Murdered for "looking different"

[Lucius]

Then tell me again, that harsh punishing is the way to eliminate criminality.

No but it would definatly lower the crime rate.

It really is quite a blatant concept.

 

[kivik]

I hope you have read my post, but I will mention it again. Look at the US with the death penalty. Is the crime-rate lower there? Then tell me again, that harsh punishing is the way to eliminate criminality.

I think it has a lot to do with liberal gun laws.

 

[Hawkwind]

Great...

Now I get to buy them 3 square meals a day and a sky tv subscription for the next 25 years, after which they will get out and sign on..

Awesome!

Or like Jamie Bulger's murderers given, new identities and even relocation and a new life in Australia. Proves that crime does pay!

 

[Golena]

And what if you stood there cause of false accusations? Would it still be a good solution to make a decision none can ever take back?

I hope you have read my post, but I will mention it again. Look at the US with the death penalty. Is the crime-rate lower there? Then tell me again, that harsh punishing is the way to eliminate criminality.

Yeah I read your post and you also make some good points. To be fair there's never going to be a perfect solution so you've got to decide what's the lesser of two evils.

There's a chance that some innocent people will end up against the wall getting shot yes. But since those innocent people are currently getting kicked to death by thugs, given the choice of the two, i'd rather a quick and painless shooting than a painful beating to death for my innocents thanks.
Punishment needs to be a deterrant. Jail, even if it isn hard is advertised as a nice cushy place to be by all the papers so the chavs these days simply arn't scared of it.

Decent parenting etc would be a far better option, but I just don't see how we get back there easily these days, other than by punishing what might be innocent parents for their kids behaviours.

 

[Zede]

string em by the balls, spin em round & watch their nads explode ( on national tv, naked ofc, I reckon that would put em off)

certain strains of human dna need obliterating from existance

 

[Ezteq]

well contrary to pretty much every one else here i am actually pro death penalty for those who are clearly guilty (these guys for instance). There is a big difference between clear guilt and unclear i don't believe it should be based on beyond reasonable doubt because sometimes shit happens and there is no explanation but where the person has been caught on cctv or witnessed (like the 2 that killed jamie bulger) then yes i think they should be killed.

They are a danger to society and they should be punished by being killed, no long "rehabilitation" or anything like that, imo keeping them in prison for life is a joke. There was a guy who was speeding and it wasn't the first time he'd been done for it and he was speeding excessively, he hit another car and injured a 2 year old (possibly younger) and the child will be paralysed for life now, the guy got about 18 months in jail. I'm not saying he should be executed, he should be imprisoned for life.

I am sick of people getting away with it, prison isn't a holiday camp its a nasy place but it does have to be said that western prisons are a damn sight more comfortable than they should be (soldiers live in worse conditions fgs) but i don't see why someone who commits a crime where they intentionally murder someone, i don't see why they should be allowed to live. don't bother torturing them just a bullet in the brain or something equally quick and cheap would be fine.

we've done the imprison and rehabilitate thing for years and it does not work.

[the opinions expressed in this post are entirely my own and bear no reflectin on the FHOT community]

 

[old.Tohtori]

They are a danger to society and they should be punished by being killed, no long "rehabilitation" or anything like that, imo keeping them in prison for life is a joke. There was a guy who was speeding and it wasn't the first time he'd been done for it and he was speeding excessively, he hit another car and injured a 2 year old (possibly younger) and the child will be paralysed for life now, the guy got about 18 months in jail. I'm not saying he should be executed, he should be imprisoned for life.

I have to take a BIIIG disagree flag here.

*plants flag*

If there's a speeding accident, with two cars, and someone(anyone) is paralyzed, sure, give the guy a sentence but this guy could be anyone of us. Almost every single one of the drivers around here will admit to speeding, atleast a bit, and accidents happen. It's in no way this guys intent to paralyze a 2 year old.

18 months, for an accident, where the situation is more to blame then anyone doing something slightly irregular, should be punishment enough.

 

[Ezteq]

yeah but the guy was doing like 80 over the limit...and he'd been done for excessive speeding before. if it was a "was only doing 10 over the limit, was a stupid mistake has never happened before" i could understand it but [warning controvercial opinion approaching] imo if your a repeat offender and you end up (why is it thee people who drink and drive or speed never get hurt, its always the person they crash in to?) hurting someone you should get the book thrown at you.

once is a mistake twice is just being idiotic. a car is about as dangerous as a gun, it can only kill someone where there is somebody in control of it.

