not a nice post but plz..

[Morchaoron]

and whoever said that they re-offend at their first chance i would like to see some evidence of that

here in the Netherlands, according to statistics 90% of the people who get treated for sexual assault on little childeren (for the first time) do it again / have attempted to do it AT LEAST a second time...

pretty sick isnt it? i dont think these people can be cured just throw them in a cheap room for the rest of their lives so they can never harm someone again...

 

[Ezteq]

hehe we had a discussion about death penalty a while ago in guild chat (we're a very serious bunch ) and i still stand by my views that it cant ONLY be right if the justice system is 100% perfect, otherwise the margin of error is too high (i mean, how many times have you seen "was released due to new evidence!" )

and about that crap "you have to become a monster to be a saviour" what would happen if they killed him, then found he was innocent? should the jury that convicted him all be hung then as well?

and whoever said that they re-offend at their first chance i would like to see some evidence of that

oh and to respond to original post, i don think they should be punished and i do think its sick what he said but (to those who suggested it) doesnt justify another murder

oh i agree with that i think that you have to be 100% sure before commiting them to death, take me old pal dahmer again though for example he took polaroids of the murders he commited also took pics of himself commiting various sexual acts on his victims ( dead and alive) and they found various human body parts in his fridge (some partially eaten) proving that he was 100% guilty thus deserving of the death penalty, that is why i believe the UK will never bring it back because we have had so many cock ups with sending innocent people to jail (look at that woman who was accused of killing her children only to be found they died from natural causes) that they cant risk it.

 

[Bunnytwo]

Though I would say in favour of the death penalty that if you do string the scumbag up you won't then have lamearse liberals campaigning for someone like Hindley's or the Kray's release after 20 years cos they're no longer a threat to society. Yep you may get mistakes, but then is it REALLY better to let out 100 murders who will probably kill again than hang one innocent man? I recognise that yes its truly horrible for that innocent man, but its hardly a cheery prospect for the innocent victims who will suffer from those released men, who often get out on a minor technicality.

If you don't hang em they should at the very least never get out, non of this let them out on compassionate grounds, as how much compassion did they show their victims.

As for that they shouldn't be forced to slop out or share a cell cos it degrading, don't get me started. .. .

And that guy who killed his adopted family and got his neck cut by another prisoner and is now planning on sueing the prison service he's having a laugh.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

Someone once came up with an idea, a way to keep the public from being exposed to the repeated offences of crap musicians. It was called "Celebraty Manhunt!"

The theory goes that, you get some bastard who's annoyed us with his crap, god awful music (Kenny G, Billt Ray Cirus etc, Britney Spears etc) and drop them in the wilds of America with a compass, mp, and an end-point. You give them 2 hours, then release the hounds of hell upon them, 12 specially selected manhunters, armed with an assortment of weapons and vehicles an track them down. If they get to the end point (surrounded by mines, why make it TOO easy), they go free. If they get caught, then it's a cobalt blue steel shotgun shoved down there throat like some black c*ck of death, and BOOM.

Next week on the show, Justin Timberlake!

Think the idea could be adapted? It may be callous, sick and disturbing. But like the guys being hunted dodn't deserve some retribution.

 

[Escape]

If capital punishment ever came back, murderers/rapists would still be behind bars... criminals involved in credit card frauds are the ones who'll get hanged. So you can kill someone and do 3 years, rapists can blag their way out of court or do some community service, no problem. But, go to Marks & Spencer and use a stolen credit card... you're going down for 10years. UK courts are getting as bad as american ones.

Human rights/political correctness is getting out of control. Here're some local incidents involving paedophiles; Prison officers decide one of their inmates should have internet access.... and now the paedophiles is back in court for downloading child porn! Another paedophile was taken on a day out!... to a fairground!... and he escaped! About 3yrs ago a peadophile was released from prison and setup in a house... opposite a school! local residents were pretty pissed and I can't blame them. Some people are way too stupid for their jobs.


