QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

The_White_Horse

the truth of the matter is, under a very right wing approach loads of people get murdered and under a very left wing approach loads of people get murdered. the only difference is under a right wing stance, the murderer gets executed or imprisoned for life, and under the left wing stance, they get a safari trip, arts and crafts, tv, playstation, dole, three meals a day( with 5 options for each meal), gym, exercise and all the things decent people can't afford. they then get let out as rehabiliated people, only to offend again.

The_White_Horse

tomterm8 wrote: »

Given that the entire prison population probably knows exactly who they are by now, (there have only been 86 people recalled to prison from a life licence since maggie invented this system, so it will stick out like a sore thumb), I don't think that is practicable. There is no real difference between making them serve sentances under their old name, or under their new name. I have no doubt it is now easy to work out exactly who he is.

As for my opinion, I gave it earlier: I think it is impossible to know, in this case, whether they are safe or not, and so I don't think they should ever have been released.

look, they have been given a new identy (which we shouldn't have bothered with) and if people can work out who he really is, it shows what an expensive farce its all been.

If the other prisoners work out who he is and beat him to death, thats just tough luck on him. If he hadn't been downloading child !!!!!! he would be ok wouldn't he. If he never murdered in the first place he would be even more ok. you pay your money you take your choice.

tomterm8

Doesn't work that way, though, does it white horse. The prison service has a legal duty of care, meaning that it will have to guard him from the other prisoners throughout the time he is in the prison. So, in effect, it will cost us a fortune to protect him either way.

Anyway, as I said, this is a right wing approach: the system they were sentenced under was brought in by maggie herself. Before that, under all previous labour governments, life meant life.

moggylover

Cleaver wrote: »

No. I think he has had a chance to start again with what sounds like a lot of support and help. And I say that as a 'lefty liberal'.

Here's my take on it all. They should have had a proper, lengthy sentence in the first place (as I believe all cold-blooded murders should have). 30 years or so. For a crime this barbaric, no matter the age of the perpetrator, there should be a substatial jail term which is probably in line with what the vast majority of the public want to see from their criminal justice system. This would have meant that a battery of tests could have been done when they were about 40 to see if they could be released under supervision.

On a sperate issue, all this 'eye for an eye' stuff bothers me. Presumably what upset the nation back in 1993 was the disgusting way in which these two boys killed Jamie Bulger as our society finds murder abhorrent, and the idea of torturing and killing a toddler is pretty much incomprehensible. All this 'we should hang them' stuff makes us, as a society, a bit hypocritical as I've always been of the opinion that punishing murder with murder seems a bit daft. They should be locked away, for a very long time, in conditions that aren't very nice.

In my eyes prison should be an equal mix of punishment and rehabilitation. If you're an 18 year old who's fallen in with a bad crowd and have gone to prison for repeated stealing (for example) then a jail term which is all about rehabilitation seems applicable. The whole sentence should be about working and educating that 18 year old for 12 hours a day: manual labour, courses, life skills. Try and turn them around. I'm going to sound like the White Horse now because I think a prisoner should have a bed and some meagre possessions in their cell. No TVs, no Playstations, no phones, no computers... that's the punishment aspect. For a murderer I think the punishment should come first, rehabilitation second. And this getting out after 11 years is stupid.

Sorry, bit of a waffle there. To summerise Really2: the answer is 'no'.

I cuoldn't have put it better! But then I'm another silly old lefty;) Amazing the common sense we can come up with when not being "quoted" in the DM:D

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

shockingly, i am in agreement with Cleaver on this.

however, when it comes to the death penalty, i don't really see it as a "punishment" as I think sitting alone, in a cold empty cell for 40 years is probably worse punishment. I see it as protection for society, as murderers are gone, and we don't have to worry about looking after them, paying for them, protecting them, policing them, providing health care for them and...

...yes, thats right, the lefties let them collect dole in jail. what a joke. and why? it will help them prepare for life on the outside. jokers.

by killing venables and thompson, society would be 100% safe from them, society would incur no costs of looking after them and jail space for more minor offenders would be freed up. Plus, their organs could have been given to deserving children. I can't really see one con of executing these two. can anyone?

if people didn't want to execute a 10 year old who committed a pre-meditated murder in cold blood against a helpless toddler, I think a compromise could have been reached by keeping them alive until their 18th birthday. I know it is stupid, but its just an idea to appease the lefty.

