I wanted to make a nice pattern. And there was no 'OWNAGE' about it, just complete stupidity on his/her part (it did make me laugh though, so thanks for that.)

I dont want children to be killed by the legal systen... Longer in prison!! And more support for the VICTIMS!

Agreed.:thumbs:

Post removed by Sunny_01 and warning issued for being rude to other members.

I would fight till my last breath for mercy for them, but fully understand and respect why socierty wished to carry out a proper and just punishment.

If it makes people any easier why not hang these when they are adults then?
or at the very least let them serve a sentance which properly compensates the life they took, surely not doing that is a travesty to the memory of the victim and there loved ones.

Yeah I'd fight hard to save my child from the death penalty but I'd die fighting to make sure justice was done if ever a child of mine became a victim of murder.
Whats really frightening (and more to the point) here is the fact mine and our children are (despite the statistics) much more likely to fall into the latter catergory ..and I dont feel comfortable feeling anyway thankul for that than falling into the former catergory.

That's a very fair answer.:thumbs:

I think the severity of the crime sometimes over shadows the fact that it was committed when they were children. That is not an excuse but I feel its improtant to state when talking of the death penalty, that we're talking about a crime commited by two children. I'm for longer sentences and life should mean life but I'm not in favour of issuing the death penalty to a child.

Lol you really have no clue do you? I am sick and twisted for putting my trust in the experts who have worked with these CHILDREN rather than siding with the hate mob!

Neither am I, in favour of serving a death sentance on a child.
I'd sever it when they had reached 18.

I was always in favour of a life sentance meaning life ( a minimum 50 years before parol would be considered)
And for the more severe crimes (mass murder, serial killers) a life sentance without parol.

However, the problem with that I have is, why waste resourses on criminals like Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West ect... when it is most unlikely they will ever be given freedom?
Would it not be in everyones interest to re-instate the death penalty and give EVERYONE the proper right and chance for justice, this time however the victims famillies too get a look in, its long overdue and its a FACT it also saves lives, as "lifers" DO kill again.

The problem is who gets the make the decison? Who decides that this one dies but that ones crime is not severe enough for them to die? This is my main problem with the death penalty for certain crimes. In principle its a fiar point but in reality some cases would go round and round in court for years.

Seek help.

longer in prison for adult psychopaths and serial killers and the like yes. When it comes to 10 year old children you have to put your trust in educated Psychologists and experts as to how long is long enough.

Well I'd be happy for those that murder and plead guilty to have there sentance commuted to life(either with or without parol) then you save needles pain again to victims famillys at long trials, and save socierty huge court costs (money that could be used for fighting crime)

For the accused who go through a full trial why not let a jury decide on its case merit, they have heard the evidence and are given the big descion of all whether the accused is guilty or not... why not let them also decided whether thier crime also warrents the death penalty or not.

Two words

Steven Cusko

:shrug:

This was a man convicted of a savage murder, because police withheld evidence that actually proved him innocent. He was locked up for several years before this came to light.

Then the police lied... So do you want to give killers the benefit of the doubt due to a chance of he/she being innocent? ..... Death row helps.

ahh!.... there's the andyman we all know ..

we're all "dumb" "sick" and "twisted". Having to resort to offensive slurs when your "argument" runs out is .... well it's you all over. Reminds me of "vile vile scum vile" ... you always through around.

Mate why not argue your point instead of getting nasty and attacking the very moral foundation of people who disagree with you. Surely if your position is so right you wouldn't need to resort to cheap shots. ... lol but you do so there you are.

So you are a far left wacko who supports the human rights of killers?

lol ... point is in cases where the innocent are found guilty a death penalty would give no recourse. ... death row helps?

To answer your question YES ... it's how the criminal justice system works mate ... and has done so for over 400 years... lol. Your guilty ONLY when there is an absence of a "reasonable doubt". So your question is kind of funny given they've worked that one out centuries ago.

So you support human rights for killers?

I support the rights of humans. I support the right of people to remain human and not feel as though they need to prove their goodness by bloodying their hands in the hate and bile that clearly motivates your life.

oh and the rights of an individual and af a citzen are NOT a far left philosophy but infact come from the right of the political spectrum so you kind of don't know what your talking about ...sorry.

So you agree that those that kill should still have their human rights? You for real or another trendy wacko far left view on life?

Hence the debate and if the law should change... Best you keep out the sun :bored:

OMG... obviously those that are guilty should be put away ... so there right to freedom is one right that they no longer should have. Where did you get "so you agree that those that kill should still have their human rights?". Honestly? or was that another argument that was going on in your head? These sad assumption of " oh your from the far left" are hopeless... if your position is sooooo solid why do you need to resort to backdoor attacks like that. Please bring an argument or this will get very boring very quickly.