I don't see a problem with capital punishment. It's possible innocents will be executed but what about the alternative, to keep society exposed to malicious offenders?

Let's say you execute 100 people and 5 were innocent.
OK, so you don't execute them but release them back in to public. Out of the 95 offenders, how many will go on to commit serious crimes? Pull out some statistics and I'd guess at least twice as many as 5 lives will be violated by repeat offenders. So you balance it up and less lives will be lost if you kill all 100 inmates, including the 5 innocent.

Executions should only be carried out with conclusive evidence, such as the presence of DNA samples at the crime scene. With advances like these, there's less chance of convicting innocents.

 

[Job]

For 'released due to new evidence'
read
'got off a technicallity'

99.99% of the time that is the case, when deciding to execute someone, they do take into account how good the evidence is, it doesn't take much for the death penalty to be ruled out.
If you are on death row, then
1: the evidence is immense
2: the evicence is pretty good, but you have a string of similair convictions, that in most peoples mind would be enough alone to send you to the chair.


Don't believe all the shite on 'free Billybob' support sites, as with everything in life ..they gloss over the bad bits and boost the good bits.
The vast, VAST majority of fuckheads executed have performed acts so vile, it really does beggar belief.

Reading the Texas Death row website (which was closed down) made your toes curl.

An 18yr old black guy robs a Pizza Express, ties up all the employees in the walk in fridge, including the 17yr old 6 mnth pregnant girlfriend of one.
Walks out the door with the cash.. turns round and opens the fridge ,shoots each one in the head, one-by-one, killing them all, gets picked up 2 blocks away, still with the gun and the cash in his pockets.
What would you do next?

 

[Binky the Bomb]

Spit roast the bastard alive

 

[Ezteq]

Someone once came up with an idea, a way to keep the public from being exposed to the repeated offences of crap musicians. It was called "Celebraty Manhunt!"

The theory goes that, you get some bastard who's annoyed us with his crap, god awful music (Kenny G, Billt Ray Cirus etc, Britney Spears etc) and drop them in the wilds of America with a compass, mp, and an end-point. You give them 2 hours, then release the hounds of hell upon them, 12 specially selected manhunters, armed with an assortment of weapons and vehicles an track them down. If they get to the end point (surrounded by mines, why make it TOO easy), they go free. If they get caught, then it's a cobalt blue steel shotgun shoved down there throat like some black c*ck of death, and BOOM.

Next week on the show, Justin Timberlake!

Think the idea could be adapted? It may be callous, sick and disturbing. But like the guys being hunted dodn't deserve some retribution.

oi!!! billy ray rules!!! he l337

 

[tris-]

i have read this case. be gratefully its being doin in spain and not england. in england hed probably get away with a £40 fine for driving over the limit, forget every other fucking thing. english system is fucked, jail the innocent people for lack of evidence. fine the guilty people when they should of gone to prison.

also, yes its sick what he has done. i would say something else but no doubt its too contreversial (SP?)

 

[Ezteq]

yes sadly in the uk we tend to care more about the human rights of the guilty than the victims or their families, and even if some one gets a conviction the plead insanity and are cooped away in a little hospital rather than going to jail, i quite like the way the americans go about it, if your found insane you go to hospital then when your released from hospital as the doctors have said your fit then they make them serve their sentance (same with people served death sentance, once the doctors say they are cured they go to the chair) it makes it less of a cop out but here you can get away with murder if you say your from a broken home and suffer depression.

 

[Conchabar]

heh so afew of you guys think that if someone comits murder its alright to do the exact same to him? that means ure just as bad as him tbh that was what i meant from what i said "to become a saviour you must become a monster"

 

[Morchaoron]

heh so afew of you guys think that if someone comits murder its alright to do the exact same to him? that means ure just as bad as him tbh that was what i meant

if someone kidnaps someone and keeps the person hostage in a room for a year, and the police finds out and they drag the kidnapper from his home and throw him in jail, they are doing the same thing right? being just as wrong, right?


besides, did the victim of a murderer do something wrong? if he did, did he get a fair trial before he died?

