Capital punishment

[Manwell Pablo]

17 hours ago, Buce said:

 

That is simply not true. In fact, it is so rare that their names are easily recalled by all - even those who weren't alive when those crimes were committed (I'm making assumptions about your age here). Aside from Hindley and Rose West (both of whom you will note committed their crimes with men), what others are there?

 

Venables was a child himself and his offence wasn't exacerbated by a sexual offence, so I have no problem with his release after rehabilitation.

 

 

If you do some research there are plenty. No where near as many I agree but you could say that about most violent crime. 

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

 

If you do some research there are plenty. No where near as many I agree but you could say that about most violent crime. 

 

I have neither the time or the inclination to research it, but until you or someone else shows it not to be true, I will stand by my assertion that to abduct, rape and murder a child is overwhelmingly a crime committed by men.

 

And of those few women who have been involved in such crimes, I'll wager that they did so in cahoots with a man.

[lifted*fox]

to be fair - I think the number of females involved in child sex abuse is probably a bit higher than you expect it to be - we hear less about it as it often tends to be less aggressive.

 

this article explains a bit more about it and discusses the differences between male / female child abusers. 

 

http://theconversation.com/women-also-sexually-abuse-children-but-their-reasons-often-differ-from-mens-72572

[Buce]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

to be fair - I think the number of females involved in child sex abuse is probably a bit higher than you expect it to be - we hear less about it as it often tends to be less aggressive.

 

this article explains a bit more about it and discusses the differences between male / female child abusers. 

 

http://theconversation.com/women-also-sexually-abuse-children-but-their-reasons-often-differ-from-mens-72572

 

How many of them abduct, rape and murder their victims?

[leicsmac]

Not to step in inordinately here, but isn't this all getting a mite semantic?

[lifted*fox]

Just now, Buce said:

How many of them abduct, rape and murder their victims?

 

Buce - I'm not looking for an argument about it mate.

 

I said in my post - we hear less about it because it's less aggressive - so I'm already in agreement on that point. 

 

But it does happen - and tbh, child abuse is child abuse, irrespective of whether it ends in abduction and death or not. 

 

The article clearly states that a high proportion of female abuse is within the family - their own offspring which is most likely why abduction and death are not the end result. 

[Manwell Pablo]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I have neither the time or the inclination to research it, but until you or someone else shows it not to be true, I will stand by my assertion that to abduct, rape and murder a child is overwhelmingly a crime committed by men.

 

And of those few women who have been involved in such crimes, I'll wager that they did so in cahoots with a man.

 

Well Rape, obviously, would be overwhelmingly committed  by men as it's a crime overwhelmingly committed by men, for obvious reasons.

 

But as for female serial killers who targeted children there have been plenty and they mostly acted independently, in fact there's a few of them topping their husband at the same time as their own children. 

Edited 26 February 2018 by Manwell Pablo

[Buce]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

 

Buce - I'm not looking for an argument about it mate.

 

I said in my post - we hear less about it because it's less aggressive - so I'm already in agreement on that point. 

 

But it does happen - and tbh, child abuse is child abuse, irrespective of whether it ends in abduction and death or not. 

 

The article clearly states that a high proportion of female abuse is within the family - their own offspring which is most likely why abduction and death are not the end result. 

1

 

Me neither, bro.

 

Tbh, the whole gender debate has become something of a red herring - my original point was that people (and it matters not to me whether it's a man or woman) who sexually abuse and murder children form a very distinct sub-group of offenders, which confuses my instinctive tendency to oppose the death penalty.

 

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

Me neither, bro.

 

Tbh, the whole gender debate has become something of a red herring - my original point was that people (and it matters not to me whether it's a man or woman) who sexually abuse and murder children form a very distinct sub-group of offenders, which confuses my instinctive tendency to oppose the death penalty.

 

 

yeah it's got a little off-topic haha, that's FT for you, I guess.

 

people who abuse and murder kids are not well - wires crossed, wires missing - them themselves subjects of abuse, etc. 

 

we have more to learn by locking these people away safely and trying to find the cause of their illness and a cure for it - imo. 

 

mindhunters on netflix (based on a true story) is interesting - it tells the story of the police in the 70's (IIRC) who chose to interview and understand serial killers instead of sending them straight to death row. unorthadox at the time but they learnt a huge amount of insightful information into what made these people tick which consequently helped them to prevent and solve many more murders in the future. 

 

but yeah - the death penalty isn't going to stop someone from abusing kids. child abusers already get the hardest time in prison with other inmates often severely injuring / beating / killing them. they often end up committing suicide themselves. in a round-about way they get what's coming to them and their death needn't be on the minds of a modern civilisation who should be striving to be better, not acting in the same way as the criminals. 

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

 

yeah it's got a little off-topic haha, that's FT for you, I guess.

