[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Jack_

And I didn't dispute that...infact I said I knew that wasn't the case. But there's not much I can do about that, is there? But it doesn't mean instead we need to resort to the death penalty and mass slaughter and torture, does it?



Yes, yes I would. Because I wouldn't want to teach my other children [if I had any] or any other children that I knew that torture and violence and murder is right. What good is there in that? Teach 'em early and then let them turn into a murderer or a bully when they get older? Yeah, because that's really what I want them becoming. Come on...use your brain for once. Two wrongs don't make a right. Most of these things are taught. A bully was oftened once bullied themselves, paedophiles were often sexually abused when they were children. So by teaching our kids that violence, murder and torture is an acceptable form of punishment what good are we really doing? Go ahead and do that if you like but at the end of the day we're going to end up living in a even less-safer world than we are in now.

Stop getting your pampers in a twist,it must piss you off so much that I don't agree with you about anything,You have no kids,I have ,I also know the pain of people I know and love losing a child to violence,so don't tell me to use my brain,my brain is at least in gear and Yes I know what a joke is ,I laugh at different ones to you,I have NEVER found a joke about abuse or murder funny,thank God,and who advocated mass slaughter,torture and the death penalty!!!?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by kazanne

Stop getting your pampers in a twist,it must piss you off so much that I don't agree with you about anything,

Not really...

Originally Posted by kazanne

You have no kids,I have ,I also know the pain of people I know and love losing a child to violence,so don't tell me to use my brain,my brain is at least in gear

Well, really it's not if you want to teach your kids/other kids that violence and torture is a good form of punishment?

Originally Posted by kazanne

and Yes I know what a joke is ,I laugh at different ones to you,I have NEVER found a joke about abuse or murder funny,thank God,

Exactly. So why can't you accept that I have a different sense of humour to you and that just because I have a different sense of humour to you I don't condone or participate in torture of animals/humans? It's quite pathetic, really.

Originally Posted by kazanne

and who advocated mass slaughter,torture and the death penalty!!!?

That is the conclusion you would come to based on your posts in this thread...

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by kazanne

You have no kids,I have

you say that like it's an achievement.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Christ @ the mindsets of some people in this thread. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, and the more we encourage violence and torture, the more it is going to happen. It's common sense, really. Whilst I don't agree with the ridiculously short sentences these disgusting people receive, some of the suggestions for 'punishments' made in this thread are absolutely disgusting. I don't know about most people, but I would much rather see a criminal suffer for decades on end in prison than killing them quickly. And I know that doesn't happen, but that is what needs to happen.

As far as 'inhumane' things go, the furthest I would go is leaving the criminal in a cell with no clothes, no water, no food, absolutely until they eventually die.

But as I've already said, it would then teach kids that we accept and promote violence and torture - and we'd end up with even more criminals than we have now.

PMSL,you've got some room to talk about peoples mindsets,lol you the one who thought jokes about kids being taped to a wall were funny,but of course you had the excuse that you thought the incident was terrible!! but the jokes made up about it were funny,Go figure.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by kazanne

PMSL,you've got some room to talk about peoples mindsets,lol you the one who thought jokes about kids being taped to a wall were funny,but of course you had the excuse that you thought the incident was terrible!! but the jokes made up about it were funny,Go figure.

Yes, because surprise ****ing surprise, they're called jokes. J-o-k-e-s. Jokes. Do you know what that word means?

I said the incident was terrible - and it was. And so is this. But the jokes were funny because I have a dark sense of humour. I thought we established this and moved on? Evidently not. So I take it I still like to torture animals [or whatever the laughable thing you said was]?

At the end of the day having a dark sense of humour [which is not causing anyone any physical harm] and wishing to inflict physical pain/torture on people are two completely different things - the latter of which is far, far worse.

[Angus]

No, I am not as bad as the perpetrators of such wicked crimes, I have not exploited, abused and harmed and sometimes killed a child for my own perverted pleasure, so that argument goes out the window. Spare me the bleeding heart, "civilised" attitude which is precisely the reason why we have such grotesque inhumane monsters in our midst.