 

[Sissyfoo]

That is some pretty twisted logic there, Morch. Kidnapping is illegal whereas arresting someone and incarcerating them for commiting a crime is legal.

 

[Morchaoron]

That is some pretty twisted logic there, Morch. Kidnapping is illegal whereas arresting someone and incarcerating them for commiting a crime is legal.

why cant it be the same with killing someone then?

 

[Sissyfoo]

Urr...that is why there are state executions in America, the middle east and various other countries. Vigilante style mob killings are illegal though. Everything has to be done with due process and has to be all above board in the eyes of the law or else it goes from being nice and legal to naughty and illegal. Helps for John Q. Taxpayer to sleep easier at night I guess.

The only reason state executions are being fazed out is because the righties (or is it the lefties? I forget) complain it is inhumane. How locking someone up in a small cell for the rest of their natural life is more humane is beyond me but...eh.

 

[Apathy]

~points at plebs~

NO LAW FOR YOU!

a.
*

 

[Sissyfoo]

hehe we had a discussion about death penalty a while ago in guild chat (we're a very serious bunch ) and i still stand by my views that it cant ONLY be right if the justice system is 100% perfect, otherwise the margin of error is too high (i mean, how many times have you seen "was released due to new evidence!" )

and about that crap "you have to become a monster to be a saviour" what would happen if they killed him, then found he was innocent? should the jury that convicted him all be hung then as well?

and whoever said that they re-offend at their first chance i would like to see some evidence of that

oh and to respond to original post, i don think they should be punished and i do think its sick what he said but (to those who suggested it) doesnt justify another murder

A paedo can never be 'cured' in my opinion. They can be conditioned (for want of a better word) to control their urges but they will always desire teh hanky panky with minors. Their urges are much the same as yours or mine for the ladies. You could spend 20 years in a psych ward being told that doing the matress mambo with a woman is BAD but even after all that, if you saw a hot babe walking down the street you would still raise an eyebrow and think naughty things!

I was listening to a radio show where a paedo who had been out of jail for about a year or so was being asked about how he had adjusted to life outside. One question was, "If you were in a position to sexually abuse a child, would you do it?" and his answer was emphatically, "Yes. Yes, I would." He didn't stop to think about it for a minute.

All the paedos that have been released or are due to be released are under extreme close supervision most of the time but a few still manage to slip under the net and re-offend. Ian Huntley is a damn fine example of this. I have to ask myself, is it really worth spending all this time, money and man power on these individuals who, in most cases, can't and never will be cured and will always pose some danger to minors?

 

[Ctuchik]

What exactly do you mean by this statement? My interpretation of what you said, is that what the victim was wearing has some bearing on the crime perpetrated against her? I certainly hope I am wrong in my assumption.

happend in sweden, tho not a murder/rape case but a rape "only", the guy walked away after saying "she looked older then she was" and then describing her clothes. short skirt and alittle makeup. he just walked away after that uke:

isnt 100% sure on this part but i do seem to recall something about him suing her and her family and winning after that to

any swede with a better recollection about that?

 

[Conchabar]

happend in sweden, tho not a murder/rape case but a rape "only", the guy walked away after saying "she looked older then she was" and then describing her clothes. short skirt and alittle makeup. he just walked away after that uke:

isnt 100% sure on this part but i do seem to recall something about him suing her and her family and winning after that to

any swede with a better recollection about that?

lmao irl

 

[yaruar]

I don't see a problem with capital punishment. It's possible innocents will be executed but what about the alternative, to keep society exposed to malicious offenders?

Let's say you execute 100 people and 5 were innocent.
OK, so you don't execute them but release them back in to public. Out of the 95 offenders, how many will go on to commit serious crimes? Pull out some statistics and I'd guess at least twice as many as 5 lives will be violated by repeat offenders. So you balance it up and less lives will be lost if you kill all 100 inmates, including the 5 innocent.