 

[Aoami]

Over the limit is over the limit, be it 10 mph or 100mph over. Cars are death traps and speed limits are there for a reason. It really pisses me off actually when people bang on about 'i was only 10 over'... bah.

 

[Ezteq]

Over the limit is over the limit, be it 10 mph or 100mph over. Cars are death traps and speed limits are there for a reason. It really pisses me off actually when people bang on about 'i was only 10 over'... bah.

yep when i was learning to drive i was always told "the speed limit is the limit...not the target"

i dont see why its any better than saying "i was only 1 drink over" or "I only stabbed him a little bit" but if you crash in to someone and you doing 30mph theres a world of difference between that and 80mph.

 

[old.Tohtori]

yep when i was learning to drive i was always told "the speed limit is the limit...not the target"

i dont see why its any better than saying "i was only 1 drink over" or "I only stabbed him a little bit" but if you crash in to someone and you doing 30mph theres a world of difference between that and 80mph.

There's the problem EQ.

Extreme situation:

Your dad/friend/hubby is doing 5mph over.
He hits another car, never knew where it came from, you know, accident.
Kid dies in the backseat of the other car.
What do you want to happen? 18 months or death?

Some guy is doing 55mph over.
He hits another car, never knew where it came from, you know, accident.
Kid dies in the backseat of the other car.
What do you want to happen? 18 months or death?

You either have flexible laws, which you have to leave for the judge to judge upon, or you have to have VERY strict laws, which means there's no "situation".

 

[Aoami]

I'm pretty sure in England it wouldn't matter in a situation like that have many mph over the limit you were doing, the punishment would be the same, which is correct.

 

[Mey]

The current penal system in the UK is affraid of change and progress. It point blankly refuses to take note of things that work in the reformation of criminals and just contiunes down its happy merry way.

Recidivism rates in the UK are at an all time high, the system is failing and the Govt. doesn't give a shit.

 

[liloe]

I think it has a lot to do with liberal gun laws.

Kicking people to death hasn't to do with firearms though. Would the crime have been les violent if the guys had shot the Goth cause of relaxed firearm laws?

Yeah I read your post and you also make some good points. To be fair there's never going to be a perfect solution so you've got to decide what's the lesser of two evils.

There's a chance that some innocent people will end up against the wall getting shot yes. But since those innocent people are currently getting kicked to death by thugs, given the choice of the two, i'd rather a quick and painless shooting than a painful beating to death for my innocents thanks.
Punishment needs to be a deterrant. Jail, even if it isn hard is advertised as a nice cushy place to be by all the papers so the chavs these days simply arn't scared of it.

Decent parenting etc would be a far better option, but I just don't see how we get back there easily these days, other than by punishing what might be innocent parents for their kids behaviours.

It's true that a perfect solution can never be found but I'm a strong enemy of the death penalty. Just imagine that someone you know gets shot innocently. Would you still like the death penalty then? Also what is the chance for someone to repent when you kill them?

Don't get me wrong, I strongly agree with consequences for breaking the law, but killing and locking away are both pretty bad ideas. People need to be force-shown that being members of society will help them. There're programs to reintegrate young criminals (<20) into a normal life and I think something similar should exist for all kinds of people.

Yes, some criminals are ill and need the supervision for the rest of their life (a task where psychologists often fail, when saying that some rapist is cured). But people who are mentally ill are a different story imho and if we need to supervise them, then just put them together and give them a more or less "normal" life with a lot of being watched.

Hell I guess if some hardcore criminals were sent to 3rd world countries to help there, it would do good to some I think. Might be more free than jail, but it's definately not holidays.

Also parents need to be given advice on how to educate their children, because something you don't know from your own home is something you can't pass on either.

 

[Iceforge]

To be honest, I think one of the reasons why it can spiral out of control for many young people is the complete lack of consequence for their actions until they reach a certain age and the court system can finally start judging them.

Meanwhile, while they are below the criminal age, whenever they do fuck-ups, they are handed back to incompetent parents who again and again fail to get their kids back into line, atleast that has been seen more times than what good is.

Perhaps a stricter parential punishment?
I mean, if a kid acts out of control and smash a store window, first time it is just ignored, you know, everybody can through their life commit 1 stupid mistake, but if someone is often going about doing vandalism (first step towards spinning out of control, not getting the concept of right and wrong and mine and theirs), instead of often just being given to the parents for the parents to decide punishment, I think the system should work out plans.
Like removing the kid from home and planting him in an institution or something for a month, not like a prison, much more free than prison... or have a social worker come to their home 2 times a week for a year on control visits, forcing the parents to pull their act together.