Let's face it If Venables had been dealt with properly the first time round, he would not have had the opportunity to abuse more innocent children, so the fault lies equally with the judicial system, and the bleeding heart liberals who bang on about the inhumane treatment of irredeemable scum like this. As far as I'm concerned, the moment such scum commits an act as evil as this, they have revoked any claim to be treated like a human being. Let's hope someone you love, never mind your own precious child, never becomes a victim to such acts of depravity and abuse, and if they do, god forbid, I wonder how forgiving, civilised and reasonable you would be if the perpetrator got a laughably lenient sentence.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by angus58

No, I am not as bad as the perpetrators of such wicked crimes, I have not exploited, abused and harmed and sometimes killed a child for my own perverted pleasure, so that argument goes out the window. Spare me the bleeding heart, "civilised" attitude which is precisely the reason why we have such grotesque inhumane monsters in our midst.

Let's face it If Venables had been dealt with properly the first time round, he would not have had the opportunity to abuse more innocent children, so the fault lies equally with the judicial system, and the bleeding heart liberals who bang on about the inhumane treatment of irredeemable scum like this. As far as I'm concerned, the moment such scum commits an act as evil as this, they have revoked any claim to be treated like a human being. Let's hope someone you love, never mind your own precious child, never becomes a victim to such acts of depravity and abuse, and if they do, god forbid, I wonder how forgiving, civilised and reasonable you would be if the perpetrator got a laughably lenient sentence.

Yeah you're not a bad as someone who's commited a violent act for wanting them murdered too...

We'll do things your way, how about we get rid of prisons and kill everyone instead? They might reoffend so we might as well off everyone with a criminal record and save us the time and bother. That would surely lead to a happy, safe and rosy world for all children wouldn't it?

We can't judge others if we commit violent acts ourselves, it's hypocrtical and it's wrong. The thing that SHOULD seperate civilians from criminals is our morality but where's the morality in torturing and murdering people and calling that justice? We need to be BETTER then the criminals we punish and murder and torture regardless the motivations is not rising above it.

The law system isn't perfect but it's better then what you're proposing. What's completely hilarious is that what you're proposing is a lot closer to something like the Shariah law, something you've argued against in other threads.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal all you like, it sums up your argument that you've had to insult me instead of arguing the points properly.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yeah you're not a bad as someone who's commited a violent act for wanting them murdered too...

We'll do things your way, how about we get rid of prisons and kill everyone instead? They might reoffend so we might as well off everyone with a criminal record and save us the time and bother. That would surely lead to a happy, safe and rosy world for all children wouldn't it?

We can't judge others if we commit violent acts ourselves, it's hypocrtical and it's wrong. The thing that SHOULD seperate civilians from criminals is our morality but where's the morality in torturing and murdering people and calling that justice? We need to be BETTER then the criminals we punish and murder and torture regardless the motivations is not rising above it.

This is all well and good if you see violence, in and of itself, as morally wrong and human beings, irrespective of their actions, as inherently valuable and deserving of rights. But really, in a democracy, it is civilians who have rights, not humans. When people lose their citizenship, they have effectively broken a social contract and lose many of the rights they would have enjoyed as civilians. Under a custodial sentence, it would be a right to vote, freedom of movement and a right not to be held against your will. This is totally fair given that criminals are convicted for violating other people's rights. While I am not in favour of capital punishment, I strongly disagree with and resent the notion that people who advocate the execution of the worst criminals are "just as bad".

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

This is all well and good if you see violence, in and of itself, as morally wrong and human beings, irrespective of their actions, as inherently valuable and deserving of rights. But really, in a democracy, it is civilians who have rights, not humans. When people lose their citizenship, they have effectively broken a social contract and lose many of the rights they would have enjoyed as civilians. Under a custodial sentence, it would be a right to vote, freedom of movement and a right not to be held against your will. This is totally fair given that criminals are convicted for violating other people's rights. While I am not in favour of capital punishment, I strongly disagree with and resent the notion that people who advocate the execution of the worst criminals are "just as bad".

I just believe we shouldn't have to lower ourselves with it, we should be better then that, not so much that I think criminals deserve all the rights they enjoy now. I think it was MTVN that said that capital punishment isn't a deterrent and that's completely correct. We need to look into deterrents and look at the state of our prisons before we dust off our executioner cowls. I can see the merits of capital Punishment don't get me wrong but I just can't agree with it.

To me it's murder.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

This is all well and good if you see violence, in and of itself, as morally wrong and human beings, irrespective of their actions, as inherently valuable and deserving of rights. But really, in a democracy, it is civilians who have rights, not humans. When people lose their citizenship, they have effectively broken a social contract and lose many of the rights they would have enjoyed as civilians. Under a custodial sentence, it would be a right to vote, freedom of movement and a right not to be held against your will. This is totally fair given that criminals are convicted for violating other people's rights. While I am not in favour of capital punishment, I strongly disagree with and resent the notion that people who advocate the execution of the worst criminals are "just as bad".