Executions should only be carried out with conclusive evidence, such as the presence of DNA samples at the crime scene. With advances like these, there's less chance of convicting innocents.

DNA is not conclusive evidence. DNA matching is never 100 percent accurate .
Even eye witnesses are not reliable as evidence givers. There is a known pychological phenomena whereby the shock of a crime being committed breaks down the process by which a person stores the memories of an event. If 10 people see a criminal clearly in the act of committing a crime then the shock of the event will mean that in all probability most of them will after the event come up with different descriptions on the criminal.

I could never countenance capital punishment. Potentially killing one innocent person is a price way to high to pay.

One of the major problems though is the dichotomy of the criminal justice system. The system serves can potentially serve a number of purposes within society. The main ones are. Keeping dangerous people away from their potential victime. Rehabilitation of offenders so they will not recommit crimes and will no longer be a threat to society. And the third which is punishment. Personally i think the biggest problem is that society in general and the media especially is completely obsessed with the punishment aspect of the criminal justice system, whereas in my opinion this is the part of the system which is most counterproductive and which actually breaks the system.

 

[yaruar]

Urr...that is why there are state executions in America, the middle east and various other countries. Vigilante style mob killings are illegal though. Everything has to be done with due process and has to be all above board in the eyes of the law or else it goes from being nice and legal to naughty and illegal. Helps for John Q. Taxpayer to sleep easier at night I guess.

The only reason state executions are being fazed out is because the righties (or is it the lefties? I forget) complain it is inhumane. How locking someone up in a small cell for the rest of their natural life is more humane is beyond me but...eh.

no the reason that most of us are opposed to state executions is a belief in the sanctity of life. And also because we look at the US, especially mr Bush's tenure as the govenor of texas and see the travesty which is Death Row and the amount of people there with flimsy evidence against them.

 

[yaruar]

A paedo can never be 'cured' in my opinion. They can be conditioned (for want of a better word) to control their urges but they will always desire teh hanky panky with minors. Their urges are much the same as yours or mine for the ladies. You could spend 20 years in a psych ward being told that doing the matress mambo with a woman is BAD but even after all that, if you saw a hot babe walking down the street you would still raise an eyebrow and think naughty things!

I was listening to a radio show where a paedo who had been out of jail for about a year or so was being asked about how he had adjusted to life outside. One question was, "If you were in a position to sexually abuse a child, would you do it?" and his answer was emphatically, "Yes. Yes, I would." He didn't stop to think about it for a minute.

All the paedos that have been released or are due to be released are under extreme close supervision most of the time but a few still manage to slip under the net and re-offend. Ian Huntley is a damn fine example of this. I have to ask myself, is it really worth spending all this time, money and man power on these individuals who, in most cases, can't and never will be cured and will always pose some danger to minors?

Actually there is a very clear distinction to be made here. Paedophilia is not child molestation. Paedophilia is a sexual attration to children, not actually committing the act. The majority of paedophiles are not child molesters, they choose not to act on their desires. In that same way that most people don't just see a woman and rape her. THere are people who can not control their desires, and they are on the whole the problem.

 

[Bunnytwo]

no the reason that most of us are opposed to state executions is a belief in the sanctity of life. And also because we look at the US, especially mr Bush's tenure as the govenor of texas and see the travesty which is Death Row and the amount of people there with flimsy evidence against them.

Only problem there m8 is that all the opinion surveys I've seen have shown that a big majority of the population, in the UK at least, are infavour of the death penalty.

As for the flimsy evidence part, think probably depends upon where you find out about these cases, if you watch Panorama, read the Guardian or some outfit like that then yes prob will seem like flimsy evidence. Thats cos they are anti dealth penalty and it wouldn't fit their agenda for the inmates to be guilty as hell of dispicable crimes. Trying to win the arguement from a standpoint of "yes this man did rape this girl infront of her family before skinning and eating them all, but no you shouldn't execute him because that would be barbaric" wouldn't really get them anywhere.

