T
Toobe
Guest
It seems you are getting your murder cases mixed up. Huntly and Hindley were different crimes in different decades. The man who raped the 2 year old is the man who killed Baby P.
Baby P
- Thread starter G-G
- Start date
It seems you are getting your murder cases mixed up. Huntly and Hindley were different crimes in different decades. The man who raped the 2 year old is the man who killed Baby P.
G-G
Senior Jockey
Well there's hope for some then.
I have not at any point written that my primary or only concern is the cost at ALL. You did. You have put this slant on my words - as is your want. I NEVER said that.
I do not believe the death sentence being available would be a deterrent. I didn't say that. In fact I said it would have no affect. You have said I did. Why are you labelling me as a 'hang em high' advocate? I never mentioned the word hang, or string them up or any other such term. You are using it to suit your argument. It's nothing to do with an eye for an eye - I never mentioned the words revenge or retribution. Brady has been in jail for 43 years - yes I think the cost of his execution at the time of conviction would have been far less than what has been spent on him being in prison all that time. Do you think the costs would be equable? But that is not the only or primary reason I think we should have a death penalty. You keep writing that is it. I have not said that at any point. The cost is one piece of my argument. You are trying to say it is all of it.
What is the point of keeping Brady alive? What is your argument for that? Do you think he deserves compassion, rehabilitation, to live on so we can learn from his behaviour, mental state or lack of it? To be fed, watered, clothed in return for what he did? Do you? Why? I don't.
I am entitled to think so whether you agree with it or not; think it is ridiculous or not; apply amateur pyscho-analysis to it or not.
Do not use 'people' as if you are speaking for anyone else. you are only answering on your own behalf. If other people wish to express an opinion they have and are free to do so. You are drawing your own conclusions and applying them to other people, again as is your want, as if you have the right to put thoughts in their heads - which you do not.
I have not at any point written that my primary or only concern is the cost at ALL. You did. You have put this slant on my words - as is your want. I NEVER said that.
I do not believe the death sentence being available would be a deterrent. I didn't say that. In fact I said it would have no affect. You have said I did. Why are you labelling me as a 'hang em high' advocate? I never mentioned the word hang, or string them up or any other such term. You are using it to suit your argument. It's nothing to do with an eye for an eye - I never mentioned the words revenge or retribution. Brady has been in jail for 43 years - yes I think the cost of his execution at the time of conviction would have been far less than what has been spent on him being in prison all that time. Do you think the costs would be equable? But that is not the only or primary reason I think we should have a death penalty. You keep writing that is it. I have not said that at any point. The cost is one piece of my argument. You are trying to say it is all of it.
What is the point of keeping Brady alive? What is your argument for that? Do you think he deserves compassion, rehabilitation, to live on so we can learn from his behaviour, mental state or lack of it? To be fed, watered, clothed in return for what he did? Do you? Why? I don't.
I am entitled to think so whether you agree with it or not; think it is ridiculous or not; apply amateur pyscho-analysis to it or not.
Do not use 'people' as if you are speaking for anyone else. you are only answering on your own behalf. If other people wish to express an opinion they have and are free to do so. You are drawing your own conclusions and applying them to other people, again as is your want, as if you have the right to put thoughts in their heads - which you do not.
Last edited:
Oh for crying out loud
This is some kind of wind up isn't it?
Just read what I wrote please;
"Deterent is a familiar theme often cited by the 'hang-um-high' brigade. You've dismissed this (post above). You've described as "not the argument for having it". You couldn't quite frankly, be more unequivicol if you tried. You haven't gone down the biblical 'eye for an eye' route (another oft cited justification)".
Which bit of this is causing you the problem?
You go onto say;
"The cost is one piece of my argument".
yet you haven't elected to invoke any component other than cost. I'll say it again in case it didn't register the third time. You've dimissed deterence, and you've ignored by dint of not mentioning it, any sense of retribution. Therefore the only piece of your argument left, is the fiscal one. Without having embellished on any other angle, then I'm afraid your challenging the reader to indulge in mind reading as to what you might ot might not be thinking. People who make presumptions often get jumped on, on this forum. I'm not making any assumptions. All I'm doing is using what you've chosen to put in the public domain as being representative of your views. Until such time as you're prepared to offer a broader critique and tell us what these aspects pieces of your argument actually are, then that's all we have to go on.
Thankyou Clive (and I never thought I'd find myself saying that). At least you can follow it
T
Toobe
Guest
Money, the route of all evils eh!
G-G
Senior Jockey
Prison Resources.
Medical resources.
Police resources.
Court resources.
Repeated emotional distress to relatives of the victims.
