QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

ninky_2

surely as well as thinking about what to do with children who commit crimes we should be considering ways of preventing such crimes from happening.

i don't think stricter sentencing would in anyway deter a 10 year old.

despite what white_horse says about not all abused children becoming abusers it is clear there is a correlation between certain factors and the probability of criminal behaviour.

many of these factors can be influenced by the type of society we create.

moggylover

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I dunno, this is one area where capital punishment should be reintroduced - or at least they should have their bits chopped off - once a kiddy fiddler, always a kiddy fiddler. :mad::mad:

Just my humble opinion......

You? Humble?:rotfl:

It is a difficult one for me. I fully understand that the vast majority were victims themselves, and I fully understand that this will often be enough to "pervert" their own desire to control and hurt. This understanding doesn't make me actually forgive them for acting on those drives though.

We are all capable of evil, it is only what choices we make that decides what kind of a human being we are.:o

I'm pretty much of the opinion that I would not want them killed or even bits chopped off, but I think they should be sentenced to a secure unit FOR LIFE and NEVER eligible for parole because, as you say, they are not likely to ever be rehabilitated.

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I'm pretty much of the opinion that I would not want them killed or even bits chopped off, but I think they should be sentenced to a secure unit FOR LIFE and NEVER eligible for parole because, as you say, they are not likely to ever be rehabilitated.

I just can't see this as much more humane than a painless death.

The_White_Horse

lostinrates wrote: »

I just can't see this as much more humane than a painless death.

it isn't. it is in fact more of a punishment. but, the lefty id... ok, i will try not to offend moggy, the more left wing thinkers amongst us would feel less guilty keeping someone locked up in a small room for 60 years than they would if the person was "put to sleep".

there is no real reason for this. just guilt. left wingers like a bit of guilt. that is why i am so happy ken apologised on my behalf for my role in the slave trade hundred of years ago, in which neither i, nor my family ever had any involvement. thanks ken.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

I just can't see this as much more humane than a painless death.

It isn't! It is a punishment which is why I have said that it is a difficult one for me:o. It also keeps them safely away from anyone they can harm without the need for someone to murder them:o

Furthermore, there have been cases of wrongful convictions in these situations as well.

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it isn't. it is in fact more of a punishment. but, the lefty id... ok, i will try not to offend moggy, the more left wing thinkers amongst us would feel less guilty keeping someone locked up in a small room for 60 years than they would if the person was "put to sleep".

there is no real reason for this. just guilt. left wingers like a bit of guilt. that is why i am so happy ken apologised on my behalf for my role in the slave trade hundred of years ago, in which neither i, nor my family ever had any involvement. thanks ken.

I have, as I said, plenty of friends from the right wing of politics who are equally opposed to the death penalty. I personally think it is our humanity that makes us so, not our political persuasion;)

I certainly refuse to apologise for the revulsion I feel at the idea of killing people:D

ninky_2

the vigilante mentality around the bulger killers is getting way out of hand. some poor 27 year old guy has been in fear of his life after being accused of being jon on facebook.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256533/Jon-Venables-Terror-young-father-accused-Bulger-killer-Facebook.html

The_White_Horse

but fundamentally, why is it wrong to kill someone if they are a danger to society and themselves, and keeping them alive only prolongs the problem? we put dogs down that bite people - frankly, I think it is wrong to put dogs down for biting people as that is what a dog does, especially one bred to fight. putting these animals down is inhumane. putting down a crazed psycho killer is not wrong.

look at old people who want to die with dignity - the religious maniacs won't let them do it. there is a fundamental issue about dying and killing that we need to overcome.

If someone genuinely wants to die, they should be allowed to be assisted if they cannot do it themselves. if someone kills (without valid reason) then they should be put down.

Now, obviously a common sense approach has to be taken. Clearly there are different kinds of murder. Someone who is driving dangerously and kills someone may not warrant death - it depends on the circumstances. A woman (or man) who has been abused and snaps may not warrant death. However, someone who simply kills for (a) the pleasure (sexual or otherwise) or (b) profit or gain - should be put to death.

Then we have to say "what is pleasure" - if my child was murdered, I may kill the murderer myself. is that for pleasure? or is it revenger? Is revenge and pleasure the same thing? As I say, these are all relevant questions, but with the application of some common sense (which you hope a judge would apply), you would hope that a parent who kills the murderer of their child would not be given death but merely a short custodial sentence (if that). That parent is not a danger to society and would not put anyone at risk, save for the murderer. However, someone like Fred West or Shipman etc etc are simply killing for the thrill. Its just common sense.

Here is one I saw on a programme once. The executioners were giving the criminal an injection, but it started going wrong. The criminal was in a lot of pain and started violently convulsing. One of the executioners decided to put the criminal out of his misery/pain and shot him. He was charged with murder - even though he was in the process of killing him when he shot him!!

chucky

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but fundamentally, why is it wrong to kill someone if they are a danger to society and themselves, and keeping them alive only prolongs the problem?

i struggle to agree with your post when you consider the other boy that was convicted with Venables who seems to be continuing with a normal life and has not re-offended and maybe, just maybe is a totally reformed character.

would killing him have been the correct option?

personally i'm not judgemental enough to be able to say that a human life should be taken away.

ninky_2

let's not forget. two 10 year olds with a two year old. 38 adults saw them between the time of abduction and the time of murder, including witnesses who saw the boys hit james and saw james crying and bruised.

if you witness unsupervised children attacking each other should it not be a criminal offence not to intervene?