True David, but I've always loved the quote - can't remember who said it- that goes something like... "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." Think it was Gandhi.

Anyway, the point being is that paedophiles are weak, they're incurable - as of right now anyway - and obviously they're one of the biggest ethical problems that we face as a society, you know?

The other thing is that most of them don't last pi$$ing time once they're in prison, unless of course they're sent to one of those institutions as a study subject.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

what about the parents that strapped the toddler to a wall? they should be dead and so should these.

We should bring back the death penalty for people who tape a kid to a wall now?

[InOne]

Originally Posted by angus58

No, I am not as bad as the perpetrators of such wicked crimes, I have not exploited, abused and harmed and sometimes killed a child for my own perverted pleasure, so that argument goes out the window. Spare me the bleeding heart, "civilised" attitude which is precisely the reason why we have such grotesque inhumane monsters in our midst.

Let's face it If Venables had been dealt with properly the first time round, he would not have had the opportunity to abuse more innocent children, so the fault lies equally with the judicial system, and the bleeding heart liberals who bang on about the inhumane treatment of irredeemable scum like this. As far as I'm concerned, the moment such scum commits an act as evil as this, they have revoked any claim to be treated like a human being. Let's hope someone you love, never mind your own precious child, never becomes a victim to such acts of depravity and abuse, and if they do, god forbid, I wonder how forgiving, civilised and reasonable you would be if the perpetrator got a laughably lenient sentence.

No matter what way you look at it, you'd still be taking pleasure out of someone suffering and death. It's almost like a warped logical of what is right and wrong.
Killing off one Paedophile won't stop them all or worry them. They will do what they do, and make it harder for us to detect them. Shoving it more underground is worse for children. Has Capital Punisment ever worried serious criminals in America? No. All you want them dead for is so you can take pleause in their death, no matter how you try and dress it up.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by angus58

No, I am not as bad as the perpetrators of such wicked crimes, I have not exploited, abused and harmed and sometimes killed a child for my own perverted pleasure, so that argument goes out the window. Spare me the bleeding heart, "civilised" attitude which is precisely the reason why we have such grotesque inhumane monsters in our midst.

Let's face it If Venables had been dealt with properly the first time round, he would not have had the opportunity to abuse more innocent children, so the fault lies equally with the judicial system, and the bleeding heart liberals who bang on about the inhumane treatment of irredeemable scum like this. As far as I'm concerned, the moment such scum commits an act as evil as this, they have revoked any claim to be treated like a human being. Let's hope someone you love, never mind your own precious child, never becomes a victim to such acts of depravity and abuse, and if they do, god forbid, I wonder how forgiving, civilised and reasonable you would be if the perpetrator got a laughably lenient sentence.

Oh ffs, would you stop with the "bleeding heart liberal" rhetoric, it's getting old now.

If you ask me, there should be a mix of reformation and retribution in prisons - they should serve time for their crime but they should try and be reformed at the same time, and shouldnt be released until they are considered to have done so. That's where we went wrong with Venables, it isnt that we didnt kill him.

The death penalty solves nothing, it is not an effective deterrent, and it just brings us down to their level.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Oh ffs, would you stop with the "bleeding heart liberal" rhetoric, it's getting old now.

If you ask me, there should be a mix of reformation and retribution in prisons - they should serve time for their crime but they should try and be reformed at the same time, and shouldnt be released until they are considered to have done so. That's where we went wrong with Venables, it isnt that we didnt kill him.

The death penalty solves nothing, it is not an effective deterrent, and it just brings us down to their level.

Exactly, I agree completely.

[BB_Eye]

The thing is, a mere deterrent is insufficient. Delivering capital punishment for crimes such as this doesn't stop abusers who are wired to treat children as objects with psychological disorders that are untreatable. Following the duration of their prison sentence, they should be placed under constant psychiatric supervision for the remainder of their lives. Given their inability to empathise on the most basic level and to differentiate between right and wrong, they cannot be released back into society. This is both humane and protects anybody else that the offenders might target in the future.

[Shaun]

I find the people who get so emotionally invested in these stories worrying. There's of course no denying that a disgusting wrong has happened - but why does this provoke so much vitriol and violence in some of you? I think these kinds of stories are thrust into the limelight with the intention of blinding everyone to rationality.