It may also give the newspapers something else to scream about when they have supposedly nothing else to do but that is a small by product.
And you haven't answered my question - why do you think Brady should still be alive?
And we were discussing that fact that you said my primary concern was money which I said it was not. You then drag other elements in to avoid answering the point which was that you misinterpreted what I had written but rather than admit it, go down a differerent path. Which is what you always do. I said why should I pay not how much I pay. If it was 1p for 43 years of Brady being in prison, it is still not justified in my opinon.
Medical resources.
Police resources.
Court resources.
Repeated emotional distress to relatives of the victims.
It may also give the newspapers something else to scream about when they have supposedly nothing else to do but that is a small by product.
And you haven't answered my question - why do you think Brady should still be alive?
And we were discussing that fact that you said my primary concern was money which I said it was not. You then drag other elements in to avoid answering the point which was that you misinterpreted what I had written but rather than admit it, go down a differerent path. Which is what you always do. I said why should I pay not how much I pay. If it was 1p for 43 years of Brady being in prison, it is still not justified in my opinon.
It should not be assumed that all victims family have wanted the criminal executed. Even yesterday, with lockerbie, we have seen that
The rest of your argument is about very insignificant sums of money. I would be far more concerned about huge wastage elsewhere, if that was the prime issue
He is not being "kept alive". He is simply not being executed. The reasons why many believe an execution should be carried out by the state have been made clear in the posts above
The rest of your argument is about very insignificant sums of money. I would be far more concerned about huge wastage elsewhere, if that was the prime issue
He is not being "kept alive". He is simply not being executed. The reasons why many believe an execution should be carried out by the state have been made clear in the posts above
T
Toobe
Guest
So surely the victims in relation to those crimes have say in what occurs. I would not wish blood on my own hands so why should I expect or, know someone else to purposely carry out killing on my behalf and in my name, which also I may add gives the whole affair a premeditated under tone.
G-G
Senior Jockey
I didn't assume all families.....The lady I saw being interviewed didn't want him to be freed. If he was dead already it wouldn't be an option would it?
Is it? Insignificant to whom? You? Brady has been kept alive - he was force fed some time ago when he was on hunger strike. The order for which took court time, prison time and medical resources. There is huge wastage in all areas - capital punishment was the subject under discussion.
Is it? Insignificant to whom? You? Brady has been kept alive - he was force fed some time ago when he was on hunger strike. The order for which took court time, prison time and medical resources. There is huge wastage in all areas - capital punishment was the subject under discussion.
T
Toobe
Guest
I would not necessarily agree with force feeding Brady. If the person convicted chooses to take their own life then they should also have that choice. But in a way they are obviously in hell to want to, so therefore I would see it as punishment to keep them alive. Look at the Harold Shipman case and draw comparisons.
Yes. The sum cost of "keeping Brady alive" in strict economic terms is very insignificant
The total Uk goverment expenditure is £700 billion p/a (2007)
The cost of Brady's keep is say £200k. Top whack... It is definately "insignificant".
I also feel that the addition of £200k to the Uk economy would not necessarily take us out of recession.....
The total Uk goverment expenditure is £700 billion p/a (2007)
The cost of Brady's keep is say £200k. Top whack... It is definately "insignificant".
I also feel that the addition of £200k to the Uk economy would not necessarily take us out of recession.....
Last edited:
Shadow Leader
At the Start
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 9,884
yes, i realised later i'd had a mad five minutes and mixed up the ians huntley and brady. however i'm well aware of both cases and i think they're both guilty as convicted, and constitute the dregs of the human race.
G-G
Senior Jockey
200k for a year in prison? You think? Well okay then - you must be right.
And of course that would make no difference whatsoever in the current financial situation. However, it could go to building a playground for a nursery near to my home. Or help run a creche for people at the municipal gym. Or pay for some retraining courses for the umemployed. Or...well no matter.
And of course that would make no difference whatsoever in the current financial situation. However, it could go to building a playground for a nursery near to my home. Or help run a creche for people at the municipal gym. Or pay for some retraining courses for the umemployed. Or...well no matter.
EC1
On a break
correct...and a thousand other things badly needed
I don't understand criminal huggers at all tbh..there are many more worthy people needing the money.
talking on this thread as though £200k is nothing and we should be happy to pay it...I think I am dreaming with some of the stuff on this thread
we have no room here for making wrongdoers more comfy than law abiding citizens
some amazing reading here..no wonder criminals are laughing in this country
its funny because on the NHS money IS the deciding factor..not enough for this not enough for that...oh but for prisoners..give em everything they need..full sky package, vaseline, health care, no bills..
no wonder many older people are retiring and fookin off elsewhere
Last edited:
T
Toobe
Guest
GG do you not think the above indicates to you the reason as to why capital punishment is not acceptable, what you believe one minute is not necessarily correct. However, I agree some crooks are getting it easy but that is the systems fault and cannot be remedied by killing people to appease the mulitudes.
