Schoolboy killer sentenced to life imprisonment

[Ceaseless Change]

Is turfing them out onto the street enlightened policy or cheap?

Depends if they reoffend or not doesn't it.....

[woolley]

 

Is turfing them out onto the street enlightened policy or cheap?

Depends if they reoffend or not doesn't it.....

 

That's when it can get expensive. But in life and limb, not in financial terms.

[Ceaseless Change]

 

 

 

Is turfing them out onto the street enlightened policy or cheap?

Depends if they reoffend or not doesn't it.....

That's when it can get expensive. But in life and limb, not in financial terms.

It's more expensive in financial terms too. Healthcare costs, judicial processes, the economic harm of crime and criminal damage and lost productivity etc.

 

Letting people out who aren't reformed (for serious crimes at least) costs us more than keeping them locked up does.

[woolley]

They keep on doing it though. They never learn. Maybe those who make the decisions are not usually the ones who reap the whirlwind.

[Ceaseless Change]

They keep on doing it though. They never learn. Maybe those who make the decisions are not usually the ones who reap the whirlwind.

That's true for a few prisoners, but not all, and maybe not even most. You can't treat everyone who has ever broken the law as irredeemable, not least because it's simply not true. And that's not me being a bleeding heart liberal, it's just bloody obvious. If you've never met someone who broke the law and realised it was a mistake they had no intention of repeating, then you just aren't trying.

[woolley]

 

They keep on doing it though. They never learn. Maybe those who make the decisions are not usually the ones who reap the whirlwind.

That's true for a few prisoners, but not all, and maybe not even most. You can't treat everyone who has ever broken the law as irredeemable, not least because it's simply not true. And that's not me being a bleeding heart liberal, it's just bloody obvious. If you've never met someone who broke the law and realised it was a mistake they had no intention of repeating, then you just aren't trying.

 

Well, there's breaking the law and there's breaking the law, isn't there. I wouldn't hang anyone for smashing up a bus shelter or stealing a loaf of bread believe it or not.

[Ceaseless Change]

Well, there's breaking the law and there's breaking the law, isn't there. I wouldn't hang anyone for smashing up a bus shelter or stealing a loaf of bread believe it or not.

So you think some crimes should be a mandatory death sentence, no matter the circumstances, but not others?

 

Which ones?

[woolley]

Murder. Terrorism (the act of, but not just for thinking about it, or playing around on the internet).

[Ceaseless Change]

Murder. Terrorism (the act of, but not just for thinking about it, or playing around on the internet).

And how do you handle the inevitable execution of people you subsequently find out were actually innocent?

 

Just chalk it up to the cost of living in a civilised society?

[Ceaseless Change]

Murder. Terrorism (the act of, but not just for thinking about it, or playing around on the internet).

And what about a woman who murders a husband who has been abusing and raping her for years, or her children?

 

Or terrorist attacks by the state (e.g. MI6, CIA) against civilian populations, e.g. follow up drone strikes where you are deliberately targeting those who rush to help the survivors of the first drone strike?

[woolley]

Your first paragraph: If you hadn't noticed, this world has shades of grey. Nothing is black and white. The sentence would not be mandatory. It would depend on the circumstances. In the case you cite, I would not even bring charges. I would see her in the same light as your earlier example of assassinating Saddam Hussein to avoid the greater evil.

 

Your second paragraph: Terror attacks by the state - could you give an example please for consideration? Drone strikes etc. I assume we are on foreign territory so these I would leave to those to the military justice system.

 

Your previous post: I think several of us answered this point earlier. There are plenty of cases where we can be 100% certain nowadays particularly with modern forensics, so the risk is very small. Far smaller, I would venture, than the risk of releasing criminals to repeat the worst of offences against the innocent. I understand your concern for the innocent, truly I do, but where is your concern for the innocent victims of all of the subsequent crimes we see by the "rehabilitated, no longer a danger" fraternity?

[Ceaseless Change]

Your first paragraph: If you hadn't noticed, this world has shades of grey. Nothing is black and white. The sentence would not be mandatory. It would depend on the circumstances. In the case you cite, I would not even bring charges. I would see her in the same light as your earlier example of assassinating Saddam Hussein to avoid the greater evil.

I thought that was pretty cheeky. I've been challenging you on the shades of grey all this time, whilst you've been proclaiming summary executions as the cure to societies ills. I'm glad you've changed your tune.

 

Of course 'depends on the circumstances' opens pandoras box, doesn't it? Which you've been trying to avoid - the messy reality.

 

Your previous post: I think several of us answered this point earlier. There are plenty of cases where we can be 100% certain nowadays particularly with modern forensics, so the risk is very small. Far smaller, I would venture, than the risk of releasing criminals to repeat the worst of offences against the innocent. I understand your concern for the innocent, truly I do, but where is your concern for the innocent victims of all of the subsequent crimes we see by the "rehabilitated, no longer a danger" fraternity?

Several of you CLAIMED you could be 100% certain. I thought TBT pretty thoroughly exposed that for naive optimism. Weren't you listening?