 

people who abuse and murder kids are not well - wires crossed, wires missing - them themselves subjects of abuse, etc. 

 

we have more to learn by locking these people away safely and trying to find the cause of their illness and a cure for it - imo. 

 

mindhunters on netflix (based on a true story) is interesting - it tells the story of the police in the 70's (IIRC) who chose to interview and understand serial killers instead of sending them straight to death row. unorthadox at the time but they learnt a huge amount of insightful information into what made these people tick which consequently helped them to prevent and solve many more murders in the future. 

 

but yeah - the death penalty isn't going to stop someone from abusing kids. child abusers already get the hardest time in prison with other inmates often severely injuring / beating / killing them. they often end up committing suicide themselves. in a round-about way they get what's coming to them and their death needn't be on the minds of a modern civilisation who should be striving to be better, not acting in the same way as the criminals. 

 

 

Sure, and as long as it means locking them away for good I'm ok with it.

[Guest MattP]

Still lean towards no, but can see the arguments for both, Japan isn't a bad system aside from the absurdity of blood money, a small fraction of extreme crimes. I think lifetime imprisonment with far harsher conditions is a better answer than killing someone.

 

I don't agree with those who believe the state doesn't have a right to take a life though, it does. If the security forces can identity an extremist who is about to kill an MP, blow up children at a concert or run people down in cars then they have a duty to kill them on behalf of the innocent people who would suffer the most extreme brutality. 

[the fox]

4 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

I'm confused here despite being told  the death penalty is statistically proven to be no less a deterrent than life imprisonment on at least 5 different occasions you seem to persist with argument that it is. 

 

And as I told you at the time Colin Pitchfork had not been released from prison when that silly thread about his "release" was posted on here , he's was moved to an open prison awaiting (another) parole review and to my knowledge that's still the case.

 

I've just done a bit of research into Algerian capital punishment and you have about a thousand prisoners on death row and not a single execution for over a decade? Is this not an indication of what a farse it is?

And who said that? The people who got life in prison? Well of course they say thAT they're more afraid of a life sentence because that will fool the court in thinking that it's the best option. they won't say "death is better" would they?. But there are people who don't care about life so who knows? plus, dead people can't give interviews and statements, can they?

 

I already said that we don't have the death sentence but many are calling for it (mainly for child rapists and killers)
i saw a women on TV that was crying her eyes out after the authorities found her little child in a bag cut to pieces after being raped.
I'm not calling for every criminal to be excuted, i'm talking about those pieces of shite who rape and kill little kids. do people not understand!

Edited 26 February 2018 by the fox

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Still lean towards no, but can see the arguments for both, Japan isn't a bad system aside from the absurdity of blood money, a small fraction of extreme crimes. I think lifetime imprisonment with far harsher conditions is a better answer than killing someone.

 

I don't agree with those who believe the state doesn't have a right to take a life though, it does. If the security forces can identity an extremist who is about to kill an MP, blow up children at a concert or run people down in cars then they have a duty to kill them on behalf of the innocent people who would suffer the most extreme brutality. 

I think that's a fair enough point and I hadn't really thought about it in that context before. I guess the threshold should be whether taking the life will also save lives in the process. Killing someone who's already been caught and convicted isn't going to do that, it's just pointless revenge.

 

 

 

For me, there is always a possibility - no matter how slim - that killers could at some point in their lives show contrition for their crimes, even if they can never be reformed or released (which is fair enough, public safety has to come first after all). I'd rather live in a society where we were encouraged to think that's the ultimate goal of their incarceration, even if it never happens, than one where vengeance killing is seen as the best way to get closure for victims' families. I'm sure I'd feel differently if someone close to me had been murdered though.

 

Anyway, slight tangent, but I read the other day that France was still executing people by guillotine in 1977. Mental to think that.

[the fox]

People who feel bad about killing child killers and rapists are part of the problem!

 

Don't give me the 'human right" and 'civil society" bullshit. Those sub-humans are neither civilised or have any rights in my eyes.

Edited 26 February 2018 by the fox

[the fox]

3 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

I think people also seem to forget that many people who go on to commit serious crime - murder / rape, etc. have probably already comes to terms with the fact that life in prison is a distinct possibility and they've chosen to go ahead and commit the crime anyway.

and you are making the point about why there should be a death penalty. for them, life in prison isn't that bad. and let's say many others are not afraid of the DP and don't care if they live. If they don't care about life anymore than why keep them alive (and please don't bring up suicidal people because that's a different matter all together)? and what about the people who are afraid of the death penalty? lets say 5 out of a 100 are afraid of the DP. isn't that worth saving atleast 5 kids?

Edited 26 February 2018 by the fox

[lifted*fox]

4 minutes ago, the fox said:

People who feel bad about killing child killers and rapists are part of the problem!