I'd agree that the justice system isn't perfect. The leniency on some sentences [for example, a man who stabbed my cousin who consequently died was given a manslaughter charge that saw him serve 4 years] is incredibly unfair - it does to an extent give criminals a kind-of buy-out clause. But even that, a personal bias, shouldn't sensationalise the debate.

I just don't understand how all of these people on a keyboard can spit out such threats and bile. It's counter-productive, if anything.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I find the people who get so emotionally invested in these stories worrying. There's of course no denying that a disgusting wrong has happened - but why does this provoke so much vitriol and violence in some of you? I think these kinds of stories are thrust into the limelight with the intention of blinding everyone to rationality.

I'd agree that the justice system isn't perfect. The leniency on some sentences [for example, a man who stabbed my cousin who consequently died was given a manslaughter charge that saw him serve 4 years] is incredibly unfair - it does to an extent give criminals a kind-of buy-out clause. But even that, a personal bias, shouldn't sensationalise the debate.

I just don't understand how all of these people on a keyboard can spit out such threats and bile. It's counter-productive, if anything.

The reason sentences are so lenient is because the prison system currently has 85,000 prisoners and counting whilst there are only enough space for around 60,000. They're vastly overcrowded. A prison infrastructure is also far too expensive to justify yet more tax payers money on to piss in the ocean at a time when cuts are being made across the board. It might seem unfair but there is a lot of practicality behind it.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Tom

The reason sentences are so lenient is because the prison system currently has 85,000 prisoners and counting whilst there are only enough space for around 60,000. They're vastly overcrowded. A prison infrastructure is also far too expensive to justify yet more tax payers money on to piss in the ocean at a time when cuts are being made across the board. It might seem unfair but there is a lot of practicality behind it.

Shows the 'soft' option isn't working then!

[Tom]

Originally Posted by kazanne

Shows the 'soft' option isn't working then!

I don't think there is a problem with the judicial system as such, just the way the punishments themselves are dealt with. Prison isn't what it used to be, its now more about rehabilitation than punishment and they're made quite comfortable. Some prisons allow their prisoners to have XBox's in their cells! Opening a can of worms, prisoners have just as many human rights as we do. Do they really deserve it after violating someone elses? It seems extreme but I think a return to Victorian style incarceration is needed and the numbers would soon drop.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by angus58

Article from The Independent today:

"Girlfriend 'took lead role in sexual abuse of baby'


Wednesday, 6 October 2010


A paedophile said in court today he was told what to do by his then girlfriend as the pair sexually assaulted and took photographs of a five-month-old baby.


Colin Blanchard said it was Tracy Dawber, 44, who took the lead in the abuse.


Dawber, formerly of Bedford Road, Southport, Merseyside, denies the assault and permitting Blanchard to take the five indecent pictures.


Blanchard, 40, formerly from Rochdale, Lancs, is in custody awaiting sentence after admitting his involvement in the alleged assault by Dawber.


He told the jury at Winchester Crown Court today that Dawber had lifted the child's clothes to show it had no nappy on and he said Dawber told him to look at the child and to take the photographs.


"I was quite passive in the whole thing. I was taking the photographs as instructed," he said.


"I took a photograph and she asked me to show it to her and then I took another and I showed it again and she repositioned the child accordingly."


He said there had been sexual talk during the taking of the images but not much was said afterwards.


The pair had first had normal sex when they met in 2007 before moving on to what Blanchard described to the jury as an "A to Z of sexual desires and fantasies" and the pair discussed child sex.


During cross-examination by Deborah Gould, Blanchard admitted he was selfish and arrogant, that he lied to police and had tried to blame others.


He admitted he had been involved with many other woman including two named in court as Vanessa George and Tracy Lyons.


He had also sent images of child sex to two unnamed women, he admitted to the jury.


He said before his arrest he had been living a "double life".


Miss Gould asked: Did you know what the truth was at that time?"


Blanchard: "No".


Miss Gould: "But you know now?"


Blanchard: "Yes, as strange as it may seem."


Earlier the jury heard Dawber admitted it was her holding the baby in the photographs but denied the alleged wrongdoing.


In interview Dawber told police she could not remember the pictures being taken, but Simon Morgan, prosecuting, told the jury the Nokia phone always flashed when it took the pictures.


He said some had been taken from only about 9in away on August 20 2008.


"The Crown say the defendant was able to see the phone being used," he said.