 

As for claiming yet again that I have no concern for the innocent victims of released criminals, yet AGAIN you are being egregiously offensive. You have no idea of what i've been through, and FYI it did involve an unrehabilitated criminal. I know all too well the cost, so you can shove that up your....

 

You are arguing in circles. You are saying that there is no such thing as a rehabilitated criminal, and therefore nobody should ever be released. I am saying that if a criminal HAS been rehabilitated, then release them once they have served their minimum. You are saying that means I don't care about their future victims - but that only makes sense if you think that they haven't in fact been rehabilitated! It is a circular argument. You are assuming the premise.

 

When I say release them if they have been rehabilitated, I mean literally that. I mean, they have genuinely been rehabilitated, as far as professional specialists have been able to tell, beyond reasonable doubt you might say. In which case BY DEFINITION that person would be a very low risk of reoffending. And so when you say "all of the subsequent crimes we see by the "rehabilitated, no longer a danger" fraternity" you are just talking shit - you are begging the question. If you go on to reoffend BY DEFINITION you were not rehabilitated.

 

If you believe nobody can be rehabilitated, ever, then for gods sake just say so, so we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

 

If you don't think that, then grow up and discuss it like an adult instead of being so insensitive.

[Albert Tatlock]

 

Murder. Terrorism (the act of, but not just for thinking about it, or playing around on the internet).

And how do you handle the inevitable execution of people you subsequently find out were actually innocent?Just chalk it up to the cost of living in a civilised society?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. ...blah blah

[woolley]

Ceaseless Change: I haven't changed my tune at all. Punishment should always fit the crime. I never said there were no shades of grey. Don't know where you got that idea. You are the one trying to avoid the messy reality. The messy reality I am concerned about here is that of innocent blood on the streets and how to minimise it.

 

I stick by "plenty of cases where you can be 100% certain." I was actually listening to TBT but then he went off into flights of fancy about identical twins and such nonsense, so I lost interest. Not credible IMO. If in doubt, then of course, don't convict or bring a lesser charge in the first place.

 

You keep accusing me of being offensive when you are the one accusing me of being a nazi sympathiser, wanting to execute "our children", telling me I need to get my head examined, I'm an idiot, I'm talking shit, I'm not living in the real world, I can shove it up my etc, etc. I assure you that I can teach you nothing about being offensive. You are extremely good at it, but of course in your world I'm the insensitive one. I suggest you look in the mirror on that one and as for growing up and discussing it like an adult, that is difficult when debating with one who makes little sense and frequently becomes strident (see above).

 

I did not say you had no concern for innocent victims, incidentally. I assumed you would have from what you have written. I asked you where that concern was. I still wonder what form that takes and I note you didn't answer.

 

Release and rehabilitation is not a circular argument. You can never be sure of rehabilitation success, and it is a much less precise science nowadays than the avoidance of mistaken identity that you and TBT are so concerned about.

Quote: When I say release them if they have been rehabilitated, I mean literally that. I mean, they have genuinely been rehabilitated, as far as professional specialists have been able to tell, beyond reasonable doubt you might say. In which case BY DEFINITION that person would be a very low risk of reoffending. And so when you say "all of the subsequent crimes we see by the "rehabilitated, no longer a danger" fraternity" you are just talking shit - you are begging the question. If you go on to reoffend BY DEFINITION you were not rehabilitated. Semantics and I'm sure you know it. I put the "rehabilitated, no longer a danger" in inverted commas advisedly. It is precisely my point that although they were judged to be safe, evidently they weren't. Professional specialists, eh? No consolation to the person lying in a pool of blood on the street or in their home is it? Oh dear. Looks like he wasn't rehabilitated after all. Sorry. These things happen. Is that good enough for you? It's not good enough for me.

 

This business about mistaken identity is in any case off at a tangent to the crux of the matter. It seems to me that you do not feel that the state should execute anyone no matter what, even if the crime was heinous and the identity was a cast iron certainty. You and TBT are hiding that behind all of these other side issues. If you are saying it should never be done whatever the circumstances then I can at least respect your currently fashionable and state adopted point of view, even though I disagree and believe you are profoundly wrong.

[Ceaseless Change]

Ceaseless Change: I haven't changed my tune at all. Punishment should always fit the crime. I never said there were no shades of grey. Don't know where you got that idea. You are the one trying to avoid the messy reality. The messy reality I am concerned about here is that of innocent blood on the streets and how to minimise it.

I got the idea that you don't like shades of grey from all your sweeping statements about hangings being cheap and 100% effective at reducing reoffending, that (all) criminals "never learn", and about (ironically, allegedly) executing young criminals before they turn in to old criminals, etc.

 

I stick by "plenty of cases where you can be 100% certain." I was actually listening to TBT but then he went off into flights of fancy about identical twins and such nonsense, so I lost interest. Not credible IMO. If in doubt, then of course, don't convict or bring a lesser charge in the first place.

