Human Rights - Why should criminals have any?

[Angus]

Funny how criminals can break the law with impunity, can assault and kill, steal other people's property, burglarise other people's homes, kidnap, rape and abduct children and then when they are caught they are able to invoke THEIR human rights. It is the height of hypocrisy to break the law, then be able to invoke its protection and privileges

As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law. A criminal act is, after all, an invasion and abuse of someone else's human rights. Instead of Human Rights legisation we should have a Bill of Rights that gives protection and privileges to the law abiding people of this country, that can only be invoked so long as people adhere to their responsibilities to be good citizens.

[Tom]

They shouldn't. Think of the cost cutting that would happen in prisons if they never had comfy beds, toilet/shower facilities etc and weren't fed too often. Plus space saving too because some of them would die and some people wouldn't end up there in the first place.

Make prison hell :devil:

After all if you're a rapist or a murderer or something you've probably ruined a life so deserve yours ruining too

[Shaun]

Guess you don't believe in rehabilitation then.

[Tom]

Guess you don't believe in rehabilitation then.

Nah, once a criminal always a criminal.

If they realised something was genuinely that bad then they wouldn't have done it in the first place. A criminal's only regret is being caught. Not the crime.

[King Gizzard]

Guess you don't believe in rehabilitation then.

This


Plus every criminal would have to be dealt with on the terms of what he done

[InOne]

Funny how criminals can break the law with impunity, can assault and kill, steal other people's property, burglarise other people's homes, kidnap, rape and abduct children and then when they are caught they are able to invoke THEIR human rights. It is the height of hypocrisy to break the law, then be able to invoke its protection and privileges

As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law. A criminal act is, after all, an invasion and abuse of someone else's human rights. Instead of Human Rights legisation we should have a Bill of Rights that gives protection and privileges to the law abiding people of this country, that can only be invoked so long as people adhere to their responsibilities to be good citizens.

So you agree with the death penalty?

[Angus]

So you agree with the death penalty?

YES for certain crimes. No matter what the mealy mouthed liberals say, without any realistic deterrent (prison sentences in this country are laughable), criminals have little to fear. Where there is irrefutable DNA evidence, for example, a murderer should pay for their crime. Instead of which the do gooders fall over themselves to excuse and "understand" criminal behaviour whilst the impact on the lives of the victims and their families is sidelined. There are some crimes for which rehabilitation is inappropriate and murder (particularly the murder of a child) is definitely one of them.

[Vicky.]

So you agree with the death penalty?

I do. For murderers. Eye for an eye.

I also think men who rape, should have their bits cut off. And women who do (though its rare) should be sewn up...sorry couldnt think of a better way to put it :/

[InOne]

YES for certain crimes. No matter what the mealy mouthed liberals say, without any realistic deterrent (prison sentences in this country are laughable), criminals have little to fear. Where there is irrefutable DNA evidence, for example, a murderer should pay for their crime. Instead of which the do gooders fall over themselves to excuse and "understand" criminal behaviour whilst the impact on the lives of the victims and their families is sidelined. There are some crimes for which rehabilitation is inappropriate and murder (particularly the murder of a child) is definitely one of them.

There is no real evidence that the death penalty prevents crime, or even saves money. It's is basically fufilling basic human urge for blood.

[InOne]

I do. For murderers. Eye for an eye.

I also think men who rape, should have their bits cut off. And women who do (though its rare) should be sewn up...sorry couldnt think of a better way to put it :/

Murder is pretty subjective though really...

[Harry!]

A eye for a eye I say. If you kill someone you to should be killed too. If you rob your house too should be robbed. The law is too soft and pc its unbeliveable. Bring back the death penalty!

[Angus]

I do. For murderers. Eye for an eye.

I also think men who rape, should have their bits cut off. And women who do (though its rare) should be sewn up...sorry couldnt think of a better way to put it :/

Absolutely right. The crime that gets me really hot under the collar is child rape and murder, cowardly depraved acts of unthinkable cruelty on victims who had no hope or chance of escape, and sometimes by people they loved and trusted. I'm not interested in rehabilitating such scum, just of ridding this planet of them. It makes my blood boil to think that the scum who killed Baby P and the poor kid's vile excuse for a mother are still living and breathing after what they put that child through before he died.

[Tom]

I do. For murderers. Eye for an eye.

I also think men who rape, should have their bits cut off. And women who do (though its rare) should be sewn up...sorry couldnt think of a better way to put it :/

... without anasthetic and with rusty/unsterilised equipment

I think murderers should be killed but in a horrific way like locking them in a padded cupboard with nothing and letting them starve to death and die in their own waste

[Angus]

Murder is pretty subjective though really...

Not for the Victim.

[InOne]

Not for the Victim.

So if a man is about to rape a womans child and she has to use all her force to stop him doing it, and ends up killing him, should she be killed? No, of course not. Therefore murder is subjective.

[Tom]

So if a man is about to rape a womans child and she has to use all her force to stop him doing it, and ends up killing him, should she be killed? No, of course not. Therefore murder is subjective.

But if the woman wasn't strong enough and she was the one that ended up dead ...?

I think you need to draw a line at common sense- if I had my way that sort of murder you could get away with.

[InOne]

But if the woman wasn't strong enough and she was the one that ended up dead ...?

I think you need to draw a line at common sense- if I had my way that sort of murder you could get away with.

But things like that do happen, so you can't just simply say, "A life for a life"

[Shaun]

Nah, once a criminal always a criminal.

If they realised something was genuinely that bad then they wouldn't have done it in the first place. A criminal's only regret is being caught. Not the crime.

That's ridiculous.

On a personal level - some time last year I technically committed a crime that pretty much ruined a friendship of mine - for me the regret is definitely not the being-caught aspect. Every time I think of what I did, I cringe. You learn and move on.

Of course that's not [i]always the case, as some criminals don't feel remorse, but neither is the opposite always the case.

[Tom]

But things like that do happen, so you can't just simply say, "A life for a life"

I don't think "a life for a life" ever explicitly refers to that anyway, its just in general. 90% of murders will be in cold blood, not accidental in defence.

[Tom]

That's ridiculous.

On a personal level - some time last year I technically committed a crime that pretty much ruined a friendship of mine - for me the regret is definitely not the being-caught aspect. Every time I think of what I did, I cringe. You learn and move on.

Of course that's not [i]always the case, as some criminals don't feel remorse, but neither is the opposite always the case.

Most criminals don't feel remorse. Thats a fact. In the UK the reoffending rate is 50-75%. That speaks for itself.

[Shaun]

Do back that up with figures then, please.

[InOne]

I don't think "a life for a life" ever explicitly refers to that anyway, its just in general. 90% of murders will be in cold blood, not accidental in defence.

Who knows, but killing people does not bring those they killed back. And there is no guarantee the family would even feel better with them dead anyway.

[Vicky.]

