[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
So you are a far left wacko who supports the human rights of 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.

[ange7]

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.

[andyman]

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?

[andyman]

Originally posted by ange7
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.

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

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
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?

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.

[andyman]

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.

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman

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

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.

[andyman]

Then you agree with me, great.. Done!

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
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.

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.

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
Then you agree with me, great.. Done!

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

[andyman]

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?

[Red Moon]

I understand that this is a very emotiove subject and it will generate a vivacious debate, however there is no need for the exchange of personal insults.

Please remember we have a rule about no personal insults on this site. Which basically means that you are allowed to criticize ideas but not people posting those ideas.

When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone. It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person.

Red

[ange7]

Originally posted by andyman
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.

[ange7]

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".

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by andyman
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 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!

[ange7]

yeah!! hehe

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

[NettoSuperstar!]

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!

[Sticks]

Originally posted by andyman
So you support human rights for killers?

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"

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally posted by andyman

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.

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

[robb]

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

[ange7]

Originally posted by Sticks

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"

lol ... it's andy's armour. If you disagree with him he can accuse you of being "soft on crime" or supporters of the James Bulger murderers. It's just another backdoor argument designed to short circuit any real argument into criminal justice reform.

[andyman]

Some intrest... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-football.html

Kind of related to the topic.

[Z]

Originally posted by Angiebabe

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.

I'm just reiterating that I don't support the release of the two guys, I read your reply to my post, but I'm quoting this one .

By deferring a death penalty until they are 18 years old, you are giving them a few years being "pampered" as you said before under a system that does very little to reform them, something else you said (I can't remember the exact quote.) Surely it would be better to just kill them straight away, instead of wasting resources on people that under your idea, you do not see the point in reforming? I can't truly understand your point of view because I'm not a parent, but I think if you're going to introduce the death penalty again, there shouldn't be an age restriction on it - it'll give psychotic kids the idea that they can commit a crime and get away with it, and not have to deal with the consequences until they are older.

My original point was that those two boys grew up in a juvenile center somewhere, completely removed from society, and were under the most intense scrutiny from the media that two 10 year old boys have ever been before in the context of a murder trial. What they did was cruel and ridiculously evil, but we, the general public, have no real idea of what their upbringing was like - I find it hard to believe that two boys could be independently deranged like that and be friends: I believe that they had family lives that caused them to be like that.

Moving away from the nature/nurture argument that can never be resolved, I'd like to underline that because they were away from what I think was a horrific home life for so long: they have reformed enough to be released from jail and given a new identity. This is not because the legal system loves them or cares for them, but because it is protecting them from the mob mentality that has been displayed here. I doubt anybody on here would feel sorry for them that they had received their comeuppance, but not everybody would be "celebrating" either. These are, after all, two human beings, and just because they did something horrible when they were young boys, doesn't mean they don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

[Tom]

They deserve to rot in hell and they should be locked up and stripped of human rights. Death penalty is the easy way out.

[Sticks]

Such a lot of hate here