting the fan on this one - so there are categorically future criminal proceedings that also require incarceration post trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Maybe because popular and foolish opinion would argue that they should never have been released or that they were too EVIL to be set loose in society. But the politicians are not fools. They may have to pander to stupid people and their arguments because they need support (votes) but they wouldn't truly regret the decision or think it was a bad decision to make in letting them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Maybe because popular and foolish opinion would argue that they should never have been released or that they were too EVIL to be set loose in society. But the politicians are not fools. They may have to pander to stupid people and their arguments because they need support (votes) but they wouldn't truly regret the decision or think it was a bad decision to make in letting them out. You are incredibly full of shit. You must be fit to burst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right-Wing Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Surely this is a classic case for bringing back the death penalty? Why should these people be allowed to live while their victim is dead? Yeah, that makes sense. Killing is wrong. You killed so I will kill you. Sorry I can't believe I was so stupid. They killed someone innocent, but actually what is fair, is that they are given a two month sentance, which is cut to 4 hours for good behaviour (and crowded prisons) and actually there's a really good chance that they could turn out to be a really good member of society. Actually probably when they were sentanced, they probably thought, oops I did wrong, from now onwards I'll be good. Job done, a few hours in jail = reformed character. These people will probably go on to be contributing members of society? Or alternatively in the real world, we could save ourselves a lot of time and just terminate them? Contribute or sling your hook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 All you've said is something about them being evil and implying that they had a course of rehabilitation, which has failed, and that it has failed because they couldn't be rehabilitised. Where the evidence? What sort of 'rehab' did they get? What makes you so absolutely sure that they are this thing of BEING evil? What makes you sure that some benevolent intervention of whatever kind can put people on the right track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 All you've said is something about them being evil and implying that they had a course of rehabilitation, which has failed, and that it has failed because they couldn't be rehabilitised. Where the evidence? I have a feeling that the evidence that rehabilitation often does not work will be on the front page of the News of the World by Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right-Wing Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 All you've said is something about them being evil and implying that they had a course of rehabilitation, which has failed, and that it has failed because they couldn't be rehabilitised. Where the evidence? What sort of 'rehab' did they get? What makes you so absolutely sure that they are this thing of BEING evil? What makes you sure that some benevolent intervention of whatever kind can put people on the right track? I think you only need to read what they did to realise that they are evil. I think the only argument is, when faced with evil should you eliminate it, or try to rectify it? Personally I'd lock them up forever and put them all into hard labour building a long railway somewhere, doing something that was of more value to society than anything else that they'd ever done, or kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I have a feeling that the evidence that rehabilitation often does not work will be on the front page of the News of the World by Sunday. Something appearing in a paper (whether trashy or not) isn't evidence. I quite agree though that some of the papers will probably pick it up and ASK why they were ever released (the problem being them) or that 'rehabilitation' (whatever that is supposed to mean) did not work (which is an issue with the system). And I do think that rehabilitation does not work well, which is not to say that people cannot change or learn from their mistakes, etc. I think you only need to read what they did to realise that they are evil. I think the only argument is, when faced with evil should you eliminate it, or try to rectify it? Personally I'd lock them up forever and put them all into hard labour building a long railway somewhere, doing something that was of more value to society than anything else that they'd ever done, or kill them.I'd call what they did 'evil'. And they were extremely bad, nasty, or call it evil people for doing that. But I don't know if they are that NOW. What makes you think that they could not contribute to society in another way, if that is what you issue with (which I don't think it really is? But yes, rectify the problem - locking people up doesn't rectify things and nobody can legitimately claim to end their lives on revenge mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.