Who knows, but killing people does not bring those they killed back. And there is no guarantee the family would even feel better with them dead anyway.

However there IS guarantee that they would not serve their paltry 7 years or so and then murder again.

[Tom]

Do back that up with figures then, please.

Edited in. For those who committed a crime as a teenager, the reoffending rate is about 75%, and 50% of those reoffend again aged 30+.

I'll try and find the source (it was the Home Office I know that but can't pin point it atm), I just remember the figures from some coursework I did on it. It also shows that crimes escalate, e.g. you might start off at burglary but because you're not arsed about anything it progressively gets worse and worse.

EDIT- Found it, it was in a book though. Its from 2001 and crime rates have gone up since then ...

[InOne]

However there IS guarantee that they would not serve their paltry 7 years or so and then murder again.

True I guess, but I doubt alot of people are thinking about other people when calling for the death penatly. Also, death row would be crammed. But still, it goes not give us the right to choose a life, and they would be getting alot easier death than the victim did.

[Angus]

There is no real evidence that the death penalty prevents crime, or even saves money. It's is basically fufilling basic human urge for blood.


I am not advocating the death penalty to "save money" but to fulfil natural justice. The punishment SHOULD fit the crime. Our justice system is pathetic- awarding so called "life" sentences for the most heinous crimes when in reality murderers can be released in as little as 10 years - their victims on the other hand have had the WHOLE of the rest of their lives stolen from them and their deaths have drastically affected the lives of their families and friends. If a "life" sentence IS imposed then it should be in a prison without any comforts or privileges, otherwise where is the penalty for committing the ultimate crime?

[InOne]

I am not advocating the death penalty to "save money" but to fulfil natural justice. The punishment SHOULD fit the crime. Our justice system is pathetic- awarding so called "life" sentences for the most heinous crimes when in reality murderers can be released in as little as 10 years - their victims on the other hand have had the WHOLE of the rest of their lives stolen from them and their deaths have drastically affected the lives of their families and friends. If a "life" sentence IS imposed then it should be in a prison without any comforts or privileges, otherwise where is the penalty for committing the ultimate crime?

I agree that prisons are probably way too comfy. And I don't care what happens to people on the inside at the hands of other cons ect. But maybe they should look at improving the law, longer sentences, also the prisons, tougher regimes, longer hours lock away, make it basic, real hard time. Also they could have better rehabilitation programmes, and if some are failing, kick them off it and give the ones who want to do it a chance. I just don't think we should jump straight to the death penalty.

[Angus]

So if a man is about to rape a womans child and she has to use all her force to stop him doing it, and ends up killing him, should she be killed? No, of course not. Therefore murder is subjective.

I said in an earlier post I believe the death penalty should be handed down for CERTAIN categories of murder, and clearly the example you give is not a situation where murder was premeditated and the woman would be able to plead self defence in protecting her child.

[Angus]

I agree that prisons are probably way too comfy. And I don't care what happens to people on the inside at the hands of other cons ect. But maybe they should look at improving the law, longer sentences, also the prisons, tougher regimes, longer hours lock away, make it basic, real hard time. Also they could have better rehabilitation programmes, and if some are failing, kick them off it and give the ones who want to do it a chance. I just don't think we should jump straight to the death penalty.

So what do you think should have been the appropriate sentence for Baby P's murderer?

[InOne]

I said in an earlier post I believe the death penalty should be handed down for CERTAIN categories of murder, and clearly the example you give is not a situation where murder was premeditated and the woman would be able to plead self defence in protecting her child.

Ok, must have misread your post.

[InOne]

So what do you think should have been the appropriate sentence for Baby P's murderer?

They might never get out, and I think they will both end up in Broadmoor for the rest of their lives. Especially Barker, a sexual sadist, no way will they let him back into the public.

[Stacey.]

i know lots of people disagree with this...
But i think that: yeah, criminals and murderers etc. have obviously done awful things, but everyone deserves a second chance to prove themselves :).
if there werent such thing as second chances, I wouldnt be where I am now, :/
Also, sometimes, if people go to prsion for however long, they come out, And could be a lot worse for being inside.

[Vicky.]

So what do you think should have been the appropriate sentence for Baby P's murderer?

Every injury found on that child..should be done to them.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Nah, once a criminal always a criminal.

If they realised something was genuinely that bad then they wouldn't have done it in the first place. A criminal's only regret is being caught. Not the crime.

hehe its all so simple eh?

[Tom]

They might never get out, and I think they will both end up in Broadmoor for the rest of their lives. Especially Barker, a sexual sadist, no way will they let him back into the public.

They whinge about how its too expensive to keep criminals. Potentially they are keeping him for life at a cost of around £26,000 per year which I'm sure many tax payers are against. Wouldn't it just be easier and more economic just to kill him?

[Vicky.]

i know lots of people disagree with this...
But i think that: yeah, criminals and murderers etc. have obviously done awful things, but everyone deserves a second chance to prove themselves :).


Yeah, say that when its your sister/mother/brother/father etc that has been murdered/raped etc.

[NettoSuperstar!]

They whinge about how its too expensive to keep criminals. Potentially they are keeping him for life at a cost of around £26,000 per year which I'm sure many tax payers are against. Wouldn't it just be easier and more economic just to kill him?

Hitler would have bee proud of yer son

[Tom]

Hitler would have bee proud of yer son

So you're happy that he's being kept in prison alive after what he did to Baby P, and better still YOU'RE paying for it?

[InOne]

They whinge about how its too expensive to keep criminals. Potentially they are keeping him for life at a cost of around £26,000 per year which I'm sure many tax payers are against. Wouldn't it just be easier and more economic just to kill him?

We are a civilized society and do not choose who lives or dies, and we don't lower ourselves to their level.

[NettoSuperstar!]

So you're happy that he's being kept in prison alive after what he did to Baby P, and better still YOU'RE paying for it?

He shouldnt be released after what he did but Ive given you my arguments on the death penalty before and we need to learn from these people so we can prevent and detect crimes easier.

[InOne]

He shouldnt be released after what he did but Ive given you my arguments on the death penalty before and we need to learn from these people so we can prevent and detect crimes easier.

I think we pretty much had the same view on this if I remember right.

[Angus]

They might never get out, and I think they will both end up in Broadmoor for the rest of their lives. Especially Barker, a sexual sadist, no way will they let him back into the public.

Yet he's sane enough to make 8 separate attempts to have his rape trial thrown out by the Old Bailey - the victim was 2 years old at the time. At no time have his lawyers pleaded insanity as a defence, so we have to assume he is simply an evil, scum of the earth bastard who does not deserve to be kept at tax payers' expense for the next 10, 20, whatever years.

The mother who stood by and did nothing to save her defenceless son from months of unspeakable torture got just 3 years, and she has accepted no responsibility for his death, instead whinging about how going to prison has messed up HER life. The least that should be done is to sterilise this inhuman bitch so she can never breed again. As far as I'm concerned she is as guilty as the step father who killed him, in some ways more so because she betrayed her child in the most callous way imaginable.

[NettoSuperstar!]

I think we pretty much had the same view on this if I remember right.

Yeh I agree with you on this one

[InOne]

Yet he's sane enough to make 8 separate attempts to have his rape trial thrown out by the Old Bailey - the victim was 2 years old at the time. At no time have his lawyers pleaded insanity as a defence, so we have to assume he is simply an evil, scum of the earth bastard who does not deserve to be kept at tax payers' expense for the next 10, 20, whatever years.

The mother who stood by and did nothing to save her defenceless son from months of unspeakable torture got just 3 years, and she has accepted no responsibility for his death, instead whinging about how going to prison has messed up HER life. The least that should be done is to sterilise this inhuman bitch so she can never breed again. As far as I'm concerned she is as guilty as the step father who killed him, in some ways more so because she betrayed her child in the most callous way imaginable.

Broadmoor deals with Psychopaths, that is what they are and why they will go there.

[Tom]

He shouldnt be released after what he did but Ive given you my arguments on the death penalty before and we need to learn from these people so we can prevent and detect crimes easier.

He isn't holding any extra information though, so basically all they need to know they have. Its just a case of either waiting for the sentence to be finished or for him to die of natural causes.

I don't agree with it in all cases, for example the Moors Murderers where Ian still holds valuable information and its just a case of whether he'll ever spill the beans, or perhaps in a rare case where genuine remorse is shown.

Some people are just too far beyond help that they'll never be able to be 'fixed' and they've done something despicable, so they might as well be put out of their own misery, and divert funds elsewhere. For some people its just pointless.

[Vicky.]

If its perfectly fine to put a dog down for biting someone, then its fine to 'put a human down' for killing someone.

[Stacey.]

Yeah, say that when its your sister/mother/brother/father etc that has been murdered/raped etc.

I know, people feel differently like, when its their own..
But i do still believe that everyone makes big mistakes at times.
try to forgive i say :)

[Shaun]

If its perfectly fine to put a dog down for biting someone, then its fine to 'put a human down' for killing someone.

Comparing criminals to dogs, that's a new one.

[Angus]

We are a civilized society and do not choose who lives or dies, and we don't lower ourselves to their level.

That argument is the reason why our society is in such an appalling state - sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, because the perpetrators of truly evil crimes cynically exploit the very system of justice and law they have violated, KNOWING full well how to invoke THEIR human rights when they have so cruelly and willingly violated their victim's human rights. A civilised society has to recognise and remove the evil in its midst - permanently - in order to protect those who are law abiding.

[Stacey.]

If its perfectly fine to put a dog down for biting someone, then its fine to 'put a human down' for killing someone.

My dog got put down, for biting my mum :shocked:

[Angus]

I know, people feel differently like, when its their own..
But i do still believe that everyone makes big mistakes at times.
try to forgive i say :)

So you would forgive your rapist, or someone who murdered a member of your family? Yeah, right.

[InOne]

That argument is the reason why our society is in such an appalling state - sometimes you have to fight fire with fire, because the perpetrators of truly evil crimes cynically exploit the very system of justice and law they have violated, KNOWING full well how to invoke THEIR human rights when they have so cruelly and willingly violated their victim's human rights. A civilised society has to recognise and remove the evil in its midst - permanently - in order to protect those who are law abiding.

There will always be paedophiles, rapists, murderers. Killing them off sovles nothing.

[Angus]

There will always be paedophiles, rapists, murderers. Killing them off sovles nothing.

Who's talking about SOLVING anything, I'm taking about DEALING with the problem. I, for one, don't want to live among them. There are some crimes for which no amount of rehabilitation is justifiable or appropriate, and the ones you list above are those.

[Chels]

death penalty ftw

[InOne]

Who's talking about SOLVING anything, I'm taking about DEALING with the problem. I, for one, don't want to live among them. There are some crimes for which no amount of rehabilitation is justifiable or appropriate, and the ones you list above are those.

The thing is, you will always be among them, whether you like it or not. You can't deal with the problem just by killing them off one by one when there is plenty more out there. You need to look at the wider picture.

[Tom]

Comparing criminals to dogs, that's a new one.

They're animals that can adapt to social situations aren't they?

[Stacey.]

So you would forgive your rapist, or someone who murdered a member of your family? Yeah, right.

i would try. :)
You`d have to be in that position to say, really.

[Angus]

i would try. :)
You`d have to be in that position to say, really.

That attitude enables crime, instead of discouraging it.

[Chels]

i would try. :)
You`d have to be in that position to say, really.

how the shizz can you forgive a rapist :|
the vile ****s deserve to die, if they did it to a member of my family i'd murder them myself.

[Stacey.]

how the shizz can you forgive a rapist :|
the vile ****s deserve to die, if they did it to a member of my family i'd murder them myself.

but then you would just get into trouble :/

[Beastie]

Lol Stacey's controversial comments.

[Stacey.]

Lol Stacey's controversial comments.

huh? :conf:

[InOne]

What if someone you loved turned out to be a rapist or paedo? Like a family member, what would you do?

[Stacey.]

What if someone you loved turned out to be a rapist or paedo? Like a family member, what would you do?

dont know.
i think tbh, Its really hard to know how you would react or feel, until it actually happens. :/

[InOne]

dont know.
i think tbh, Its really hard to know how you would react or feel, until it actually happens. :/

Fair comment I guess.

[Beastie]

huh? :conf:

Don't worry it is a good thing ;) controversial means well saying something that makes others gasp or shocked!

[Stacey.]

Don't worry it is a good thing ;) controversial means well saying something that makes others gasp or shocked!

ohh lmao :D

[Angus]

What if someone you loved turned out to be a rapist or paedo? Like a family member, what would you do?

The right thing - turn them in. If a family member was proven to be a rapist or a paedophile they would deserve any punishment that came their way. The fact that I was related to them would fill me with disgust (like the nursery worker who sexually abused the kids in her care - her family have disowned her).

[Chels]

but then you would just get into trouble :/

i wouldn't care, i defended my family.
i'd die for them.

[arista]

Criminals
that enter your home
will have No Human Rights soon.

Once Stinking New Labour are Kicked out,
The Conservatives
will give us our rights back.


So make my Day Punk
try and stay alive in my area.

[Vicky.]

Comparing criminals to dogs, that's a new one.

Well, the likes of rapists, murderers, paedos...they are animals...so i think its a fair comparison.

[Chels]

What if someone you loved turned out to be a rapist or paedo? Like a family member, what would you do?

i'd *******ing hate that person then.
vile scum.

[arista]

i wouldn't care, i defended my family.
i'd die for them.


Yes Chels
you will be 100% Legal
once New Labour are Kicked Out of Power.

[Beastie]

Arista! You are nearly at 15,000 posts :D

[Angus]

Somehow this post has turned into a debate on the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, so I'm just going to return to the topic - are people entitled to retain their human rights once they commit a crime?

[Chels]

Somehow this post has turned into a debate on the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, so I'm just going to return to the topic - are people entitled to retain their human rights once they commit a crime?

no
vile ****ers

[Angus]

no
vile ****ers

Short and to the point and the right answer!

[Twilight]

I agree with Chels and Vicky tbh

[ILoveTRW]

kill em all

[Twilight]

Yeah imo rapist are sick ****ers, shoplifters are just stupid

[Angus]

Depends on the crime.

You cant treat, say, a shoplifter, the same as you would treat a rapist.

More serious crimes, basically they should lose all their rights. And I definitely dont agree with this whole giving them new identities and that when they leave prison.

I agree there should be a sliding scale depending on the severity of the crime, and most importantly, the human rights of the VICTIM should always take precedence over human rights of the criminal.

[InOne]

Also, if we cant bring back the death penalty, life should MEAN life, not 8 years or whatever it is they serve.

I think a good thing would be to dump them all together on an island somewhere...let them get on with it. That way, it doesnt cost the tax payer, and we dont have blood on our hands :D Sorted.

We can't do that with Australia anymore :(

[WOMBAI]

Somehow this post has turned into a debate on the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, so I'm just going to return to the topic - are people entitled to retain their human rights once they commit a crime?

I think it depends on the crime!

[Jack_]

Life should be life, that's for certain.

What about the death penalty for absolutely any crime, as long as there's one hudred percent proof that the person(s) committed it? The fear of the consequence for most people would be enough to steer them away from the crime, surely?

I guess it's too easy to be like that though, lots of grey areas.

[arista]

Arista! You are nearly at 15,000 posts :D


That means Nothing to me.
They are numbers - nothing more.

Posters that do threads about the amount of Posts they have done
are Well Sad.

[Jack_]

Again, though...someone could be caught shoplifting, but they may be shoplifting to feed their family or something. What would happen then? Still the death penalty?

Sorry for using shoplifting all the time, its just the least serious crime I can think of :laugh:

If they need food then they need to seek help from somewhere, not commit crimes...

Again though, lots of grey areas I guess.

[Stacey.]

That means Nothing to me.
They are numbers - nothing more.

Posters that do threads about the amount of Posts they have done
are Well Sad.

its an achievement though :p

[InOne]

Life should be life, that's for certain.

What about the death penalty for absolutely any crime, as long as there's one hudred percent proof that the person(s) committed it? The fear of the consequence for most people would be enough to steer them away from the crime, surely?

I guess it's too easy to be like that though, lots of grey areas.

Nah it wouldn't. People don't think like that, especially at the time of commiting the crime.

[Jack_]

Yeah...its not always that easy to get help though.

Plus, I think the death penalty for crimes such as that...and say fighting, or being drunk and disorderly, dont warrant the same punishment as serious assaults/murder etc.

I think any type of assault warrants a serious punishment really.

[Jack_]

Nah it wouldn't. People don't think like that, especially at the time of commiting the crime.

Hm, okay, fair enough.

[Shasown]

If you used more force than necessary to defend yourself, then you are guilty of assault.

Hang her!!

[InOne]

Hm, okay, fair enough.

Like that is why so many criminals are caught and re-offend, because they don't learn from their mistakes. I think the amount of people on Americas death row show the hardended criminals are not too bothered about death.

[Jack_]

See, this is where the law fecks up.

I'l use an example of mine.

I was out one night, some girl jumped me for no reason, so i kicked the feck out of her. Next thing, IM locked up for the night, just because she was worse off then me.

I very nearly got done for assault...and she got nothing.

This is what I hate, and I think the only way you'd stop this would be to not punish anyone without complete proof [witnesses, CCTV etc]. The person that attempts the assault, is the one to blame.

[Angus]

We can't do that with Australia anymore :(

Lol:hugesmile:

[Shasown]

More force than necessary :laugh:

Well...sue me. Dont jump me in future...simples

PMSL be careful what you wish for Vicky, she may yet do that, and she will probably win. :wink:

I mean you have admitted just now how violent you are.

[InOne]

Lol:hugesmile:

Look how well that turned out, they get 8 months of Sun and we get pissed on all year round!!!

[Jack_]

Well...you would think so.

But according to the law the person who 'wins' the fight seems to be the criminal. Or it seems that way anyway.

There were loads of witnesses who said I didnt start it...part of the reason I detest police.

Policing definitely needs sorting out, that's for sure.

[Angus]

Look how well that turned out, they get 8 months of Sun and we get pissed on all year round!!!

Ain't that the truth!

[Angus]

Policing definitely needs sorting out, that's for sure.

Typical example of political correctness gone mad - apparently you're not supposed to defend yourself in any way since it might infringe the attacker's human rights to kick the crap out of you:conf:

[PaulyJ]

You can't do that Poster, Human rights must apply to all humans, else they become non human in the brain of society, as in peodophiles, and rapist's and to a degree terrorist's. They become animals, and thus outside the realms of understanding, and reasoning. If you extend that to ALL criminals, even the girl who shop lifted to feed her heroin habit which she gained because her BF wanted a partner in misery, and she was to weak, foolish or what have you, to say no, then you are saying once she is convicted she forfits the right to have a decent level of treatment in the prison system. The prison service will soon figure out they can save a heap of cash buy sticking 10 women in a cell currently serving 2, the food budget could be slashed by serving tripe 7 days a week. If your intention is to release this girl one day then she would surely be a hollow loveless, careless person, and she would bring that back into society.

What about Stefen Kishcow, wrongly Convicted of a Child murder, no human right's means he would not of had a right of appeal, and would of died in jail, an innocent man, and his precious story would of not been told, faith in a "sometimes floored" system assured, 10 years of that, and their would be no such thing as a innocent man in jail, because the only way we know of these things is because he exercised his Human rights, and told his story.

I do realise that there would be positive's to come from your suggestion, such as a reduction in crime, but as all things it is a balancing act, and i fear you have fallen off with this suggestion.

I am 100% sure that if this was the Western Norm then Guantanimo, The Holocost, Ruwanda, Serbia would not be such big deals, as all these cases envolve your very suggestion, if all the Jews we're criminals, rather than Jews could you of lived with their fate?

I would wish to resign from the human race and find an island somewhere and curl up into a ball and die.

I was locked up for 7 days for non payment of council tax, and prison is not the holiday camp people think it is.

[Angus]

You can't do that Poster, Human rights must apply to all humans, else they become non human in the brain of society, as in peodophiles, and rapist's and to a degree terrorist's. They become animals, and thus outside the realms of understanding, and reasoning. If you extend that to ALL criminals, even the girl who shop lifted to feed her heroin habit which she gained because her BF wanted a partner in misery, and she was to weak, foolish or what have you, to say no, then you are saying once she is convicted she forfits the right to have a decent level of treatment in the prison system. The prison service will soon figure out they can save a heap of cash buy sticking 10 women in a cell currently serving 2, the food budget could be slashed by serving tripe 7 days a week. If your intention is to release this girl one day then she would surely be a hollow loveless, careless person, and she would bring that back into society.

What about Stefen Kishcow, wrongly Convicted of a Child murder, no human right's means he would not of had a right of appeal, and would of died in jail, an innocent man, and his precious story would of not been told, faith in a "sometimes floored" system assured, 10 years of that, and their would be no such thing as a innocent man in jail, because the only way we know of these things is because he exercised his Human rights, and told his story.

I do realise that there would be positive's to come from your suggestion, such as a reduction in crime, but as all things it is a balancing act, and i fear you have fallen off with this suggestion.

I am 100% sure that if this was the Western Norm then Guantanimo, The Holocost, Ruwanda, Serbia would not be such big deals, as all these cases envolve your very suggestion, if all the Jews we're criminals, rather than Jews could you of lived with their fate?

I would wish to resign from the human race and find an island somewhere and curl up into a ball and die.

I was locked up for 7 days for non payment of council tax, and prison is not the holiday camp people think it is.


Am not following your logic - "Human Rights" are commensurate with "Human Responsibilities" they do not exist in a vacuum. Human Rights legislation is deeply FLAWED because it does not take account of the simple and irrefutable fact that one person exercising his/her "human rights" can infringe another person's "human rights" because rather than having a universal code of behaviour, rights and responsibilities, it has been interpreted to mean an "INDIVIDUAL'S" rights.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that I have advocated the same severity of treatment to all convicted criminals, common sense would dictate that the seriousness of the crime and the danger posed to the public must be taken into account, not only when handing down sentences, but also in denying criminals such as murderers, rapists, terrorists, paeodphiles the right to cynically use the legal system they have blithely abused in order to evade their punishment. Such criminals have deprived people of their LIVES, and have relinquished their claims to be treated as normal members of society. They have given up their right to be treated as anything other than what they are. To paraphrase what you say "THEY have RESIGNED from the human race".

In this day and age, where we have sophisticated means of establishing guilt, such as DNA evidence, CCTV etc, there is far less likelihood of miscarriages of justice, and the minority that do occur should not be used as a reason not to protect the law abiding members of society from its most dangerous members.

You use the example of a drug addict shoplifting - well I can assure you that such minor criminals are usually treated well in prison, offered drug counselling and support to come of drugs etc., but there is only so much others can do, and it is more than likely that once released a drug addict will probably re-offend.

You have admitted you were jailed for non payment of council tax and did not enjoy the experience - Well if you did indeed NOT pay your council tax like the rest of us have to, then the powers that be are entitled to follow the proscribed punishment - incarceration, and it is not meant to be a holiday camp or a recreational break. It is meant to also be a deterrent from further offending.

Finally, what the hell are you waffling about regarding the holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia etc. Your argument is ridiculous. You are talking about genocide which is a crime against humanity perpetrated by evil and immoral dictatorships. Please get YOUR facts straight. NOBODY who is remotely sane would ever condone the mass extermination of innocent people. As for Guantanamo Bay, that was a situation where prisoners were being abused in contravention of international law (in existence long before the present Human Rights legislation).

[PaulyJ]

Am not following your logic - "Human Rights" are commensurate with "Human Responsibilities" they do not exist in a vacuum. Human Rights legislation is deeply FLAWED because it does not take account of the simple and irrefutable fact that one person exercising his/her "human rights" can infringe another person's "human rights" because rather than having a universal code of behaviour, rights and responsibilities, it has been interpreted to mean an "INDIVIDUAL'S" rights.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that I have advocated the same severity of treatment to all convicted criminals, common sense would dictate that the seriousness of the crime and the danger posed to the public must be taken into account, not only when handing down sentences, but also in denying criminals such as murderers, rapists, terrorists, paeodphiles the right to cynically use the legal system they have blithely abused in order to evade their punishment. Such criminals have deprived people of their LIVES, and have relinquished their claims to be treated as normal members of society. They have given up their right to be treated as anything other than what they are. To paraphrase what you say "THEY have RESIGNED from the human race".

In this day and age, where we have sophisticated means of establishing guilt, such as DNA evidence, CCTV etc, there is far less likelihood of miscarriages of justice, and the minority that do occur should not be used as a reason not to protect the law abiding members of society from its most dangerous members.

You use the example of a drug addict shoplifting - well I can assure you that such minor criminals are usually treated well in prison, offered drug counselling and support to come of drugs etc., but there is only so much others can do, and it is more than likely that once released a drug addict will probably re-offend.

You have admitted you were jailed for non payment of council tax and did not enjoy the experience - Well if you did indeed NOT pay your council tax like the rest of us have to, then the powers that be are entitled to follow the proscribed punishment - incarceration, and it is not meant to be a holiday camp or a recreational break. It is meant to also be a deterrent from further offending.

Finally, what the hell are you waffling about regarding the holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia etc. Your argument is ridiculous. You are talking about genocide which is a crime against humanity perpetrated by evil and immoral dictatorships. Please get YOUR facts straight. NOBODY who is remotely sane would ever condone the mass extermination of innocent people. As for Guantanamo Bay, that was a situation where prisoners were being abused in contravention of international law (in existence long before the present Human Rights legislation).

Refering back to your original post you said

"As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law."

My logic was to say that your suggestion would lead to ALL criminals being treated like animals. Thus in a strive to cut cost's Prisons, no longer forced by law to treat the criminal humanely would treat them in-humanely, or would you trust common sense to ensure only the rapist's end up in overcrowded cells, bearing in mind the way some American troops treated the Guantanimo bay P.O.W's it is not a safe assumption. They we're all treated in-humanely even though they had been convicted of Nothing. This is the way in a lawless environment, individuals with power abuse it depending on their own subjective views.

Fair point about Murderers resigning from the human race, Regardless of what the murderer deserves, or does not deserve, if you treat that Murderer in-humanely BY LAW then the Law is saying it cannot make a mistake (flying in the face of common sense), else it is saying the mistakes we will inevitably make will be a price worth paying. Your suggesting taking all Murderers right to appeal away, clearly it would not help the innocent man in jail, but how would it help keep murderers off the street, presumably the facts of the case would not change with the passage of time unless a mistake HAS been made.

In which case the only thing achieved is to prevent miscarriages coming to light.

The point i was making regarding my incarceration which you seem to of percieved as a suggestion that i did not deserve it somehow, (how you did that without your tongue firmly fixed in the side of your mouth i don't know) was that people believe criminals get off lightly because of the relaxed conditions inside. This is rubish spread by the press and anyone that has spent time in prison knows it is not easy.

Regarding my last point

The Holocaust was indeed perpetrated by Evil dictatorship and it is only Laws such as the Human Rights Law which stops another Evil Dictatorship forming. The dictatorship was the authority for the inhumane treatment but, most German people went along with it, informed on the whereabouts of Jew's, and captured Jew's this was because the Law said it was ok, and my point is if you say the Law should say remove human rights from prisoners then you are on a slippery road to a dictatorship.

[Angus]

Refering back to your original post you said

"As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law."

My logic was to say that your suggestion would lead to ALL criminals being treated like animals. Thus in a strive to cut cost's Prisons, no longer forced by law to treat the criminal humanely would treat them in-humanely, or would you trust common sense to ensure only the rapist's end up in overcrowded cells, bearing in mind the way some American troops treated the Guantanimo bay P.O.W's it is not a safe assumption. They we're all treated in-humanely even though they had been convicted of Nothing. This is the way in a lawless environment, individuals with power abuse it depending on their own subjective views.

Fair point about Murderers resigning from the human race, Regardless of what the murderer deserves, or does not deserve, if you treat that Murderer in-humanely BY LAW then the Law is saying it cannot make a mistake (flying in the face of common sense), else it is saying the mistakes we will inevitably make will be a price worth paying. Your suggesting taking all Murderers right to appeal away, clearly it would not help the innocent man in jail, but how would it help keep murderers off the street, presumably the facts of the case would not change with the passage of time unless a mistake HAS been made.

In which case the only thing achieved is to prevent miscarriages coming to light.

The point i was making regarding my incarceration which you seem to of percieved as a suggestion that i did not deserve it somehow, (how you did that without your tongue firmly fixed in the side of your mouth i don't know) was that people believe criminals get off lightly because of the relaxed conditions inside. This is rubish spread by the press and anyone that has spent time in prison knows it is not easy.

Regarding my last point

The Holocaust was indeed perpetrated by Evil dictatorship and it is only Laws such as the Human Rights Law which stops another Evil Dictatorship forming. The dictatorship was the authority for the inhumane treatment but, most German people went along with it, informed on the whereabouts of Jew's, and captured Jew's this was because the Law said it was ok, and my point is if you say the Law should say remove human rights from prisoners then you are on a slippery road to a dictatorship.

Firstly, you quote only the first part of my original post - I go on to say:Instead of Human Rights legisation we should have a Bill of Rights that gives protection and privileges to the law abiding people of this country, that can only be invoked so long as people adhere to their responsibilities to be good citizens"
My point is that the situation at present is all about RIGHTS with no corresponding RESPONSIBILITIES.

I also said:" I agree there should be a sliding scale depending on the severity of the crime, and most importantly, the human rights of the VICTIM should always take precedence over human rights of the criminal."

The ability to appeal a conviction has been part of the English Justice System
for hundreds of years, what I object to is the additional rights afforded in Human Rights legislation that often fly in the face of commonsense and logic.
Certain categories of crime are beyond redemption and the suggestion that rehabilitation is possible is laughable.

I don't see where I have said anywhere that all criminals should be treated inhumanely. What I am suggesting is that prison should offer basic sustenance, shelter and medical care, with no other luxuries and amenities. Feed them, water them, shelter them and treat them if ill and that's IT.
Your experience of prison was not nice - well it's not meant to be, is it?

Your statement that an entire nation is responsible for the evil actions of their rulers/government etc, is ridiculous- MOST German people were unaware of what Hitler's regime was doing to the Jews, Gays, Disabled etc, and were under the jackboot of the nazis who ruled by fear and intimidation. I, for example, am no more responsible for the evil actions of this government for taking us into an illegal war in Iraq than you are. If you think we are not already living under a form of dictatorship you are deluding yourself. What you appear to be suggesting is that if it was suddenly legal in this country, for example, to pick on and intimidate a particular ethnic minority, everybody would be doing it. Again, you are presupposing that human beings are mindless automatons incapable of acting morally or ethically unless there is legislation in place telling them what is right or wrong. I submit the majority
of human beings are perfectly aware of what is moral and ethical behaviour, and those that choose to step outside the boundaries of that behaviour cannot then complain about the consequences.

The ordinary citizen in this country has had Human Rights legislation imposed upon them which is unworkable in practice since to invoke one's individual rights often infringes upon and offends someone else's, so whose takes precedence?

[BB_Eye]

Your statement that an entire nation is responsible for the evil actions of their rulers/government etc, is ridiculous- MOST German people were unaware of what Hitler's regime was doing to the Jews, Gays, Disabled etc, and were under the jackboot of the nazis who ruled by fear and intimidation. I, for example, am no more responsible for the evil actions of this government for taking us into an illegal war in Iraq than you are. If you think we are not already living under a form of dictatorship you are deluding yourself. What you appear to be suggesting is that if it was suddenly legal in this country, for example, to pick on and intimidate a particular ethnic minority, everybody would be doing it. Again, you are presupposing that human beings are mindless automatons incapable of acting morally or ethically unless there is legislation in place telling them what is right or wrong. I submit the majority
of human beings are perfectly aware of what is moral and ethical behaviour, and those that choose to step outside the boundaries of that behaviour cannot then complain about the consequences.

The ordinary citizen in this country has had Human Rights legislation imposed upon them which is unworkable in practice since to invoke one's individual rights often infringes upon and offends someone else's, so whose takes precedence?

It sounds like you've taken a very naive worldview. The final solution wasn't a closely guarded secret in Germany. It was happening under the Germans' noses and it is often human nature to deceive ourselves and justify the most awful things, so not only did the Germans share the moral responsibility of the actions of their leadership, they were doing what any other country would have done in the same situation. Society is always going to fall prey to evil if there are no laws to teach people otherwise. I urge you to take a long hard look at our history if you think human beings are naturally good. A law can only mean something if we can apply it to everybody including ourselves. It is thus with taking the life of another human being. You have to ask yourself that if a truly dangerous, malicious and evil individual were locked away from society, how does revenge make any sense? I can tell you what doesn't make sense. For a society to tell a criminal 'don't do as I do, do as I say'.

I'm sorry to hear you think human rights laws are unworkable in practice. Could you elaborate further on why you think some people's human rights are invasive of others? I can't say I agree.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Typical example of political correctness gone mad - apparently you're not supposed to defend yourself in any way since it might infringe the attacker's human rights to kick the crap out of you:conf:

bollocks you have the right to defend yourself with reasonable force

[NettoSuperstar!]

Also you wanna think of it this way...had baby P lived he'd more than likely have grown up to be a little ****, much like the two brothers that just got sentenced for beating up the two boys....but look at the life he would have had, what should you expect? Hes going to be your average law abiding citizen??...we have no right to sit in judgement or condone human rights abuses on anyone. We have the right to lock people up for the safety of others, thats it!

[InOne]

Also you wanna think of it this way...had baby P lived he'd more than likely have grown up to be a little ****, much like the two brothers that just got sentenced for beating up the two boys....but look at the life he would have had, what should you expect? Hes going to be your average law abiding citizen??...we have no right to sit in judgement or condone human rights abuses on anyone. We have the right to lock people up for the safety of others, thats it!

That is a very blunt but true point. The cycle just continues.

[Angus]

It sounds like you've taken a very naive worldview. The final solution wasn't a closely guarded secret in Germany. It was happening under the Germans' noses and it is often human nature to deceive ourselves and justify the most awful things, so not only did the Germans share the moral responsibility of the actions of their leadership, they were doing what any other country would have done in the same situation. Society is always going to fall prey to evil if there are no laws to teach people otherwise. I urge you to take a long hard look at our history if you think human beings are naturally good. A law can only mean something if we can apply it to everybody including ourselves. It is thus with taking the life of another human being. You have to ask yourself that if a truly dangerous, malicious and evil individual were locked away from society, how does revenge make any sense? I can tell you what doesn't make sense. For a society to tell a criminal 'don't do as I do, do as I say'.

I'm sorry to hear you think human rights laws are unworkable in practice. Could you elaborate further on why you think some people's human rights are invasive of others? I can't say I agree.

In recent years, there have been serious cynical abuses of the Human Rights Act: You wanted examples:

"An abuse of common sense", said the prime minister about the court's decision not to deport the nine Afghan hijackers and the release of the murderer and rapist Anthony Rice.

It is not. It is the direct result of the ill-considered and badly drafted Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, and was rammed through Westminster in the first months of the Blair government.

The Afghan hijackers have shown that they could play us and our new fangled system for fools. Nobody can blame them, after all they only used common sense.

AND THIS ARTICLE

By Clive Elliott - Victims of Crime Trust
The abuses and uses of the Human Rights Act loopholes has, for a long time, been an inequitable tool placed in the undeserving hands of law breakers at the expense of justice for law abiders.

As director of Victims of Crime Trust and having, I first became aware that prisoners were receiving greater human rights than their victims when one of my clients wrote to me in 1999.

The lady, whose six-year-old daughter was murdered by a perpetrator - who later successfully sued the prison authorities under the Human Rights Act for £20,000 because treatment for his broken ankle was slightly delayed - was left wondering why he was paid such a vast sum. This compared with the £6,000 CICA compensation she received through the British criminal justice system for her murdered daughter.

It is fundamentally flawed and open to abuse in so much that it was never designed to help a law-abiding society

It seems to victims that criminals and illegal immigrants are immediately elevated to some extraordinary higher status of special treatment under the Human Rights Act, which empowers them to sue for any and every perceived injustice.

Victims observing the type of preferential treatment, respect and advice afforded perpetrators during criminal trials and appeals have quickly realised the Human Rights Act cannot help victims, but only serves those held at her Majesty's pleasure.

The Human Rights Act was originally designed to protect the most vulnerable against abuse.

Nowadays, that remit has been manipulated into a reversal whereby the abusers can use it against the vulnerable.

It is fundamentally flawed and open to abuse in so much that it was never designed to help a law-abiding society."

Should the human rights act be changed ... is the way the law is working at the moment "an abuse of common sense"?

The Human Rights Act should be repealed, not amended. No good has come of it at all, only harm.

It was not needed to secure any genuine civil liberties citizens and foreigners domiciled here should enjoy against the state and each other they did not already have under common and statute law prior to its enactment.

Moreover, it has given the authorities power to impose many quite unnecessary and undesirable restrictions on liberty, especially in relation to freedom of expression, without producing any discernible net benefit as a result.

The way the Act is working at the moment is manifestly an abuse of common sense
Simultaneously, the Act has resulted in judicial decisions that have limited the ability and will of the authorities to restrict liberty in ways they would have been able to before it which are warranted by the exceptional present circumstances arising from the threat of terror.

Judicial decisions invoking the human rights of foreign terror suspects and convicted criminals have seriously compromised national security and public safety.


This is not merely because it has been wrongly applied, as, for example, by the police in not publishing photographs of foreign criminals they are currently seeking after being released into the community rather than deported, out of fear their publication would violate a right to privacy of the foreigners.

Common sense would want the authorities to be able to detain foreign terror suspects without trial and deport dangerous foreign criminals upon completing their sentences, just as it would want primary school teachers to be able to administer suntan cream to their pupils prior to playtime to prevent their exposure to harmful sun-rays, something currently precluded by the act.

The Human Rights Act also abuses common sense by encouraging applications, some successful, for compensation for alleged violations of "human rights" that common sense would deny belonged to those seeking compensation.


I have not for one minute suggested there should be no laws, there would be anarchy without law and order. What I am against is Human Rights legislation which is unnecessary and heavily biased in favour of the perpetrators of criminal acts. It has encouraged political correctness gone mad, encouraged the compensation culture and shackled the police from doing their job of detaining suspects and the government from deporting known terrorists. Murders and paedophiles are given new identities and are allowed to live amongst us again, without our being made aware of the danger in our midst. Therefore this government's insistence on observing the human rights of criminals and terrorists has directly compromised MY human right to live in safety and without fear or risk to my life, home, and family.


As regards me, as an individual, condoning the behaviour of the corrupt and immoral government whose jackboot we are currently under, I do not accept any responsibility for their illegal invasion of Iraq, or their occupation of Afghanistan. By the same token I do not believe you can condemn an entire nation for the actions of murderous dictators. To say that the entire German nation was complicit in the Final Solution is ridiculous.

[arista]

I think it depends on the crime!


Yes but once in My Castle
they are under my Rules
they have broken in and will be attacked.


In America
California they have good warning signs
it says 'Armed Response'

And I was out there for some months
so I know have the same Policy
but without the Warning. (As it is not legal here)


Life In The City.

[Shasown]

Judicial decisions invoking the human rights of foreign terror suspects and convicted criminals have seriously compromised national security and public safety.


Thats the main flaw in the Act and its imposition, simply the Judicial decisions taken under the Act itself. It is open to abuse like all laws, however its the people who make decisions regarding the enactment of the law itself that cause the damage, not the Act.

The decisions regarding criminals and the damages awarded to them for apparent injustices do undermine the law itself. Both in the eyes of the public but also by setting precedent, they create yardsticks that other people wanting to abuse the law can use to gain advantage. As with all laws, its down to the judiciary to ensure the act is implemented fairly both to the letter of the law but also for the common good

[Angus]

Thats the main flaw in the Act and its imposition, simply the Judicial decisions taken under the Act itself. It is open to abuse like all laws, however its the people who make decisions regarding the enactment of the law itself that cause the damage, not the Act.

The decisions regarding criminals and the damages awarded to them for apparent injustices do undermine the law itself. Both in the eyes of the public but also by setting precedent, they create yardsticks that other people wanting to abuse the law can use to gain advantage. As with all laws, its down to the judiciary to ensure the act is implemented fairly both to the letter of the law but also for the common good

So long as there are greedy lawyers ready to exploit the law to line their own pockets (aka Cherie Blair!) there will continue to be nonsense claims under the Human Rights Act.