You so often see mothers and fathers on TV to these kind of animals, saying they don't know how it came to be so wrong... News flash for them; A child will always end up as an reflection of how they was raised.

EDIT: Removing the kid for a month was meant as an eye-opener for the parents, not the kid himself. If needed be, a short prison sentence to the parents for something their child did would not be completely out of the way, imho

 

[fettoken]

Death would be good.

Get that scum out of our gene-pool as quick as possible to be honest

Indéed!

 

[liloe]

Spoiler

To be honest, I think one of the reasons why it can spiral out of control for many young people is the complete lack of consequence for their actions until they reach a certain age and the court system can finally start judging them.

Meanwhile, while they are below the criminal age, whenever they do fuck-ups, they are handed back to incompetent parents who again and again fail to get their kids back into line, atleast that has been seen more times than what good is.

Perhaps a stricter parential punishment?
I mean, if a kid acts out of control and smash a store window, first time it is just ignored, you know, everybody can through their life commit 1 stupid mistake, but if someone is often going about doing vandalism (first step towards spinning out of control, not getting the concept of right and wrong and mine and theirs), instead of often just being given to the parents for the parents to decide punishment, I think the system should work out plans.
Like removing the kid from home and planting him in an institution or something for a month, not like a prison, much more free than prison... or have a social worker come to their home 2 times a week for a year on control visits, forcing the parents to pull their act together.

You so often see mothers and fathers on TV to these kind of animals, saying they don't know how it came to be so wrong... News flash for them; A child will always end up as an reflection of how they was raised.

EDIT: Removing the kid for a month was meant as an eye-opener for the parents, not the kid himself. If needed be, a short prison sentence to the parents for something their child did would not be completely out of the way, imho

This is exactly what I mean =) Work on the problem while you still can and don't wait till it escalates =)

EDIT: spread some rep etc. :<

 

[Ezteq]

There's the problem EQ.

Extreme situation:

Your dad/friend/hubby is doing 5mph over.
He hits another car, never knew where it came from, you know, accident.
Kid dies in the backseat of the other car.
What do you want to happen? 18 months or death?

Some guy is doing 55mph over.
He hits another car, never knew where it came from, you know, accident.
Kid dies in the backseat of the other car.
What do you want to happen? 18 months or death?

You either have flexible laws, which you have to leave for the judge to judge upon, or you have to have VERY strict laws, which means there's no "situation".

nononono...no *removes choccy polar bears from seels grasp* you misunderstand me, the guy had a record of excessively speeding, that means he did it (or was caught doing it) more than once.

you do something you make a mistake, ok bad boy dont do it again

you do it again then imo you should get the book thrown at you, there are people who collect points on their driving licence as if they were a good thing to have.

*gives back choccy bears*

you see what i mean now? once is a mistake but if you cause someone harm through repeatedly breaking the law and acting dangerously then surely its in everyones best interest for that person to be punished.

i do like the system in america where its 3 strikes and your outta there, im all for giving someone a chance to learn from their mistakes...thats a chance not 50 chances.

 

[kivik]

Kicking people to death hasn't to do with firearms though. Would the crime have been les violent if the guys had shot the Goth cause of relaxed firearm laws?

You said there was much more crime in US despise of having death penalty. I said it could be because of liberal gun laws, which would make sense.

 

[Golena]

Don't get me wrong, I strongly agree with consequences for breaking the law, but killing and locking away are both pretty bad ideas. People need to be force-shown that being members of society will help them. There're programs to reintegrate young criminals (<20) into a normal life and I think something similar should exist for all kinds of people.

The problem with that approach is that there's no actual punishment. Yes I can see the argument that if someone has committed a crime then turning them back into a useful member of society isn't a bad thing. The problem is by then the innocent person has already been kicked to death.

We're almost giving people a free pass to commit a crime, then we'll come along and try to help them see what they did was wrong.. By then it's already way too late for the helpless victim.

I could counter the argument, what about the innocent that gets wrongly accused by saying that if the number of innocents that get convicted is less than the number of people currently being beaten to death by idiots who know there's no real concequence, you've got better odds as an innocent.

 

[liloe]

You said there was much more crime in US despise of having death penalty. I said it could be because of liberal gun laws, which would make sense.

Well maybe a bit, I don't know, but people kill other people, firearm or not. I agree its easier to pull a trigger, but 5v1 is easy aswell and you have the group pressure there.

