CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

[Softus]

SOFTUS your just as bad as him

this c*** killed 3 children and you dont want to see him get his just deserves ?

if it was one of your family you would be hunting him down with an axe/knife/pliers/and a blow torch if you say your wouldnt then i woudl call you a coward its your human right to take someones life if they threaten/kill one of your own YOUR RIGHT

i would

Hm, not sure whether you think I'm "as bad as" b-a-s, or "as bad as" the triple killer, in which case you (presumably) think I'm also a "c***".

Either way, it's not clear why you've taken this view, given that my only previous post on this topic was aimed at "david and julie" and "JulieL". Could it be that you've taken the following suggestion personally:

Here's a thought - what if we passed a law allowing the state killing of all stupid people?

Is is that one Slogger? Do you see yourself as stupid?

 

[Slogger]

WHAT would u do softus if you knew where this man lived and you knew where the family of the murderd kids lived

a say nothing and ignore him
b be his friend ? as he has served his time
c go to town on him good stylye ( two smoking barrels )
d tell the family where he is

e none of the above cos your above it all

Honestly? I don't know. How would I know? The only reason that you know what you would do is because you say and do the same thing in all circumstances that you don't like, which is to kill, or threaten to kill, or encite to kill, or talk about killing, or think about killing, or, I suspect, dream about killing.

then shame is on you as you should know what your DUTY is to the safety and lives of our children

i know what i would do

 

[Slogger]

B.A.S

can you not see that people that want to see CERTAIN people killed are not murderous monsters as you portray them they are justice seeking individuals that want the maximum penalty for taking our childrens childhood from them


how can you say you would not want to end the life of a murderer that has been caught red handed after doing unspeakable things to a child


what kind of man does that make you


i am appalled at your lack of hostile attitude to these offenders

 

[Slogger]

SOFTUS your just as bad as him

this c*** killed 3 children and you dont want to see him get his just deserves ?

if it was one of your family you would be hunting him down with an axe/knife/pliers/and a blow torch if you say your wouldnt then i woudl call you a coward its your human right to take someones life if they threaten/kill one of your own YOUR RIGHT

i would

Hm, not sure whether you think I'm "as bad as" b-a-s, or "as bad as" the triple killer, in which case you (presumably) think I'm also a "c***".

Either way, it's not clear why you've taken this view, given that my only previous post on this topic was aimed at "david and julie" and "JulieL". Could it be that you've taken the following suggestion personally:

Here's a thought - what if we passed a law allowing the state killing of all stupid people?

Is is that one Slogger? Do you see yourself as stupid?

HMMM
i took the view from the fact that if you wanted to let this triple killer live and be let loose on our children then your no better than him as people with that attitude are allowing our children to be preyed upon


what the F*** did you think i meant

 

[Softus]

OK - I've found my other oar, so here it comes.

I'll start by saying that, generally, I share b-a-s's opinions. However, things here seem to have gone off on a tangent, and in a spiral, in a wheel within a wheel...

(Regarding the comment by Masona) I know he has now retracted, but at that point he had not.

To be precise, Masona didn't retract his statement, he changed his mind. And, IMO, quite magnanimously. This is an ironic and interesting microcosm of the raging argument - given that Masona changed his mind, was he originally "ignorant, violent, and uncivilised", or was he misjudged?!

The death penalty means killing people.

I want people to be killed.

Do you not think that wanting people to be killed is a violent and uncivilised attitude? Can you not see that people who want that are violent and uncivilised people?

This is a naive approach to the argument.

I observe that there are people in this country, who are predisposed to violence as a solution to problems. They're generally recognisable, without trying to label them here, and some of them would even swing the executioners axe. Most of us on this forum would cross the road to avoid such people.

Another, but larger, section of the population claim that they would support a law that reintroduced the death penalty. This means, to me, that they would condone the killing of convicted criminals, for a defined subset of crimes.

Another section of the population is unequivocally against the death penalty.

The difference between the first two is subtle, but real, IMHO. The first set are the true barbarians, but the second set are people who want vicarious retribution for heinous crimes - an eye for an eye (etc.). This opinion is not enough to make those people killers.

The thing is, I consider myself in the third set, but I can't deny that I have emotions that I dislike in myself. I do feel outraged and aggrieved at the acts of paedophiles, but I have to ask myself what justice is all about. To take up one of Sloggers [few] valid points, how much of a hypocrite am I? Faced (hypothetically) with the killer of one of my own children, exactly what would I do to him/her?

So, b-a-s, I have to disagree with you about the lack of greyness in this subject area. A great many people, who wouldn't dream of throwing the switch, would, perhaps sadly, let it be thrown by the state. I think that I couldn't, personally, but nor can I condemn any of my neighbours who feel just that little bit more strongly than me. It's a grey world, without very much certainty, and the DP debate will never, ever, be fully resolved, until homo sapien has thrown of the heredity of his near-animal ancestors.

