[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'm with MTVN on this one. The whole point of our Justice system is that we're better then the criminals we punish, shooting someone in a ditch is hardly a good example of that. It's an emotional response that has no place in justice. It's misguided and pointless to call vengeance justice and not enough people can make that distinction. If you want to talk law or justice then leave your emotions at the door.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Because the world would be a much worse place if Mob Justice was the norm. There has to be a standard to uphold or we might as well give into chaos.

With your comments above then, and taking into consideration my opening post: does this mean that you agree that this scumbag should be given a new identity, fresh start, home, job etc all at the cost of the taxpayer.

If not: may I ask what you feel should be the appropriate way forward? Do you feel that having served 4 years for the torturous abuse this man (and others) inflicted upon an innocent, defenceless young todder - is adequate punishment.

Are you of the view that having served 'his time', that he should be allowed to come out of jail, and simpy 'get on with his life', uninterrupted,without issue. ?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

With your comments above then, and taking into consideration my opening post: does this mean that you agree that this scumbag should be given a new identity, fresh start, home, job etc all at the cost of the taxpayer.

If not: may I ask what you feel should be the appropriate way forward? Do you feel that having served 4 years for the torturous abuse this man (and others) inflicted upon an innocent, defenceless young todder - is adequate punishment.

Are you of the view that having served 'his time', that he should be allowed to come out of jail, and simpy 'get on with his life', uninterrupted,without issue. ?

None of the above.

I don't know enough about this story apart from the odd trashy snippet from the tabloids to judge fairly so I won't. As for the new Identity I can see the pros and cons of it. On one hand it'll protect the public from themselves as some idiots would undoubtedly decide to ***** up their own lives and try to dish out some mob justice but on the other hand it could be seen as protecting him. The idea that he'd be living in luxury is a typical hysterical Daily Mail image that, like the newspaper itself, is rarely based on fact. If he was given any protection then it would be under the condition that he'd have to give in to a lot of restrictions and such and given the high profile nature of his crimes he'd be under constant watch.

Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed by the end of his sentence, if he is then I don't see a problem with as it would cost more to keep him locked up for life and that way he could eventually contribute to society. Only criminals that truly want to change should be given that level of help though and whether prison will change him or not remains to be seen.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed by the end of his sentence, if he is then I don't see a problem with as it would cost more to keep him locked up for life and that way he could eventually contribute to society. Only criminals that truly want to change should be given that level of help though and whether prison will change him or not remains to be seen.

That's basically my thoughts on it.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

That's basically my thoughts on it.

Putting another child at the possible risk of being subjected to the same horrendous abuse and torture?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Putting another child at the possible risk of being subjected to the same horrendous abuse and torture?

"Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed": for him to be reformed would necessitate him not posing a threat to children.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

"Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed": for him to be reformed would necessitate him not posing a threat to children.

and the only way to test if he's reformed or not is to send him back into society and hope that he doesn't abuse or kill another child.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

and the only way to test if he's reformed or not is to send him back into society and hope that he doesn't abuse or kill another child.

Well there is evidence that rehabilitation can be successful, and if we ever want to let any prisoners out of jail and have them integrate back into society then the process is essential, we cant keep everyone in jail if it goes against strong evidence of rehabilitation in fear of recidivism.

Pyramid - I'm off out now so I'll try and reply to your post later

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

"Whether he gets a new identity or not should depend on whether he's truly been reformed": for him to be reformed would necessitate him not posing a threat to children.

how can the parole board, the powers that be, or the public be assured that he is a reformed character? If he is so 'reformed' and there is absolute proof of this: he should not require any new identity.

Do you honestly feel that 'reformed character or not' - that a person who has inflicted such horror and torture upon a young child, should benefit from the taxpayer paying for his new ID, house, job and all other manner of things that that would entail.

Do you truly feel that the strained public purse and it's very restricted finances should be used for such a new ID - rather than say, for example, being used towards treating sick children / or treating children who have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of such people. ?

If there was a choice between the monies being spent on the New ID or what I have posed above: what would your preference be?