My main point in favour of the death penalty is yes I do believe in the sanctity of human life, the human life of the innocent victims of offenders who have been released, because the evidence was supposedly "flimsy". Like for example, police raid a mans house, find bodies everywhere, however someone made a typo on the warrant therefore making it invalid, which means that all those bodies are inadmisable as evidence. Result man goes free because of "flimsy" evidence and almost certainly reoffends harming many others, fact that he's as guilty as hell can't interfere with justice. Total crock of shite IMO.

 

[yaruar]

My main point in favour of the death penalty is yes I do believe in the sanctity of human life, the human life of the innocent victims of offenders who have been released, because the evidence was supposedly "flimsy". Like for example, police raid a mans house, find bodies everywhere, however someone made a typo on the warrant therefore making it invalid, which means that all those bodies are inadmisable as evidence. Result man goes free because of "flimsy" evidence and almost certainly reoffends harming many others, fact that he's as guilty as hell can't interfere with justice. Total crock of shite IMO.

The thing is most cases aren't that clear cut and it's only rarely that people get off on a technicallity, in a large proportion of cases the evidence is purely circumstantial.

My personal view that taking a life n cold blood is something that civilised society should participate in.

 

[Ala]

they had an interview with a girl that this bloke tried to assult before he got to caroline, he held cotton wool over her mouth and nose and she said when he took it off she felt like she had really bad sun burn on her face so its likely he drugged her before he assulted her

She wasn't drugged. He held a large cotton pad over her mouth and nose to quieten her. He'd learnt this technique from his prior mistake earlier that same night.

A court official, outlining the prosecution case, said that earlier on the night Caroline died Mr Montes had tried, unsuccessfully, to assault another English girl in a separate youth hostel.

He was thwarted when two other girls were wakened by the sound of heavy breathing to find the girl "at the start of asphyxia".

Her night-dress was lifted around her waist and her underwear was discarded in the middle of the bedroom. A figure in the dark room was seen walking away calmly.

"Thanks to this cotton pad he was able to smother the noise of heavy breathing which had drawn attention to him at St Lunaire," said prosecution documents read out in court.

Before Caroline's death, he had preyed on children in youth hostels in Britain, Holland, France and Spain, showing a preference for girls aged 12 to 15.

Mental illness is a bastard.

 

[Bunnytwo]

The thing is most cases aren't that clear cut and it's only rarely that people get off on a technicallity, in a large proportion of cases the evidence is purely circumstantial.

My personal view that taking a life n cold blood is something that civilised society should participate in.

From talking with my sister, who works as a prosecutor for the CPS mostly people do get off on a technicality.

Yep nothing wrong with stringing someone up on circumstantial evidence as far as I'm concerned, most evidence is purely circumstantial. Particularly if you wouldn't convict someone on DNA evidence because yes you're right since there is a one in a billion chance of someone else having the same DNA it isn't 100% conclusive (though will do for me).

Back to the circumstantial bit though. Was a guy seen by witnesses during a riot in London heading down an alleyway carrying a machete. Policeman's body is later found, his having been hacked up in that very same alleyway with a machete. Guys convicted, however gets his conviction overturned because its purely circumstantial evidence, you couldn't prove that he had killed the policeman as no witnesses saw him actually in the act. . . . . Winston Silcott is currently serving life having killed someone else.

As for civilised societies taking life in cold blood, yep they should do, world would be a much better place if Blair had the nads to order someone to take out scumbags like that one-eyed hook-handed Hamza.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So we got this guy who likes to touch them young ones,
People say he gotta pay(Yikes!) so go and get them guns.
Lock and load time to bring him foad, ownage time is critical,
no need to be technical, just point and click and make him fall.

