Life Is A Long Time - It Should Be.

I'm not saying I know better Bar, I'm saying that is my personal belief.

Ok then Gareth - give me a name of a pychopath that has been jailed, released & failed to re-offend. I'm talking about the ones with deep-rooted psychological conditions, not your everyday crim.
 
I find the mother's remarks inspiring and I'd like to think I could aspire to such forgiveness in extremely difficult circumstances, as I would wish others to forgive me if I erred.

However, I don't think the sentences were long enough.
 
Was anyone on this thread either

1) At the trial?

or

2) At the murder scene at the time of the incident?

Do not misunderstand me, I have the greatest sympathy for the family of the victim (I know exactly what it is like to lose someone close at the hands of someone else, my brother was murdered on Christmas Eve 1999) all I am saying is that it is better to let the convictions and sentences take place without resorting to personal hatred towards someone who might (although highly unlikely in most cases) actually be innocent (do I have to list those who have been convicted and later proved not guilty?)

People express their hatred for those who are convicted of terrible crimes, but isn't it better to show dignity in the face of doubt?

Speaking of which, "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" is meant to be the line that MUST be crossed in order for a jury to convict. Every convicted person's jury crosses that line. But still, some convictions are quashed later. "Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" means nothing.

This forum will always be divided down the middle on these sort of subjects - and rightly so, freedom of speech and thought is a must in a democratic society. I am entitled to my views, even though Walker disagrees and thinks I'm an idiot for expressing views that clearly disagree with his (are you also a member of the KKK, Walker?), just as everyone else is entitled to theirs and just as people can openly disagree with my views, so can I theirs.

At this point, I am now forced to ask one of the moderators to remove the personal insult made by Walker towards me on this thread - I have already asked privately, but still it remains. Perhaps they are all busy elsewhere, so here it is openly.
 
You ask someone if they are " a member of the KKK", and yet complain for being called an idiot. Can you explain where your question to Walker comes from. The young man killed was coloured. His murderers were white. You stick up for one of those convicted, and the next post calls you an idiot. where exactly does the KKK sit in all this in your head Phil?
 
Originally posted by Phil Waters@Dec 2 2005, 11:48 AM
Was anyone on this thread either

1) At the trial?

or

2) At the murder scene at the time of the incident?
Click to expand...
I made my remarks on the assumption that the jury came to the correct verdict according to what actually happened and not necessarily according to what evidence led to their verdict.

I can't answer for anyone else.
 
Originally posted by Honest Tom@Dec 2 2005, 10:53 AM
Am I alone (Phil excepted maybe) in thinking that the 17yo's sentence (equals 80% of the actual murderer's) was excessive when compared to the norm. I'm not saying it wasn't just (I don't know enough about him), I'm saying that if his sentence was correct then almost all murderers are dealt with very leniently.
Click to expand...
This touches on a part of the legal system that I strongly disagree with. If someone denies an offence, but is found guilty either by jury or a judge, his sentence is more severe than if he'd admitted guilt. I know and agree with the reason put forward for such a policy - it saves putting victims through a lengthy trial process etc, which is a good thing, especially for victims of violent and brutal crimes or vulnerable witnesses or victims (e.g. children or elderly persons) - but in my opinion, all of that - as valid as it is - means nothing if the accused is actually innocent. All vulnerable witnesses or victims forfeit their comfort entitlements in the face of someone who is being tried for a crime he did not commit. The difficultly is that it is impossible to know the future, so an accused stands accused and that's that. What we can do though is have the same sentencing policies in place for all those who are accused and later convicted - irrespective of whether they pleaded guilty or not.

The 17 year old who got 17 years and 8 months for murder might be innocent (and remember, he didn't actually carry out the attack that ended the poor guy's life - he has been convicted of murder under recent changes to the interpretation of the offence - basically meaning, if you are in a house and someone commits murder right next to you and you do not report it, you could be tried for murder along with the person who actually carried out the attack) - and if he is innocent and his conviction is quashed, will those who condemn him as an evil bastard take back those words?

You will notice I am not bringing the other convicted person into this, he admitted his guilt and I have no concerns regarding his conviction. However, I will always have concerns when someone pleads not guilty.