[Shasown]

So long as there are greedy lawyers ready to exploit the law to line their own pockets (aka Cherie Blair!) there will continue to be nonsense claims under the Human Rights Act.

Not a truer word spoken, I remember when her everloving hubby announced the Human Rights Act being brought onto the statute books, comments about making his wife's work easier, or providing more work for her abounded.

[arista]

On ITV1 Now
Tonight Docu.

[Angus]

On ITV1 Now
Tonight Docu.

Yes, just watched it. So you can defend yourself with "reasonable force":conf: That's a pretty subjective phrase. Anyone steps over my doorstep without permission takes the consequences.

[Shasown]

Yes, just watched it. So you can defend yourself with "reasonable force":conf: That's a pretty subjective phrase. Anyone steps over my doorstep without permission takes the consequences.

Top tip, always be in "fear of you and your family's life", believe "they were armed" and always state you asked them to stop/leave.

When testing cases the CPS use this criteria for "reasonable force" to decide whether or not to prosecute: the minimum force necessary a reasonable person would need to use to achieve a legal aim (get the intruders to leave etc.). Any more and they will start proceedings.

And if they do leave dont chase after them. PMSL

[Angus]

Top tip, always be in "fear of you and your family's life", believe "they were armed" and always state you asked them to stop/leave.

And if they do leave dont chase after them. PMSL

Or just move to the States where its always open season:whistle:

[Shasown]

Or just move to the States where its always open season:whistle:

PMSL. Yeah but a lot more criminals go armed over there.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Anyway...how very Christian of you angus lol...what would JeZus say?

[InOne]

'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' could be interpreted the total opposite way, a primitive version of the golden rule even.

[NettoSuperstar!]

'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' could be interpreted the total opposite way, a primitive version of the golden rule even.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi,

[InOne]

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi,

I was gonna quote that, but thought it might be a bit obvious :tongue:

[NettoSuperstar!]

I was gonna quote that, but thought it might be a bit obvious :tongue:

Ghandi the man! I love it how people profess to be good christians showin compassion and love thy neighbour etc, then advocate all sorts of human rights abuses and even killing another human being cos theyre a criminal...not very Jezus like is it?

[InOne]

Ghandi the man! I love it how people profess to be good christians showin compassion and love thy neighbour etc, then advocate all sorts of human rights abuses and even killing another human being cos theyre a criminal...not very Jezus like is it?

Of course, people go on about the golden rule with religion yet don't read the rest. A life for a life is barbaric, I thought we'd moved on as a society, but I guess not.

[Angus]

Anyway...how very Christian of you angus lol...what would JeZus say?


Jesus said "Do unto others as you would be done by", so burglars would be well advised to keep that in mind if they don't want to be done unto by breaking into my house.

[Angus]

Of course, people go on about the golden rule with religion yet don't read the rest. A life for a life is barbaric, I thought we'd moved on as a society, but I guess not.

Are we back to the capital punishment argument? I'm talking about the right to defend myself, my family and my property from intruders who have the choice not to break into my home. If they do, then they should be prepared to take the consequences, unless you are suggesting that I should invite them in for a cup of tea and tell them to help themselves?

[InOne]

Are we back to the capital punishment argument? I'm talking about the right to defend myself, my family and my property from intruders who have the choice not to break into my home. If the do, then they should be prepared to take the consequences, unless you are suggesting that I should invite them in for a cup of tea and tell them to help themselves?

I'd kill someone who came into my home. Even bury the body.

[Angus]

I'd kill someone who came into my home. Even bury the body.

"Even bury the body"!:shocked::laugh:

[InOne]

"Even bury the body"!:shocked::laugh:

Well, a body causes drama. No need for that ;)

[Crimson Dynamo]

inone did you enjoy the book American Psycho?

[InOne]

inone did you enjoy the book American Psycho?

No, I read about real killers not fake new labour ones.

Utter Fact.

[Crimson Dynamo]

No, I read about real killers not fake new labour ones.

Utter Fact.

this was written long before new labour. Seriously I think you would like it. seek it out.

[InOne]

this was written long before new labour. Seriously I think you would like it. seek it out.

Fact is darker than fiction.

[bananarama]

Funny how criminals can break the law with impunity, can assault and kill, steal other people's property, burglarise other people's homes, kidnap, rape and abduct children and then when they are caught they are able to invoke THEIR human rights. It is the height of hypocrisy to break the law, then be able to invoke its protection and privileges

As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law. A criminal act is, after all, an invasion and abuse of someone else's human rights. Instead of Human Rights legisation we should have a Bill of Rights that gives protection and privileges to the law abiding people of this country, that can only be invoked so long as people adhere to their responsibilities to be good citizens.


Briliant post.......Agree one million percent........My blood boils when I hear someone is worried about the level of force used against a burgler for example.....The minimum force regime is riduculous.......How on earth can one know what a safe minimum force is against a stranger whoe's strenghth and reactions you know nothing about.....Maximum force should allway be allowed no matter what the consequences are to the criminal........And that should apply to criminals escaping from its victim as they should not be allowed to escape and commit the same crime on another victim.......

The death penalty is not about deterent although I believe it is a detertent it is about JUSTICE for the victim and families.......

[Crimson Dynamo]

Fact is darker than fiction.

not in this case


The Bundy case is interesting but so is BTK, what with his religious cover.

[InOne]

not in this case


The Bundy case is interesting but so is BTK, what with his religious cover.

Was BTK even caught??? Was he the guy who send tapes and letters to the police?

[InOne]

Ahhh remember him now LT, well alot hide behind religion, especially in the days when Sex Killers were all over the place.

[Crimson Dynamo]

BTK caught himself almost, he got bored of not being caught. he was too good for the police. he was evil.

[InOne]

BTK caught himself almost, he got bored of not being caught. he was too good for the police. he was evil.

Alot are quite intelligent.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Alot are quite intelligent.

especially the ones that never get caught..

[InOne]

especially the ones that never get caught..


Like that one in LA I think. Zodiac Killer

[PaulyJ]

The death penalty is not about deterent although I believe it is a detertent it is about JUSTICE for the victim and families.......


There is a certain cruelty inflicted on, say the family of Jamie Bulger, when they hear their sons killer's have been released.

The death penalty would save them from this turture, and this is the only sensible justification i can think of for the death penalty.

If the conviction was truely "Beyond Doubt" then i would support the Death Penalty, but i just don't trust the way in which Human Beings, and therefore Courts, define "Beyond Doubt". The Belief Engine works to fool us all

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13049149/The-Belief-Engine

And once you know about it, and understand it, can you honestly take a persons life, and not feel a killer's guilt.

[Shasown]

I dont use the belief engine, I ask God, if he wont tell me the answer I use my hidden super psychic powers.

And yes I could quite happily execute someone if tasked to. Its a job after all.