 

[Ezteq]

She wasn't drugged. He held a large cotton pad over her mouth and nose to quieten her. He'd learnt this technique from his prior mistake earlier that same night.

yeah it was the same girl he tried to do it to that night that said her face felt all sun burnt when he took the cotton off her face, and on the news last night they said that the cotton found in carolines throat had that girls DNA on it, which leads me to think, seeing as this bugger said he was soo off his head on drink and drugs, remembering that he went out, took cotton wool with him, tried to assult one girl and got rumbled then took a second girl, now correct me if im wrong but this doesnt exactly sound like the actions of some one who is smashed really does it?

 

[yaruar]

From talking with my sister, who works as a prosecutor for the CPS mostly people do get off on a technicality.

Yep nothing wrong with stringing someone up on circumstantial evidence as far as I'm concerned, most evidence is purely circumstantial. Particularly if you wouldn't convict someone on DNA evidence because yes you're right since there is a one in a billion chance of someone else having the same DNA it isn't 100% conclusive (though will do for me).

Back to the circumstantial bit though. Was a guy seen by witnesses during a riot in London heading down an alleyway carrying a machete. Policeman's body is later found, his having been hacked up in that very same alleyway with a machete. Guys convicted, however gets his conviction overturned because its purely circumstantial evidence, you couldn't prove that he had killed the policeman as no witnesses saw him actually in the act. . . . . Winston Silcott is currently serving life having killed someone else.

As for civilised societies taking life in cold blood, yep they should do, world would be a much better place if Blair had the nads to order someone to take out scumbags like that one-eyed hook-handed Hamza.

Lets just bring back lynch mobs.......

And as for your sister, as a presecuter for the CPS she would say that now wouldn't she.... Most people get off because they are A: innocent or B: there isn't enough evidence to convict them because we actually have a decent system in this country where you require proof beyond reasonable doubt to bring a prosecution. THere have been some rather spectatular wrongful convictions in the past though, but hopefully these will become rarer as we have stopped allowing the police to beat the crap out of prisoners and force them to sign confessions (mostly)

And the question got raised earlier. Who is liable if an execution victim is killed by mistake. Should the judge and jury then stand trial for murdering an innocent man with malice of forethought........

 

[Bunnytwo]

Lets just bring back lynch mobs.......

And as for your sister, as a presecuter for the CPS she would say that now wouldn't she.... Most people get off because they are A: innocent or B: there isn't enough evidence to convict them because we actually have a decent system in this country where you require proof beyond reasonable doubt to bring a prosecution. THere have been some rather spectatular wrongful convictions in the past though, but hopefully these will become rarer as we have stopped allowing the police to beat the crap out of prisoners and force them to sign confessions (mostly)

And the question got raised earlier. Who is liable if an execution victim is killed by mistake. Should the judge and jury then stand trial for murdering an innocent man with malice of forethought........

Or maybe she would because she has slightly more knowledge of the criminal system than you?

As for beyond reasonable doubt, from what you said about DNA evidence not being 100% no-one would ever be convicted.

Should a judge who wrongfully releases a man who is guilty as hell on a technicality who then goes on to kill another be sent down for the death that he's helped cause?

However, one point you made is correct the CPS do look for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before they try to bring a prosecution. If they think it is unlikely that they will get a conviction they don't bring it to trial. Where the system currently falls down is that at the trial it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt they throw out cases on the most stupidly flimsy defence arguments nowadays.

Just look at the Harrods boss trial for an example of that, the judge actually accepted the defence lawyers argument that just because he was in the vault watching his staff rifling through the safety deposit box of his business rival, they couldn't prove that he had authorised them.

Or that Zimbabwian property tycoon who sent hitman to pay his business rival a visit. Just cos he sent hired killers to "sort out" the man, they couldn't prove "beyong a reasonable doubt" according to the appeal judges that he intended for them to kill him.

Yeh some justice system. :worthy: Protect the guilty screw the victims.