They might be telling the truth. I would rather show dignity in the face of doubt. I wasn't at the trial nor was I at the murder scene at the time of the incident. The 17 year old might be innocent and for that reason and that reason alone, I will refrain from calling him an evil bastard.
 
Originally posted by Dave G@Dec 2 2005, 12:01 PM
You ask someone if they are " a member of the KKK", and yet complain for being called an idiot. Can you explain where your question to Walker comes from. The young man killed was coloured. His murderers were white. You stick up for one of those convicted, and the next post calls you an idiot. where exactly does the KKK sit in all this in your head Phil?
Click to expand...
He called me an idiot because I posted something which seemed to disagree with his views on the matter. This suggested to me that he was incapable of allowing certain people to have the views I expressed without being an idiot. Therefore, his failure to allow someone (me in this case) the capacity to have a different view from his own is consistent with anti-live and let live groups such as the KKK and the Nazis.

Is that a good enough answer for you, Dave? Or would you like Solerina to find out my home address so you can "pay me a visit"?
 
In the context of this particular case Phil, I don't think it was warranted bringing up the KKK. You could have mentioned any number of anti-live and let live groups, but you chose to mention KKK.

As for the other Jibe. interesting. I always wondered who that was aimed at in the past, now I know.
 
Yes, I did choose to mention the KKK. Someone who denies another the right to voice his opinion deserves to be thought of as no better than someone who is pro-KKK.

Some might think your comment - the young man killed was coloured - was extremely racist, by referring to him as "coloured", which fails to distinguish what "colour" he actually was. This could be taken that you believe there to be two types of race - white and coloured - which puts all those who are not White (and there are many different races out there) in the same category - i.e. Not White.

Are these your views, Dave? Come on, explain yourself.
 
My view was that you are an idiot.

My conclusion after your sickening KKK remarks, is that you are a sick idiot.
 
So anyone who disagrees with your own view is an idiot? Then you are no better than extreme groups like the KKK and the Taliban who also make a point of not allowing people to have different views from them without being condemned in one way or another.

You calling me an idiot for disagreeing with your views suggests to me that you are a racist, hate-filled thug who deserves to be locked up away from peaceful civilians who are happy to extend others the capacity to have differing views to their own.
 
This was a racially motivated murder you sick fuck. The only reason that boy was killed, the only reason that poor poor family are going through hell at the moment is because of the colour of his skin, and you sit there asking questions about the KKK? I would rather get banned from the forum than not tell you what an utter shit you are, what a sad pathetic evil little bastad you continue to be.

SICK FUCKER-
 
Originally posted by Walker@Dec 2 2005, 12:59 PM
This was a racially motivated murder you sick fuck. The only reason that boy was killed, the only reason that poor poor family are going through hell at the moment is because of the colour of his skin, and you sit there asking questions about the KKK? I would rather get banned from the forum than not tell you what an utter shit you are, what a sad pathetic evil little bastad you continue to be.

SICK FUCKER-
Click to expand...
See, what did I tell you? You are a racist, hate-filled thug who deserves to be locked up. The hatred in your tone is incredible. You should not be allowed to be a member of society with such violent hate-filled behaviour.

Are you saying that because the guy was the victim of a racist attack that we cannot mention anything that is to do with race-hate? Is that what you KKK members believe?

You are clearly a racist, mindless thug who deserves to be kept away from society.
 
Yes, I was busy 'elsewhere', Phil - reviewing six identical 'reports' from another member of this forum on another subject. If you want me to delete Walker's remark of 'idiot', then I'm acting censoriously and denying him the right to free expression which you champion so often on here. You've just implied he may be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, which is equally insulting, as well as a complete non sequitur.

I don't see moderating as acting as a censor every time we object to someone's view of ourselves. Walker happens to think you're idiotic, or at least your views, on this subject. You've also decided that anyone who doesn't wish to comply with your own view (that juries may be wrong) is also wrong-headed. What do you want - every topic edited down to only your own view? If so, I'm afraid your notion of 'free expression' doesn't concur with mine.

Unless any other Mods want to spend a merry hour deleting and editing, as far as I'm concerned, this is all par for the course when an issue is as emotive as this. Try to keep the slanging matches down a bit, of course, but if it's in context, opining someone's attitude as racist or idiotic isn't (yet) a hanging offence.
 
You can keep the "idiot" remark on here if you want. I've decided I'm no longer annoyed by it.

I claimed Walker was a member of the KKK, because it seemed to me quite appropriate that instead of posting why he thought my views were wrong, he just went for the extreme and insulted me. Maybe he has no real argumentative skills of his own and has to resort to violent insults, bad language and cryptic threats of murder.

As for people who disagree with my own views (for instance PDJ who states that a jury's decision is good enough for him), yes I think they are wrong, but I don't call them idiots for thinking the way they do.

I know my views could be wrong, but they could equally be right. As could everyone else's.

Getting personal with insults and threats of violence has no place here.

Don't you agree?
 
Just so that I'm clear on your argument Phil (the first one) - are you saying that people convicted by jury should not be reviled due to the exceedingly small percentage of them which are subsequently found to be innocent (not that the jury generally had very much to do with the wrongful imprisonment of those cases I am aware of, they can only go on the evidence and the manner in which that evidence is presented to them)?

Isn't that rather like a professional apple eater, famed eater of 50 apples a day for the first 30 years of his toothful life, giving up apples because one day he found one with a rotten core? Ignoring the fact that he has eaten 547000 apples and on that evidence has a 0.00018% chance of finding another.

That seems rather hasty.
 
Sorry Krizon, i think whilst you were typing that post i lost it a little. Some of my posts were against the forum rules but when called a racist and a member of the KKK on a topic such as this, i think i have every right to tell PW what i think of him.

One day......means one day, ok matey.
 
Originally posted by Walker@Dec 2 2005, 01:14 PM
Sorry Krizon, i think whilst you were typing that post i lost it a little. Some of my posts were against the forum rules but when called a racist and a member of the KKK on a topic such as this, i think i have every right to tell PW what i think of him.

One day......means one day, ok matey.
Click to expand...
But you called me an idiot before I suggested you were a violent, hate-filled, racist, mindless thug. So you can't use that as an excuse. You called me an idiot simply because my views disagreed with your own.

As for "one day", I am taking that as a threat and I am reporting you to Col, then the police.
 
Context is everything, and no-one believes the bluster on here for a minute. Why, if we'd really believed you in your dark past, Phil, you'd have been banned forever, without the possibility of the change, reform, and redemption now so coruscatingly laid before us... :)
 
Right, calm down, please. If you can't get back to the issue, then stop lowering the tone of it. A young boy's life was lost in the most dreadful circumstances. A mother witnessed her son dying with an axe stuck into his brain. Our little squabbles are just that beside such a scenario.
 
Originally posted by simmo@Dec 2 2005, 01:14 PM
Just so that I'm clear on your argument Phil (the first one) - are you saying that people convicted by jury should not be reviled due to the exceedingly small percentage of them which are subsequently found to be innocent (not that the jury generally had very much to do with the wrongful imprisonment of those cases I am aware of, they can only go on the evidence and the manner in which that evidence is presented to them)?

Isn't that rather like a professional apple eater, famed eater of 50 apples a day for the first 30 years of his toothful life, giving up apples because one day he found one with a rotten core? Ignoring the fact that he has eaten 547000 apples and on that evidence has a 0.00018% chance of finding another.

That seems rather hasty.
Click to expand...
I am able to live my life without expressing hatred towards people who have committed terrible crimes (even if those people committed crimes on my family or friends). I know not everyone has that same outlook, I am not saying there is anything wrong with having a different outlook to my own. However, I think (from personal experience) that calling someone an "evil bastard" on the decision made by a jury alone, is not a positive way of thinking. If the jury had decided he was not guilty, many people would not call him an evil bastard, so even though they believe they are calling him such because he murdered someone, they are actually just calling him an evil bastard because the jury found him guilty.

And that leads to the question - do the jury get it right all the time? The answer is no - the statistics may not be high - but in this instance, no is very powerful in my opinion.

I'm of the belief that 1000 guilty men should go free rather than 1 innocent man goes to prison.

I know people don't share the same views, and I can live with that.

Why can't other people live with that?
 
Back
Top