You started off almost a human being there: then the depth of your own sickness became frighteningly apparent.:(

The_White_Horse

moggylover wrote: »

You started off almost a human being there: then the depth of your own sickness became frighteningly apparent.:(

yet everytime i ask for the con of executing venables and thompson i am never given one. Yet I have provided at leats 5 "pros".

i am waiting for you to balance the pros with cons....

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

yet everytime i ask for the con of executing venables and thompson i am never given one. Yet I have provided at leats 5 "pros".

i am waiting for you to balance the pros with cons....

You have already been given it by several posters!

The moment we regress to state sponsored murder (i.e. the death penalty) we have lost the moral argument and become nothing better than those we execute!

However, I will make an exception to the con: in your case it wouldn't make a smidgeon of difference to how sick you are.

All I see WH is an angry, vengeful and viscious person with some serious "issues" of their own. You need to fix yourself before you can make any measured and intelligent comment on anyone else in Society.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

A very odd quote as this is an ideal but has never met with reality, people get murdered everyday and have done for centuries (perhaps more so in the last 50 years excluding war) is that an indication society is permanently not working?

What makes you think that? I am sure they are reported and punished more, I can't in any way think that more people (as a % of the population) are murdered now.
One plus about the current story is that it will remind parents to keep a close eye on very young children when they are out and about.

Cleaver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

shockingly, i am in agreement with Cleaver on this.

I think it's time for both of us to take a long, hard look at each other.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

by killing venables and thompson, society would be 100% safe from them, society would incur no costs of looking after them and jail space for more minor offenders would be freed up. Plus, their organs could have been given to deserving children. I can't really see one con of executing these two. can anyone?

Okay, forget Thompson and Venables, or indeed any other individual case, for a second. If you brought back the death penalty it would presumably be for pre-medidated murder. You can't have it for some murders and not others, as everyone has a different view of how horrific or henious certain crimes are.

In answer to your question 'what are the cons of executing the Bulger killers' I can't think of many. But it's a pointless question, as you can't have the death penalty for individual cases. So my cons for the death penalty as a whole are as follows:

• It brings society down to 'their level'. Morally I don't think you should punish murder with murder. I think our culture and society has moved on from this.
• I agree with another poster - do we have enough faith in our justice system, is it right 100% of the time? How would we feel now if we'd executed the Birmingham Six for example.
• I think spending your life (and I mean life) in a harsh prison environment would be more of a punishment than death. Any sane person would have decades to think and live with what they did. Anyone who still didn't care would be locked away for life.
• How do you judge who gets the death penalty? Let's say a woman has been beaten and sexually abused by her husband or a relative for years and years. One day she decides to wait at home with a knife, and stabs her tormentor when they come through the door. It's premeditated, so should she receive the death penalty?
• The death penalty is unfair on the relatives of people who receive it. If I were the parent, or child, of a killer I would have enough to deal with without having to come to terms with their death.

That said I think I, like most, have major frustrations with the criminal justice and penal system in this country. I just don't understand why there aren't mandatory, simple, non-negotiable standard punishments for crimes. I don't get why there are TVs, computers, games consoles, mobile phones and other luxuries in prison. I don't get why people with 'minor' crimes in prison are not made to work during the day on community issues. I don't get why murderers and other serious criminals get what the public percieve as short sentences. I don't get why life doesn't either mean life or a good 30 or 40 years.

Brown, Cameron and Clegg love nothing better than pandering to votes. If one of them came out tomorrow and proposed a number of the above they'd get a mass of extra voters.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

What makes you think that? I am sure they are reported and punished more, I can't in any way think that more people (as a % of the population) are murdered now.
One plus about the current story is that it will remind parents to keep a close eye on very young children when they are out and about.

I don't think murder is reported much more now than 1960 TBH, I would argue worldwide that it would have increased but that could be down to availability of weapons and drugs.

Found the info though.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf page 14
Homicides per million population in England and Wales
Year Homicides
1900 9.6
1910 8.1
1920 8.3
1930 7.5
1940 ..
1950 7.9
1955 6.3
1960 6.2
1965 6.8
1970 8.1
1975 10.3
1980 12.5
1985 12.5
1990 13.1
1995 14.5
1997 14.1

Sorry I have got no more but cant see it being that far off.