How much doubt would you think was OK for there to be, and still execute someone? None whatsoever? Then how many cases do you really think meet that threshold of perfection? I think a realistic understanding of the complexities of the judicial process would lead you to conclude that actually very few cases are that conclusive.

 

So I think you are advocating executions only in a tiny tiny minority of cases, whereas you are giving the distinct impression from your rhetoric that you would happily see very large numbers of executions.

 

Which is it?

 

You keep accusing me of being offensive when you are the one accusing me of being a nazi sympathiser, wanting to execute "our children", telling me I need to get my head examined, I'm an idiot, I'm talking shit, I'm not living in the real world, I can shove it up my etc, etc.

Well, I apologise for implying you were an idiot. I didn't accuse you of being a nazi sympathiser, I asked you if you were, to clarify what you said about eugenics via mass murder being a good idea that had been ruined by it's associations with the Nazi's. YOU said that, not me, I just asked you to clarify your position. It certainly looked very clearly like you sympathised with the Nazi approach to summary executions of criminal undesirables. It was a totally fair question which you brought upon yourself. If you don't like it, don't say stuff like that!

 

And you can shove your insinuations that I don't care about innocent victims up your ass. I stand by that. You insinuated it, with no basis whatsoever. Let's not forget that it was YOU who explicitly said that I had a serious mental illness.

 

of course in your world I'm the insensitive one. I suggest you look in the mirror on that one and as for growing up and discussing it like an adult, that is difficult when debating with one who makes little sense and frequently becomes strident (see above).

I lost my temper, and I got strident. I apologise.

 

But I am concerned that you think some irritated online rhetoric is somehow equivalent to calling someone mentally ill, and riding roughshod over a very serious trauma they have gone through. They are not remotely the same thing. You have behaved appallingly, and not apologised once, whereas I have twice in just this post.

 

I did not say you had no concern for innocent victims, incidentally. I assumed you would have from what you have written. I asked you where that concern was. I still wonder what form that takes and I note you didn't answer.

I did answer it, in my insistence that by rehabilited I actually meant what I said. Out of concern for innocent victims. Because if you aren't actually, genuinely rehabilitated, you are a danger to innocent people. Obviously. Shall I draw you a picture? I am genuinely baffled as to how you got from "rehabilitation should mean actually rehabilitated (because it keeps innocent people safe. OBVIOUSLY.)" to "I can't see any evidence that you are concerned about innocent victims". Absurd.

 

Release and rehabilitation is not a circular argument. You can never be sure of rehabilitation success, and it is a much less precise science nowadays than the avoidance of mistaken identity that you and TBT are so concerned about....... It is precisely my point that although they were judged to be safe, evidently they weren't. Professional specialists, eh? No consolation to the person lying in a pool of blood on the street or in their home is it? Oh dear. Looks like he wasn't rehabilitated after all. Sorry. These things happen. Is that good enough for you? It's not good enough for me.

So now you are saying what you really mean, sort of. And we agree, sort of.

 

We agree that people are being released as "rehabilitated" when they are not, and this needs to stop. That is what I meant by - rehabilitated should mean rehabilitated, and not "not rehabilitated". Obviously.

 

We also MIGHT agree, i'm not sure, that rehabilitation is actually nevertheless possible. Talking about questions not being answered, you've dodged this for long enough. Do you think rehabilitation is actually possible or not?

 

And if you do think it's possible, why are you so opposed to it? Because being opposed to successful rehabilitation really IS abandoning innocent victims - once you accept that prisoners are actually going to be released even if you think they shouldn't be, you (obviously) HAVE to then try to rehabilitate them as best you can, because otherwise you are just letting timebombs back on to the streets. Obviously.

 

It seems to me that you do not feel that the state should execute anyone no matter what, even if the crime was heinous and the identity was a cast iron certainty.

For the last time, please stop misrepresenting what I said. I cannot say it more clearly enough, and yet you keep doing this. Can you not read? Are you just interpreting what I say in the way you like least because you get pleasure out of being disagreed with?

 

I refer you to past reminders of what I ACTUALLY think about the death penalty and releasing dangerous criminals:

 

 

woolley, on 10 Nov 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

Ceaseless Change: Your position just seems to be that the state should never kill under any circumstances.

You have a VERY tiresome habit of taking what I say and twisting it out of all recognition.

 

 

 

Ceaseless Change, on 07 Nov 2014 - 2:29 PM, said:

You (and Shake Me Up Judy) are also outrageously misrepresenting me and what I think despite my repeated and clear explanations. I do NOT advocate releasing genuinely dangerous people back in to the community. I cannot say that any more clearly.

 

Final questions, and a very important ones, in the hope you might answer for once:

 

Are you claiming that it is possible to have a death penalty regime that never, ever executes innocent people? Your insistence on the abundance of 100% certainty cases tells me the answer must be yes, but is that really what you think?

 

And if the answer is yes, can you please give an example of when that has ever been successfully achieved, by any society, at any point in their history, ever? And if you can't give an example, what is your magic ingredient, what have you thought of that no-one else ever has, to make it possible? Don't keep it to yourself!

 

And if the answer is no - how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute, in your view?