Ok I understand some of your points more now,but I honestly do not think killing a criminal is hypocritical,infact I would call it an eye for an eye in a murderers case.

With Karen Matthews I would give her an eye for an eye in a different way to a murderer obviously.

Sadly that would be if she was still going to be serving her sentence.:(

No it doesn't.:joker:

How is that funny?

You are judging a criminal for committing MURDER.

You are then committing MURDER yourself and yet you get to live and get away with it? That's hypocritical. Do you understand the definition of the word?

By your rationale someone else should be allowed to kill you as punishment. Murder is murder. No one has the right to take away someone else's life. There are laws for a reason.

An eye for an eye is hypocritical. The entire concept is...I mean, seriously.

As I said before I don't think jedward_fever understands the actual definition of hypocrisy.

How is it not funny?

I would be killing a criminal,the criminal kills an innocent person,which one is worse? I think the one where the criminal is killing a defenceless and innocent person is by far the worst of the two.

Also the killer didn't care about the victims life so why should I care about his/hers? I also think if anyone killed a murderer people would be singing there praises mostly.

I do but this is not hypocrisy,am I killing innocent people? no.

So, to repeat my question from earlier...

Using your own rationale someone else can be permitted to kill you to punish you for your own crime. That killer then becomes YOUR defenceless victim in your own act. How do you not see that?

Is it not?

You can't judge someone else for murder and then commit it yourself and justify it.

The entire point of murder is taking someone else's life which NO ONE has the right to do. To then punish someone by committing the same act is hypocrisy.

No when I mean defenceless victim I mean innocent people not psychotic murderess bastards.

Also no as somebody that kills a criminal should not make someone want to kill the person that kills the criminal unless they sided with the killer in the first place.:shocked:

All im saying is,is if the death penalty was still around then you would have a less chaotic country.

I'd be interested to know if there was any form of diagnosis on Karen Matthews. It could be she walks out of prison and straight into Broadmoor or somewhere similar, it's happened to people before.

A killer should not get a 2nd chance in life as afterall the victim will never get a 2nd chance so no I still stand that it isn't hypocrisy and it certainly isn't pretending high morals either like that quote you posted up is suggesting.

It most certainly IS proposing high morals.

You are saying that murder is such a heinous crime it must be punished.

But you are punishing by committing the exact same heinous crime. Therefore defeating the basis of your on moral code.

You seem unable to comprehend these things so I'll just end my part in the discussion here.

Im able to comprehend what your saying but what way would you punish them? locking more and more murderers up in jail is still having them live out there lives,especially when they only get sentenced to 9 years in jail and there victim that they killed will never get there life back,imo that is false high morals to make themselves feel better because no sane person actually jumps at the joy at killing someone but it has to be done in these cases.

..I really don't know why a sentence isn't just that..why in a lot of cases it seems to be cut in half..and we don't really know how many are 'reformed' when they leave prison..isn't that part of what it should be about..not just the punishment
..I understand why some feel how they do...that this wasn't enough...but that isn't our decision..and this is the only justice system we have...and new identities will sometimes have to be given..and whether we like it or not...it is for a very good reason...and even if she does do something horrific again..it still would have been the right thing to do....even the sickest of minds probably think they have 'a reason' to kill...but there really is no reason to kill......ever
....or to stand back and watch someone else do it....and think..oh well..they deserved it

I have no objection to sentencing reviews for good behaviour etc although in my opinion prisoners should conduct themselves with good behaviour anyway, it would be a start to seeing they were learning something in prison.

I think because no one was actually killed in this case explains the leniency of it,however as I said in an earlier post, I personally would like to see 'with intent' added to kidnap charges adding far more to the sentencing structure.

I also think in cases like this, which is a crime against and on a person, then reduction of time served should at the very best be minimal for good behaviour and other factors as to what makes up the decisions of reduction of those sentences.

I agree with jf in the main,I already know of people especially Mothers themselves,(my own for example), who are totally livid this woman is being released so soon and being given some protective means too.
I would never support vigilante action but I can see why some people are so furious at this case and her total lack of remorse at her trial on it that they would vent real fury out concerning her.

Clearly,if she has to be given a likely new identity, the authorities realise that and so must know release this early is likely wrong.
She was an adult when she 'organised' this crime against her own child, she duped neighbours, police and even the media into her web of deceit and even when caught, showed no remorse whatsoever.

If they had any suspicions the police were turning their attention to them what possibly would she and her accomplices maybe have done to poor Shannon in order to get away with this. She even deceived her own other children, still in her care while this crime and deceit was being played out by her.