The problem with that approach is that there's no actual punishment. Yes I can see the argument that if someone has committed a crime then turning them back into a useful member of society isn't a bad thing. The problem is by then the innocent person has already been kicked to death.

We're almost giving people a free pass to commit a crime, then we'll come along and try to help them see what they did was wrong.. By then it's already way too late for the helpless victim.

I could counter the argument, what about the innocent that gets wrongly accused by saying that if the number of innocents that get convicted is less than the number of people currently being beaten to death by idiots who know there's no real concequence, you've got better odds as an innocent.

Actually there is punishment. Those programs aren't holiday programs, but instead put a lot of psychic pressure on people to make them understand what they did wrong. I admit I haven't done deep research on the topic, but the point is to punish them but at the same time not to put them into the vicious circle of prison.

 

[old.Tohtori]

nononono...no *removes choccy polar bears from seels grasp* you misunderstand me, the guy had a record of excessively speeding, that means he did it (or was caught doing it) more than once.

you do something you make a mistake, ok bad boy dont do it again

you do it again then imo you should get the book thrown at you, there are people who collect points on their driving licence as if they were a good thing to have.

*gives back choccy bears*

you see what i mean now? once is a mistake but if you cause someone harm through repeatedly breaking the law and acting dangerously then surely its in everyones best interest for that person to be punished.

i do like the system in america where its 3 strikes and your outta there, im all for giving someone a chance to learn from their mistakes...thats a chance not 50 chances.

Buuuuuut...

*shoots laddey*

Oops!

I didn't mean to the gun fell from heaven as i grasped for my whitechoccy bears.



Can i do it again?

To keep it simple.

There's either situational law(based on opinions, which the judge judges on) or absolute law, which is same for all. Which would you prefer?

 

[Iceforge]

Buuuuuut...

*shoots laddey*

Oops!

I didn't mean to the gun fell from heaven as i grasped for my whitechoccy bears.



Can i do it again?

To keep it simple.

There's either situational law(based on opinions, which the judge judges on) or absolute law, which is same for all. Which would you prefer?

Situational law, because absolute law doesn't work

EDIT: Even wondered why murder does give the same number of years each time? Thats because it is SITUATIONAL law that we have, in most of the world anyway

 

[Golena]

Not having situational law is the same reason people get sued when burglars fall down their stairs while carrying their television.

Either you have somoene (or a group of people) who can be relied upon to come up with a sensible punishment that fits the crime based on evidence, or you plug the results into a computer and let a machine dish out the stupid.
Most problems with law is because judges don't have enough ability to simply dismiss the stupid.

 

[Iceforge]

Not having situational law is the same reason people get sued when burglars fall down their stairs while carrying their television.

Either you have somoene (or a group of people) who can be relied upon to come up with a sensible punishment that fits the crime based on evidence, or you plug the results into a computer and let a machine dish out the stupid.
Most problems with law is because judges don't have enough ability to simply dismiss the stupid.

Nah, that is another subject....

Many countries, besides UK and the US, got the, oh, I think it is called "Bonus Peder" (not sure of the excat name) principle which basicly says that you can't be held responsible for something you could not predict... i.e. a thief falling down through a skylight, cutting himself on kitchen knifes and shattered glass = Not your fault

EDIT: Google is my friend, name is "Bonus Pater", comes from "the good family-dad", basicly says that if a smart and thoughtfull careful person of the subject age would not have predicted the outcome of an action, he is not responsible

 

[Golena]

Nah, that is another subject....

Many countries, besides UK and the US, got the, oh, I think it is called "Bonus Peder" (not sure of the excat name) principle which basicly says that you can't be held responsible for something you could not predict... i.e. a thief falling down through a skylight, cutting himself on kitchen knifes and shattered glass = Not your fault

The point wasn't that exact thing, but that if you have a completely rigid law then there's always going to be situations where the punishment just doesn't make any sense. Mainly because something happens that simply wasn't considered when the law was written.

There needs to be a human element present to decide what's appropriate, not simply a line that your one side of or the other.

As for the speeding arguments, it's been done to death in other threads but the punishment for someone who's clearly travelling way above the speed limit should of course be greater than for someone who's strayed 5mph over it then had an accident. Going 5mph over can be attributed to human error or a mistake, 55mph over is deliberate.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Neither work perfectly, that's the whole point.

Strict law would have innocent and/or brutal rulings.
Situational has innocent too, but also "not enough" to some people.

And there is no middle ground