Originally Posted by Livia (Post 4325943)

He should be marched out into the middle of a field, stood over a hole and shot in the back of the head. No ceremony, no "I am the Truth and the Light sayeth the Lord.." It's a job I would be happy to do.

Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4326122)

Society deserves to be protected from people like him

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 4326073)

Alright we're not fighting some war here

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 4326161)

What? You think I'm maybe being too harsh? I'm saying that people like him don't deserve to live and should be executed with the minimum fuss.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 4326183)

Sounds like the sort of punishment they use to give to a deserter in a war, or when they're executing one of the enemy, standing them in front of a ditch and putting a bullet in the back of the head. And yes, I'm against the death penalty & so I wouldnt support it myself.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 4326324)

I'm surprised, considering what this excuse for a man did, that your first thought is that I'm being too harsh.

Your prerogative though. Me? I'd shoot him and save us all a few decades worth of the cash we'd pay to keep him.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 4326387)

It wasn't my first thought when I read the story, although yes my first thought when I read your post was that a military style execution didnt really seem very appropiate.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 4326569)

I'm not really au fait with what's appropriate for a child murderer. It was a gut reaction. What I was trying to get across was that, even in places where the death sentence exists, it's surrounded by a certain amount of performance. Years of appeals and finally a priest, a press gallery, an audience etc. A quick bullet in the head then throw some dirt over him. Seems more approriate. And it'd stop the years of hand-wringing by the bleeding hearts and liberals who think he has a right to a normal life after even after the monstrous things he did.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 4326697)

Or just stick em all on a deserted island somewhere. Less cost, less risk, and they are among people the same as themselves, and out of the way of normal people. Hopefully a few get attacked by wild animals or something too, make it a bit sweeter :)

Originally Posted by rhino (Post 4326608)

After 17 months of unimaginable cruelty, Baby P finally succumbedAdam Fresco
When the infant known in court only as Baby P was brought home from hospital days after his birth in March 2006, it was as a bubbly, blue-eyed boy with the first signs of curly blond hair. He was, according to those who came into contact with him, a lively child with a ready smile.

After 17 months enduring abuse of an almost unimaginable cruelty, the boy had been reduced to a nervous wreck, his hair shaved to the scalp and his body covered in bruises and scabs. Physical injuries included eight broken ribs, a broken back and the missing top of a finger, while the emotional damage was almost incalculable. Despite it all, Baby P was said to have still attempted a smile.

The jury was told that details of the intervening months, leading to the baby’s death last August, would “fill [them] with revulsion”. But even this could not prepare jurors — one of whom could not hold back tears — for one of the worst cases of sadistic brutality and sordid child neglect to come before a British court.

Baby P’s life in a council flat in Haringey, North London, began with gradual and growing neglect at the hands of his mother, who would leave him unattended for hours in his cot. The overweight woman, who had never had a full-time job and spent hours trawling the internet for pornography, split from the boy’s natural father when he was 3 months old after affairs with two men.

When the second lover moved in, Baby P’s suffering increased dramatically. The court heard that while his mother gossiped with friends in online chat rooms, her boyfriend took to beating the boy, swinging him around by the neck or legs and pinching him.

The Times has been told that the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, forced Baby P to follow commands like a dog. At the click of a finger he would have to sit with his head bent between his legs; 20 minutes later a second click would be the signal that he could sit upright again.

A second man, Jason Owen, also subjected the boy to similar abuse. Owen, who stayed at the house for five weeks with his 15-year-old girlfriend, was found guilty with the boyfriend of causing or allowing the death of a child. The mother admitted her guilt at an earlier hearing.

Police were told that the boyfriend, a 32-year-old collector of Nazi memorabilia, wanted to “toughen him up”. Other routines included placing the baby on a stool and spinning it around until he fell off.

The authorities had first voiced concerns about possible abuse by October 2006, when a GP noticed marks on the boy. But his mother, in the first of many episodes of deception and false reassurances, insisted she had found that his skin “bruised easily”.

Two months later the GP sent the pair to the Whittington Hospital, North London, after inspecting a head injury. Insisting that her child was “a head-banger” fond of “rough and tumble play”, the mother claimed that fingermarks were merely the result of when he was caught after being lovingly held and thrown into the air.

Social services were informed and visited the flat, which was found to be dirty, untidy and smelling of urine. They learnt that it was shared with the boy’s grandmother and three dogs, including a rottweiler, but remained unaware that it also harboured a violent boyfriend. They decided to let the child stay with a family friend while police inquiries continued.

A month later, in January 2007, with no decision made on any charge against either woman, the boy was allowed back home. As he grew too old for milk and jars of baby food, Baby P scavenged bits of broken biscuits from older children and was even seen eating dirt in the garden. Detectives found that after the boyfriend moved in there was not one piece of the boy’s clothing that was not spattered with blood


Appropriate or not I agree with Livia, I can't believe there's a parent out there who wouldn't

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 4326657)

He might have played some part in the death but it's important to remember he was charged with "causing or allowing the death", he has not been charged with murder or even manslaughter. Let's not sensationalise & overemotionalise things here.

And yes those things are called due process, it's the foundations of our justice sytem, and while I'm against the death penalty in all cases if it were to be implemented I'd like the offender to at least have his basic rights & dignity respected.

Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4329613)

I am going to ask a very serious question to you: "Why do you think the offender should be offered his basic rights and his dignity respected" - given his involvment in the abuse and toture of Baby Peter?

Why on earth do you feel that this abusive man who inflicted torture upon a defenceless toddler should be treated with dignity? Where or why should he be afforded dignity to be bestowed upon him. Because he is a human being....and let's forget about what the nature of the man is?

Good grief.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 4329677)

Yes because he's a human being, and because if you deprive him of basic human rights then who are you to preach them to people and to encourage their adherence? Like Dezzy said, if you want to talk law or justice then you have to leave emotions at the door, you can't just be guided by anger and a desire for vengeance.