Krizon...
so you disagree with cpaital punishment but its "complete tosh" to sya that we have a better society because we do not kill adulterers and homosexuals, becuase we were horrid to them (didnt execute them ) in "living memory"
Makes sense......
yes
so you disagree with cpaital punishment but its "complete tosh" to sya that we have a better society because we do not kill adulterers and homosexuals, becuase we were horrid to them (didnt execute them ) in "living memory"
Makes sense......
yes
T
Toobe
Guest
I would totally agree with that.
walsworth
Journeyman
But we have a marvellous, wonderful society which is ruled by greed, market forces, and the children of TBW. How do we get out of this and head back to the society I knew as a teenager?
Nostalgia is a dangerous route to go down. For one, I believe those of us who can remember so-called idyllic childhoods forget that news was not 'instant' as it is now and was much more heavily censored. Crimes were committed that never got solved but there was no public outcry in the way there would be today as the pressure to publish crime stats in th emanner they are now didn't exist then. I suspect many crimes were committed that never saw the light of public day and child abuse went on but was never reported because of the so-called 'shame' etc surrounding the cases. Certainly adults very much protected what we, as children then, would hear.
EC1
On a break
good post Songsheet
maybe we are suffering by knowledge overload- actually seeing what our society is really like isn't very nice.
when I were a kid in the sixties you were more likely to be assaulted by tiddler touchers then than you are now because they were roaming free then....no registers etc..no one believed kids if they did tell etc
but when you see parents today - they are obssessed by fears for their kids - this shows that more knowledge - if not kept in perspective.. can actually limit your freedom
one of the main problems we have is the media making people scared as well..if you read the papers every day you could end up never leaving your home through fear....never letting your kids out of sight..having knowledge is great..but if the people giving you that knowledge are always slanting it to doom and gloom it can brainwash people..and has
maybe we are suffering by knowledge overload- actually seeing what our society is really like isn't very nice.
when I were a kid in the sixties you were more likely to be assaulted by tiddler touchers then than you are now because they were roaming free then....no registers etc..no one believed kids if they did tell etc
but when you see parents today - they are obssessed by fears for their kids - this shows that more knowledge - if not kept in perspective.. can actually limit your freedom
one of the main problems we have is the media making people scared as well..if you read the papers every day you could end up never leaving your home through fear....never letting your kids out of sight..having knowledge is great..but if the people giving you that knowledge are always slanting it to doom and gloom it can brainwash people..and has
Last edited:
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Do we need 24 hour news channels?
They have to fill up the quiet days with something so they take a small story and do the bollocks out of it.
I'm beginning to think that we don't need television at all for the majority of news stories.
But I'd better not start on about that, it is a bot of an obsession with me........the standard of reporting that is...........mumble, mumble, rant, rant...........
They have to fill up the quiet days with something so they take a small story and do the bollocks out of it.
I'm beginning to think that we don't need television at all for the majority of news stories.
But I'd better not start on about that, it is a bot of an obsession with me........the standard of reporting that is...........mumble, mumble, rant, rant...........
M
martin
Guest
Lets face it, as a society we don't know what to do with people who choose to "smoke a joint" let alone mass murderers.
My view is we always hear about the "bad people" who get free like OJ Simpson and over here Kieron Fallon (admittedly a strange pairing) as this is what the modern day media pumps up, but increasingly i'm hearing stories on the local and mainstream news of people being let out of prison after 25+years plus for a crime they never committed. This is now actually seen as "normal" and therefore is not as newsworthy.
The end result only means a compensation pay out, as opposed to someone hanging from a rope...
The lockerbie bomber is another who's sentence is questionable, should we just hang him to save the bother of ever looking at new evidence that may come to light?
My view is we always hear about the "bad people" who get free like OJ Simpson and over here Kieron Fallon (admittedly a strange pairing) as this is what the modern day media pumps up, but increasingly i'm hearing stories on the local and mainstream news of people being let out of prison after 25+years plus for a crime they never committed. This is now actually seen as "normal" and therefore is not as newsworthy.
The end result only means a compensation pay out, as opposed to someone hanging from a rope...
The lockerbie bomber is another who's sentence is questionable, should we just hang him to save the bother of ever looking at new evidence that may come to light?
Last edited: