How many more chances?

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

So.... if someone doesn't conform to your view of the world.... we execute them????

Where do you draw the line? Addicts? Incurable schizophrenics? Those blighted with depression who at times hang on to life by a thread? Those who cannot be cured and continue to present irresponsibility?

Logan's run got nowt on thee

 

Of course not, don't be silly!

The person in question is no longer a child, he is a fully grown adult and should be treated as such...no kids gloves anymore! This is a criminal justice issue.

"Where to draw the line?:   According to the severity of the crime!  I think murderers might be a good place to start!"

We are talking murder here, and the potential to commit another one on innocent children for the love of Mike, not some guy smoking a joint or suffering some mental health issues (neither of which is  a crime by the way and irrelevant).

Its murder, or the potential to commit another one...its VERY, VERY SERIOUS...thats where you draw the line!

The issues you define are medical in nature.

[Shadow]

8 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Of course not, apologies, I wasn't thinking very clearly when I posted what I did and shouldn't have involved Venables and Thompson in my argument.

As I said at the start of the thread, my view is perhaps it's time to lock him up and throw away the key.

I simply objected to the suggestion by Padge that somebody who performs a legal execution on a murderer of innocent(s) in a democratic country that voted for the death penalty should be in any way be compared to the person they put to death.

Stating that they are both killers is far too simplistic if you are forming an argument against the death penalty.

 

Thanks for clarifying, it's an extremely complex case and raises extremely complex issues. I agree with Padge's basic premise that if we say killing is wrong then all killing is wrong whether judicial or otherwise. I also have a real concern about executing the wrong people in the case of judicial killing and really don't see the point. It won't bring back the victim, it clearly doesn't act as any form of deterrent and just adds to the concept that killing is not wrong.

Edit:

I also agree with your suggestion of permanent incarceration as the best solution for all in this case.

 

[Kayakman]

23 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

And many have opposed them

Yes, indeed! As Marcus Aurelius write in his Meditations on the sham trial of Socrates: "Vermin of another sort the Eleven!"

-your are correct...history is littered with such examples!

[Shadow]

2 hours ago, Kayakman said:

The path splits into three ways;

1) We become harsher,

2) We become more lenient,

3) We stay the same.

I believe, in this specific case, Path 1should be chosen.

It's been shown not to work elsewhere so why should it work here?

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Thanks for clarifying, it's an extremely complex case and raises extremely complex issues. I agree with Padge's basic premise that if we say killing is wrong then all killing is wrong whether judicial or otherwise. I also have a real concern about executing the wrong people in the case of judicial killing and really don't see the point. It won't bring back the victim, it clearly doesn't act as any form of deterrent and just adds to the concept that killing is not wrong.

Edit:

I also agree with your suggestion of permanent incarceration as the best solution for all in this case.

 

It does not bring back the victim but provides justice for the family which remains, closure for them.  Also justice for the victim.

It acts as a deterrent for some but not others.

It stops the ability of the guilty party to commit future murders and therefore protects society at large from future criminal activity.

All killing is not wrong...some killing is good.

In many cases permanent incarceration is a band aid approach and acts as a way to avoid the hard questions....and the answers/steps we as a society must take to address them.

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, Shadow said:

It's been shown not to work elsewhere so why should it work here?

I'm not quite sure what you mean but there are thousands upon thousands of examples where harsh punishments have worked to correct/modify behaviour.   It is an accepted pillar in law and has been proven, conclusively, in the field of behavioural science...it is a truth.

[Shadow]

18 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

It does not bring back the victim but provides justice for the family which remains, closure for them.  Also justice for the victim.

Rubbish, Justice and Vengeance are two quite different and mutually exclusive concepts.
Closure is not achieved by the killing of another human being, even less so if it's the wrong person.

It acts as a deterrent for some but not others.

If that's true then it's not a deterrent. The danger of killing the wrong person is clearly no deterrent for you so why should the death penalty be a deterrent for anyone else?

It stops the ability of the guilty party to commit future murders and therefore protects society at large from future criminal activity.

As does locking murderers away without release with the added bonus of being able to let them out if you arrest the wrong person.

All killing is not wrong...some killing is good.

Go on then give us all some examples of "good" killings

In many cases permanent incarceration is a band aid approach and acts as a way to avoid the hard questions....and the answers/steps we as a society must take to address them.

Absolute rubbish.

 

[Shadow]

12 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean but there are thousands upon thousands of examples where harsh punishments have worked to correct/modify behaviour.   It is an accepted pillar in law and has been proven, conclusively, in the field of behavioural science...it is a truth.

Really?

Like where?

Care to compare the murder rates in Texas and Oslo?

[Kayakman]

23 minutes ago, Shadow said:

 

What justice means for the victim/family of the victim is for them to partly define, partly for society to define...it is fluid in nature and sometimes can include an element of vengeance....for society to 'tell' victims of crime how they should feel is Big Brother at his finest!  It also goes against many principles in basic psychotherapy.

Criminal behaviour/crime has many facets and numerous outcomes/permutation/combinations.  Few, if any crimes, are mutually exclusive in nature, by its  very nature it is complex and includes many variables.

The standard for a criminal trial, especially one of murder is very high and a person is considered as innocent until proven guilty...it is not perfect.  Someone will get hit walking on a sidewalk today...its doesn't mean everyone avoids walking on sidewalks...society must move forward....time is not fixed.  People have to go about their daily lives and not hide because of imagined fears which are  based in unsound facts, this is at best superstitious in nature.

Your blurb on deterrents is non sensical and I don't understand it?

[Kayakman]

7 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Really?

Like where?

Care to compare the murder rates in Texas and Oslo?

Texas and Oslo are on different continents, have different cultures, different histories, different everything really.

To compare the two in terms of murder rates an/or murder deterrence  is like comparing apples and oranges...the variables are so vast that any adequate comparison cannot be made in any logical sense...you should know better and my question has not been properly addressed and you fail to answer it:

"What steps has this individual made to become a law abiding citizen and full member of the society, has he changed himself (and I'm sure many individuals/organizations have worked with him in the past); this is his personal obligation, if he is not fulfilling his personal responsibilities to the community at large and willingly continues with his very troubling pattern of anti social behaviour, he could very possibly be incurable."

Why won't you answer my question (I can only assume you don't like where it takes you?)

[Shadow]

 

9 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

What justice means for the victim/family of the victim is for them to partly define, partly for society to define...it is fluid in nature and sometimes can include an element of vengeance....for society to 'tell' victims of crime how they should feel is Big Brother at his finest!  It also goes against many principles in basic psychotherapy.

Criminal behaviour/crime has many facets and numerous outcomes/permutation/combinations.  Few, if any crimes, are mutually exclusive in nature, by its  very nature it is complex and includes many variables.

The standard for a criminal trail, especially one of murder is very high and a person is considered as innocent until proven guilty...it is not perfect.  Someone will get hit walking on a sidewalk today...its doesn't mean everyone avoids walking on sidewalks...society must move forward....time is not fixed.  People have to go about their daily lives and not hide because of imagined fears which are not based in unsound facts, this is at best superstitious in nature.

Your blurb on deterrents is non sensical and I don't understand it?

Some of the founding concepts behind our judicial processes is that justice is equal for all and is impartial, that's why previous offences are not usually considered relevant to a case and why defendants history is kept from the court until after innocence or guilt has been decided. If we start getting the punishment defined by the victims or families of victims we will not have a level playing field.

Society doesn't tell victims how they should feel, what it does is define how criminals should be treated based on a range of factors. 
Those factors include but are not limited to rehabilitation, punishment and safety of society and the perpetrator. 

I'd like to know what qualifications you have in psychotherapy before I accept your statement.

The rest of your post may as well be written in vietnamese for all the sense you make.

I'll try to clarify what I meant about deterrents.

The Death Penalty is not a deterrent. We can see this because the places where we see most murders correspond to the places where we see high rates of the use of the death penalty. If it was a deterrent you would never have to use it. They do, so it isn't.

[Kayakman]

26 minutes ago, Shadow said:

 

You ask for an example of a good killing, and imply there can never be one: "Adolf Hitler!?"

[Shadow]

6 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Texas and Oslo are on different continents, have different cultures, different histories, different everything really.

To compare the two in terms of murder rates an/or murder deterrence  is like comparing apples and oranges...the variables are so vast that any adequate comparison cannot be made in any logical sense...you should know better and my question has not been properly addressed and you fail to answer it:

"What steps has this individual made to become a law abiding citizen and full member of the society, has he changed himself (and I'm sure many individuals/organizations have worked with him in the past); this is his personal obligation, if he is not fulfilling his personal responsibilities to the community at large and willingly continues with his very troubling pattern of anti social behaviour, he could very possibly be incurable."

Why won't you answer my question (I can only assume you don't like where it takes you?)

OK, here's a link to a comparison of US states with and without the death penalty.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Those without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates.

I haven't answered your question because it's nonsensical. How can anyone know what efforts the individual has made unless they are either that person himself or one of the professionals working with him. It also seems to be confused by your lack of understanding of the terms of his release. He has not been set free, he has been released on specific terms and is subject to recall to prison for breaching those terms. That would appear to be what will happen straight away here, he will then face a separate trial for the latest offence and if found guilty will be subject to a further tariff which would probably be more prison time. 

Why are you so keen to kill people?

[Shadow]

7 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

You ask for an example of a good killing, and imply there can never be one: "Adolf Hitler!?"

I'd rather see him imprisoned.

[Kayakman]

17 minutes ago, Shadow said:

 

Some of the founding concepts behind our judicial processes is that justice is equal for all and is impartial, that's why previous offences are not usually considered relevant to a case and why defendants history is kept from the court until after innocence or guilt has been decided. If we start getting the punishment defined by the victims or families of victims we will not have a level playing field.

Society doesn't tell victims how they should feel, what it does is define how criminals should be treated based on a range of factors. 
Those factors include but are not limited to rehabilitation, punishment and safety of society and the perpetrator. 

I'd like to know what qualifications you have in psychotherapy before I accept your statement.

The rest of your post may as well be written in vietnamese for all the sense you make.

I'll try to clarify what I meant about deterrents.

The Death Penalty is not a deterrent. We can see this because the places where we see most murders correspond to the places where we see high rates of the use of the death penalty. If it was a deterrent you would never have to use it. They do, so it isn't.

Are you serious...

Criminal records are brought up in court ALL THE TIME!...They go to motive and pattern.

Victim impact statements are read in court ALL THE TIME...They are a factor in sentencing.

My qualifications in psychotherapy are that I was a soldier in in the army (combat arms)

Deterrants are not black and white...they are various shades of grey....a posted speed limit is not always followed but it reminds people and slows them down (especially when they get a ticket)...its basic logic and human behaviour pattern.

If you are suggesting that all violent human societies were violent solely BECAUSE they have the death penalty this just nuts, they are violent societies for numerous reasons, like come on,get serious.

And why don't you answer my question:

  . "What steps has this individual made to become a law abiding citizen and full member of the society, has he changed himself (and I'm sure many individuals/organizations have worked with him in the past); this is his personal obligation, if he is not fulfilling his personal responsibilities to the community at large and willingly continues with his very troubling pattern of anti social behaviour, he could very possibly be incurable."

[Kayakman]

5 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I'd rather see him imprisoned.

You would rather have seen Adolf Hitler imprisioned rather than dead, after he brutally butchered millions and killed many millions more.

How quick you are to ignore the screams of millions from the grave for justice, how Noble.

[Shadow]

3 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Are you serious...

Criminal records are brought up in court ALL THE TIME!...They go to motive and pattern.

Victim impact statements are read in court ALL THE TIME...They are a factor in sentencing.

My qualifications in psychotherapy are that I was a soldier in in the army (combat arms)

Deterrants are not black and white...they are various shades of grey....a posted speed limit is not always followed but it reminds people and slows them down (especially when they get a ticket)...its basic logic and human behaviour pattern.

If you are suggesting that all violent human societies were violent solely BECAUSE they have the death penalty ths just nuts, they are violent societies for numerous reasons, like come on,get serious.

And why don't you answer my question:

  . "What steps has this individual made to become a law abiding citizen and full member of the society, has he changed himself (and I'm sure many individuals/organizations have worked with him in the past); this is his personal obligation, if he is not fulfilling his personal responsibilities to the community at large and willingly continues with his very troubling pattern of anti social behaviour, he could very possibly be incurable."

A defendant's previous record is not brought up in UK courts.

Victim impact statements are read out following the verdict not before,

I spent 10 years in the Infantry, i would not consider that any form of qualification to pontificate on psychotherapy.

I'm not suggesting violent societies are so because they have the death penalty but that having the death penalty doesn't reduce the levels of violence.

I did answer it.

[Kayakman]

1 minute ago, Shadow said:

A defendant's previous record is not brought up in UK courts.

Victim impact statements are read out following the verdict not before,

I spent 10 years in the Infantry, i would not consider that any form of qualification to pontificate on psychotherapy.

I'm not suggesting violent societies are so because they have the death penalty but that having the death penalty doesn't reduce the levels of violence.

I did answer it.

And your answer was the incorrect one...why not just admit it.

[Shadow]

2 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

You would rather have seen Adolf Hitler imprisioned rather than dead, after he brutally butchered millions and killed many millions more.

How quick you are to ignore the screams of millions from the grave for justice, how Noble.

Yes. That's right. I would rather see him in prison because I hate his victims. That's exactly what I said.

I will use your logic and suggest you are pleased all of these innocent people were executed because well erm.....Hitler

http://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

[Shadow]

1 minute ago, Kayakman said:

And your answer was the incorrect one...why not just admit it.

Well go on then, enlighten us all.

What's the correct answer?

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Yes. That's right. I would rather see him in prison because I hate his victims. That's exactly what I said.

I will use your logic and suggest you are pleased all of these innocent people were executed because well erm.....Hitler

http://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

You said it...not me.

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Well go on then, enlighten us all.

What's the correct answer?

The correct answer is the asking and the honest answering of the question I have posed throughout the entire thread:

"What steps has this individual made to become a law abiding citizen and full member of the society, has he changed himself (and I'm sure many individuals/organizations have worked with him in the past); this is his personal obligation, if he is not fulfilling his personal responsibilities to the community at large and willingly continues with his very troubling pattern of anti social behaviour, he could very possibly be incurable."

Where you go from here is your own decision but the proper path is clear, although obviously painful for you...I wish you all the best in your quest, move to the light, get out of that dark cave!

Good Luck to you!

[Phil]

Kayakman, yes he probably is incurable I would guess, note the guess, I’m not a psychologist.

But I still don’t see how we, as a self proclaimed civilised society can rationally execute children, no matter how heinous their crimes or execute one of those same children now in adulthood for a crime which in another adult without his history would result in at worst a prison sentence. My view is that Venables will remain a grave threat and needs to be kept in a secure institution, probably indefinitely.

[The Future is League]

On 1/6/2018 at 10:02 PM, Vambo said:

End of a rope?

Correct. I'm all in favour of bringing back the death penalty, when its first degree murder.

There is a problem today in British society with these murderers taking taxpayers money.

The British people should have a referendum on bringing back the death penalty just like they did brexit.

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Correct. I'm all in favour of bringing back the death penalty, when its first degree murder.

There is a problem today in British society with these murderers taking taxpayers money.

The British people should have a referendum on bringing back the death penalty just like they did brexit.

So in this specific case you would be in favour of the execution of two ten year old boys?