I dont want the death pen back in the uk but longer prison terms are needed... Any miscarage of justice been done then true justice will shine... Longer prison terms! Hence the OP. Oh and lets not forget the victims of crime.

hehe another personal attack... lol at least I remember what the sun looks like bro hehe.
Your contention that the idea of the rights of the individual are a far left philosphy is wrong. They are from the right/liberal side of politics. So even your cheap backdoor " loony left" arguement is full of holes.

Then you agree with me, great.. Done!:devil:

point 1
Sorry but you don't get to speak for the victim of the crime. How dare you assume your speaking for them. To think you'd use their pain as some kind of armour for a poorly thought out argument is shocking.

Point 2
Why do you think longer sentences will work given that in EVERY example in the past it has failed. The US strong laws plus a 3 strikes policy for minor crimes have not worked. The gaols are full...nearly 3 million prisoners, that's 1 in every 130 yanks. You want to copy that system?... is it working?. Is there another way?

I'm saying it's a hard nut to crack but a super simple answer like " longer sentences" not only doesn't work but it spoils a possibility of a true debate on the solution. I don't think you are motivated by a possibility of finding a solution because if you were you would have brought an argument that didn't use personal attacks and that didn't try to ride the coat tails of the grief of the victims families.

lol... not so fast hehe
ps got to go .. 5pm here in Sydney I'm off home.

erm.... I'm sure i ment long term prison for very nasty crimes, i support human rights for those that do good and victims of crime. Is it wrong to protect the public?

No it's not wrong... we both want that. Problem is your solution has been repeatedly tried through history and failed. That's not a hidden fact...it's well known. Longer sentences don't reduce crime fullstop! Politicians raise sentences to pander to, and ingratiate themselves with, the public who's understanding of the complexities of the criminal justice system is squeezed in between Deal or no Deal and a AB master ad. And real criminal justice reformers try to spend money on re-educating/reforming inmates people complain that too much money is spent on them already.

This whole argument between the 2 halves on this thread stems from one simple point.. how we see people. Are people who commit crimes:
a: "evil" to their very core and therefore impossible to reform or
b: have they performed evil acts that deserve incarceration but are capable of being reformed and lead normal healthy lives.

Do we think people are:
a: capable of redemption, capable of change OR
b: cast in stone and unchangeable.

If you think "a" then gaol will be seen as a place to be reformed and changed.... if on the other hand you think "b" then you probably see a gaol as a place where we all as a society can take revenge. This is incredible short sighted given that at some point they will come out... unreformed.... unchanged, and angry at the world.

oh and for the record andyman ... I reported you. Bring an arguement instead of calling those that have an alternate opinion to yours "dumb" "sick" and "twisted".

No Its not wrong to protect the public, but its not your decision on whos dangerous or not, or any of ours. Its the people who are educated and trained in this area. Dangerous people who have no hope of reforming dont get let out ie/ Ian Huntley (He will rot in Jail, Do I care? NO, Keep him there!). And prison is, in my eyes there to protect the public and not to vent our anger.

Here we are talking about two damaged 10 year old children who were deemed to be reformed after spending over half their young lives in custody. I will respect the decision of educated and rational people and not people who are blinded by hate!

yeah!! hehe

anyhow
I remember watching this last year. .. comedian Stephen Colbert.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...7/randy-kearse

I cant watch that vid or am I missing the joke lol? Ah i saw some on youtube funny! The truthiness according to Andycapp haha better edit this or I'll be in forrit!

...and what a charming avatar!

I am pointing out that the law can make errors, leading to the villification of innocent people.

I remember this case, and in the hunt for the killers an innocent lad was questioned, and in the end he and his family had to me moved out of Mersyside for their own safety because people assumed he was guilty, because "why would the police question him if he wasn't and he needed to be lynched as soon as possible". He is still not safe to this day, because he was interviewed and people assume he is guilty.

In this case these two other children were guilty, but by your tone you are implying that everyone arrested or questioned by the police must be guilty and therefore must be executed forthwith.

This I believe is called the "Prosecutor's fallacy"

There are plenty of people who are put away on faulty scientific evidence and then later released when science catches up eg/ the women who were wrongly accused of killing their children and later scientific research proved that cot death can run in families. And death row helps how exactly?? Is it a deterrant? NO, does it make society a safer place? NO

IMO, yes, they were released way too early. AND FALSIFYING THEIR IDENTITY on release must also have cost taxpayers a packet.