 

Don't give the 'human right" and 'civil society" bullshit. Those sub-humans are neither civilised or have an rights in my eyes.

 

and that is exactly the reason people like yourself aren't in power (in any civilised country anyway) and don't get to make any decisions.

 

because yes, whilst I'm sure pretty much everyone finds these people repulsive and a blight on society not everyone is willing to stoop to their level to get rid of them.

 

a society full of angry people like yourself who can't separate heart from head would have us living in chaos.

[David Guiza]

59 minutes ago, MattP said:

Still lean towards no, but can see the arguments for both, Japan isn't a bad system aside from the absurdity of blood money, a small fraction of extreme crimes. I think lifetime imprisonment with far harsher conditions is a better answer than killing someone.

 

I don't agree with those who believe the state doesn't have a right to take a life though, it does. If the security forces can identity an extremist who is about to kill an MP, blow up children at a concert or run people down in cars then they have a duty to kill them on behalf of the innocent people who would suffer the most extreme brutality. 

I definitely agree in such a situation, though taking said person alive would always be favourable but only if it was at all possible.  

 

As VB says, I think the difference is between the state killing to prevent an immediate great danger and the state killing for 'justice' and or punishment. The definition for murder also accounts for that situation, somewhat, in the term 'under the King's peace'. The definition at the time obviously relates to war/conflict, but I think a modern interpretation of terrorism etc would easily translate. 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

I think that's a fair enough point and I hadn't really thought about it in that context before. I guess the threshold should be whether taking the life will also save lives in the process. Killing someone who's already been caught and convicted isn't going to do that, it's just pointless revenge.

That was pretty much the reason I mentioned it, a lot of people do throw out the "state has no right to kill" line like a cliche but in reality they do and I don't believe a single person in here who has said it would really allow the Manchester Arena bomber to do what he did if they had the chance of a marksman killing him on the direction of the state first.

 

Totally different kettle of fish to state sanctioned murder as retribution of course.

[the fox]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

and that is exactly the reason people like yourself aren't in power (in any civilised country anyway) and don't get to make any decisions.

 

because yes, whilst I'm sure pretty much everyone finds these people repulsive and a blight on society not everyone is willing to stoop to their level to get rid of them.

 

a society full of angry people like yourself who can't separate heart from head would have us living in chaos.

People LIKE ME who draw the line at child killers and rapists are why there are not that many cases of such REPULSIVE acts. 

Soft as shit is what people who think those kind of sub-humans deserve to take another people are.

Edited 26 February 2018 by the fox

[lifted*fox]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Totally different kettle of fish to state sanctioned murder as retribution of course.

 

Absolutely.

[lifted*fox]

Just now, the fox said:

People LIKE ME who draw the line at child killers and rapists are why there are not that many cases of such indispicble acts. 

Soft as shit is what people who think those kind of sub-humans deserve to take another people are.

 

lmao, people 'like you' are the reason there aren't many cases? 

 

pull the other one. 

[the fox]

Just now, lifted*fox said:

 

lmao, people 'like you' are the reason there aren't many cases? 

 

pull the other one. 

Yeah buddy, if you think that those kind of filth deserve to live than that's you. 

[lifted*fox]

4 minutes ago, the fox said:

Yeah buddy, if you think that those kind of filth deserve to live than that's you. 

 

so come on then - enlighten us all on how your stance on killing child rapists has helped to reduce the number of abuse cases?

 

that's exactly what you've claimed in your post above - I'd love to know how. 

 

what a hero ffs. 

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Still lean towards no, but can see the arguments for both, Japan isn't a bad system aside from the absurdity of blood money, a small fraction of extreme crimes. I think lifetime imprisonment with far harsher conditions is a better answer than killing someone.

 

I don't agree with those who believe the state doesn't have a right to take a life though, it does. If the security forces can identity an extremist who is about to kill an MP, blow up children at a concert or run people down in cars then they have a duty to kill them on behalf of the innocent people who would suffer the most extreme brutality. 

In all those examples it would be a form of self-defence. When you’ve already got the person in cuffs then it ain’t self defence no more.

[the fox]

14 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I definitely agree in such a situation, though taking said person alive would always be favourable but only if it was at all possible.  

 

As VB says, I think the difference is between the state killing to prevent an immediate great danger and the state killing for 'justice' and or punishment. The definition for murder also accounts for that situation, somewhat, in the term 'under the King's peace'. The definition at the time obviously relates to war/conflict, but I think a modern interpretation of terrorism etc would easily translate. 

 

so, it's ok to kill mass murderers and terrorists but not the ones who rape and kill kids? if a guy blows up 20 people, i can't imagine that he will get 10-15 years in prison. you kill all the filth or you let them all live, there is no picking and choosing here.