Mr Morgan said the pair met in 2007 and had a sexual relationship and that she had "linked herself to his grossly unacceptable activities".


She described him as a sociable person but said she had been "disgusted when she heard on the news what he had been involved with".


Blanchard was caught in June 2009 when a work colleague discovered child pornography on his computer, the court heard.


He was arrested at Manchester airport and a connection via a Facebook account was made with Dawber.


Officers also uncovered the mobile phone from Blanchard's Volvo that contained the images of the baby, which were shown to the jury. It also showed Dawber in explicit poses.


When arrested in November 2009 Dawber would not confirm it was her holding the baby but she later admitted it.


Officers found child pornography on her computer that was the same as that discovered on Blanchard's and search words on her machine linked to child porn such as "Lolita". A PDF file containing stories about incest was also found. "




I just can't get my head around this story - but the thought of it just makes me sick to my stomach. The perpetrators can't possibly be part of the human race - I know what I would like to do to them, and it involves a chainsaw and a noose. Sadly under our useless justice system they will get just a few years in jail before being released to do it all over again.

what about the parents that strapped the toddler to a wall? they should be dead and so should these.

[joeysteele]

I read this thread and wanted to contribute to it but kazanne has said everything I would have wanted to say and she is 100% spot on.
Whatever 'evil' is or means as far as life goes,then people who abuse children are it,pure and simple.
These stories make me feel sick and what concerns me is just how many people are getting away with this rotten abuse, day in day out, every week every year. Generally in the childs own home too where it should not only be safe but also feel safe.

Well said kazanne on all counts, you speak for everyone with even the slightest shred of decency.

[Iceman]

*walks in, looks around, goes back to arguing with pregnant lesbian woman*

[lily.]

If they were locked away for life.. and I do mean 'life' .. until the day they die, then we wouldn't have to worry about them hurting another child.

I don't agree with taking the law into our own hands. Where would be the point in that? Where does that lead society? The problem in this country is the lenient laws we have. If criminals got proper sentences appropriate to the crime, then the public wouldn't be ready to dole out their own unique brand of twisted justice.

If the law were changed and sentences were given which reflect the severity of the crime... and the public felt safe as a result, there wouldn't be so many people ready to take the vigilante route..

However, taking the vigilante route is not the answer to the problem. It will only create wider problems. Who would decide where to draw the line? When would it be okay to deal with things yourself?





That all being said, if it were my baby, I'd kill the ******.
(I just sh!t all over my previous points with that last sentence.. )

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by lily.

If they were locked away for life.. and I do mean 'life' .. until the day they die, then we wouldn't have to worry about them hurting another child.

I don't agree with taking the law into our own hands. Where would be the point in that? Where does that lead society? The problem in this country is the lenient laws we have. If criminals got proper sentences appropriate to the crime, then the public wouldn't be ready to dole out their own unique brand of twisted justice.

If the law were changed and sentences were given which reflect the severity of the crime... and the public felt safe as a result, there wouldn't be so many people ready to take the vigilante route..

However, taking the vigilante route is not the answer to the problem. It will only create wider problems. Who would decide where to draw the line? When would it be okay to deal with things yourself?





That all being said, if it were my baby, I'd kill the ******.
(I just sh!t all over my previous points with that last sentence.. )

LOL,at your last sentence,I agree IF the criminals were dealt with properly,people would be happier with the system as it is ,it's ok to do what you like as you will be cared for by the tax payers and may even get a new identity!!!

[setanta]

Originally Posted by lily.

If they were locked away for life.. and I do mean 'life' .. until the day they die, then we wouldn't have to worry about them hurting another child.

I don't agree with taking the law into our own hands. Where would be the point in that? Where does that lead society? The problem in this country is the lenient laws we have. If criminals got proper sentences appropriate to the crime, then the public wouldn't be ready to dole out their own unique brand of twisted justice.

If the law were changed and sentences were given which reflect the severity of the crime... and the public felt safe as a result, there wouldn't be so many people ready to take the vigilante route..

However, taking the vigilante route is not the answer to the problem. It will only create wider problems. Who would decide where to draw the line? When would it be okay to deal with things yourself?





That all being said, if it were my baby, I'd kill the ******.
(I just sh!t all over my previous points with that last sentence.. )

Oh, that's totally different. If anything like that were to happen to any of my beautiful cousins I'd drop the $£"!, no question, and then role around in my own faeces so I can claim temporary insanity.