I totally understand the anger and jf's anger at this is likely representative of a majority of the Country,of course anyone who harmed her would be seen as guilty by the establishment but I also dare bet they would be cheered by the majority of people in the UK.
I am not saying that is right but when the law appears to mollycoddle criminals like this person?, then others will feel really angry at that.

We don't have the death penalty in the UK, however if a referendum was held tomorrow, the majority for it on certain crimes would be enormous.I still would vote against it but crimes like this against children,who are not able to really defend themselves and then by no fault of their own see their lives devastated and scarred likely for life need a much stronger voice and sentencing.
Never forget this child's suffering and kidnapping was organised by her own Mother,I doubt there are much more despicable actions than that one.

Joey....I do understand people's reaction...and the full term should have been served
...I am a mother too...don't think for one minute that I don't understand your mum's feelings...even felt them myself at times...not only about this woman but other's who's victims are children....but those are emotions...understandable ones yes.....but they will never solve a problem....if they were allowed to...and we 'dealt with things' based on how we feel..what angers..hurts...offends us.....there would only be choas...and violence. All we have is the law....the law has no emotion.....and that's all we can trust...and if it does fail sometimes...because it is flawed imo...then I'll have to hope karma steps in
..to 'let this woman loose'...with no protection of new identity...is quite possibly a death sentence on her...and whether 4 more years would change that...I doubt it...and doing that....sending someone into the arena..when you know that lions are there...you might not be the one to strike the blow...but well...you're not innocent either.
...and this is the dilemma the authorities face

No way was I disagreeing with you Ammi, I think we both 100% agree the sentence was too short and is also over much too early too.

I am against vigilante action as I said in my posts, however having said that,I have heard a good few people on this topic this morning and the general view is anyone who got to her, would get cheered.

Again,I don't believe that is likely right but that is why I hope someday and if I got involved in anything as to law in the future after my Uni time, I would certainly canvass for an eventual re-defining of such crimes like this and the sentences for violent crime and kidnap heavily increased.
To me.that would be the only way to stifle the outrage at this early release of people like this woman.

An 'eye for an eye' seems to me to be about revenge. Although it's understandable, especially in cases like this, the Bulgers, or perhaps the Moors Murderers, it is not the act of a decent state in my opinion. I think these type of criminals should be left to rot in a dungeon somewhere and made an example of.

Unfortunately our criminal system appears to do neither. I really wonder why we have prisons that are full of petty non-violent criminals who should probably be given some sort of community service instead and that would free us up to lock up the violent criminals for good. No rights, no cosy cells, just them alone with their thoughts for the rest of their lives.

an 'eye for an eye' also assumes we know exactly what happened too. How many people have been executed who were later found out to be innocent? The Derek Bentley case for example.

I do wonder if those who are vehement that the death penalty should be reintroduced are also vehement that they will take responsibility should somebody who is innocent be executed? An 'eye for an eye' would perhaps not be quite so popular then.

I agree with you Joey that vigilante action is wrong, but I don't think I'll spend my time worrying about it with people like this. It seems to me they brought it on themselves.

If people want to take vigilante action then they should be subject to being criminalised for it.

...maybe you're right about the bit in bold...put aside the disgust and think about it though.....how awful that would be if it were true..to cheer the taking of a human life
..one thing that I'm certain of...you will be a great asset to the law profession....and will indeed canvass your beliefs.
...we'll have a little chat beforehand....and I'll give you my wish list

Agree with all of this ^ sentances far too light for some henious crimes,IF offenders got a fitting sentence and SERVED it, people would not get so angry

..that's so true Kazanne

I will look forward to that little chat and your wish list too Ammi.

The whole thing here for me is that I am just so pleased that little Shannon did not end up another statistic as to the loss of a young child's life.
However what happened was bad enough.

Also fruit_cake, I totally agree with you, it is totally ridiculous that petty financial crimes see people in prison and taking up places that people like this woman should be in.
Often as I said before, those committing financial crimes end up getting longer anyway than she did. As again to the vigilante point, maybe the best way of protecting children or anyone in the future from this woman and even protecting her herself would be to keep in there and not inflict her on an unsuspecting public again.

Thankyou Ammi,I don't want to add too much to this thread as I will get annoyed,I'm sure you know what I mean ,some things are just too close to the heart,needless to say,I think our judicial system is a joke,there really is NO punishment as such.This woman is scum,but much worse people are roaming round freely,after petty sentences.