Having said that, to david and julie I would ask that you consider the perennially unanswered question: for those are wrongly convicted of a 'qualifying' murder, but who are later found to have been innocent, all along, how do you prevent them being wrongfully put to death? This, in case you don't recognise it, is a rhetorical question, the answer being that you can't.

 

[Softus]

then shame is on you as you should know what your DUTY is to the safety and lives of our children

Fortunately for us all, your opinion has the rare attribute of being utterly worthless.

i know what i would do

Yup - we all know that.

 

[Softus]

i took the view from the fact that if you wanted to let this triple killer live and be let loose on our children then your no better than him as people with that attitude are allowing our children to be preyed upon


what the F*** did you think i meant

At no point had I said that I wanted the triple killer to live - that was your assumption, being one of a great many that you make in order that your view of world can be shoehorned into the wrongly-shaped space for it inside your head.

 

[kendor]

I have read the thread in full and find it troubleing that no-one has mentioned justice.

I have read parts of it and find it troubling that some think no one else is allowed to have a view or opinion on things other than theirs

well said fred! everyone should be entitled to their opinion without it ending in a fight.

Does an entitlement to an opinion include the entitlement to express that opinion?

one would hope so, though it should always be done without any nastiness also.

 

[kendor]

Do you mean replies like this one to genuine comments?

masona wrote:
I would bring back the death penalty.

Then you are an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****.

yes i would say that's uncalled for especially as Mas is one of the more quietly spoken on here and as far as i know has never been insulting to anyone on here.

Someone else who doesn't get it.

I know he has now retracted, but at that point he had not.

The death penalty means killing people.

I want people to be killed.

Do you not think that wanting people to be killed is a violent and uncivilised attitude? Can you not see that people who want that are violent and uncivilised people?

I'm presuming you are not directing that towards me from the sentence that follows but if it is then i don't understand as i was merely pointing to the insult bit as uncalled for

 

[masona]

I want people to be killed.

Do you not think that wanting people to be killed is a violent and uncivilised attitude? Can you not see that people who want that are violent and uncivilised people?

Now that's a lot better attitude isn't it? Now you have given me a chance to put thing right in a calmer way.

I wanted the death penalty and justice for the triple killer when I read that topic, I was angry at the time when I said it, do you NOT understand people fly off the handle making statement and realised afterwards when I've calmed down which is a normal reaction for some but then you're the type who will never understand so don't makes any allowance. You seem to think you have to write everything prefect first time and no mistake or change of opinion is allowed. I won't be posting anymore on this subject because looking at some of your posts are very long winded.

 

[empip]

Maso ..... these subjects are 'flamebait', apparently, just don't bother.

Abortion
Atheism
Capital punishment
Gun control
Legalisation of drugs


Get some width into the old skin and do not worry about it.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I have read the thread in full and find it troubleing that no-one has mentioned justice.

I have read parts of it and find it troubling that some think no one else is allowed to have a view or opinion on things other than theirs

You're right Freddie, I'm getting to the stage of fightening of saying anything right.

Of course people are entitled to have views and opinions, and they are entitled to express them with clarity, to get their message across.

And those with opposing views and opinions are entitled to express those with clarity too.

Look at this one,

I would bring back the death penalty.

Then you are an ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****.

I have now changed my mind regarding the death penalty because of reading this topic

I am very pleased about that.

but I don't need this heavy handed attitude. Ban should've said " masona, do you realise according to my opinion that the death penalty makes you ignorant, violent, uncivilised ****?".

There is far too much belief that somehow you can have an opinion, and express an opinion, and for that opinion to have an abstract and independent existence that is nothing to do with you, as if an opinion is something you can put on and take off like a hat, not something that is an aspect of the person you are.

This is complete b*ll*cks.

If someone were to say "In my opinion all black people are criminals", the correct response is not "Well in my opinion your opinion is flawed, and in my opinion your opinion makes you a racist". That's just pussyfooting around. A response of "You are wrong" or "You are a racist" is quite OK.

I didn't realised until Ban-all-shed pointed that out to me and I gave it a lot of thought, therefore he maybe right or wrong, but that for me to decide and I, or we don't need that bully attitude. If you don't give people a chance to express their views, what the point otherwise if it's these people live in a perfect world that can't do anything wrong, then god help us.

It's a subject about which I have very strong feelings, and I do react strongly as a result.

If people wish to express their views then that is perfectly OK, I will not stop them expressing them, but I really do find the idea that the state should kill people abhorrent. I really do find the idea of individuals going after criminals and attacking them with hammers, blowtorches and pliers detestable. It isn't like enjoying Marmite or thinking that darts makes entertaining TV - I really do think that people who agree with killing and violence are abhorrent and detestable people.

And as with racism, I think it is right that these people should be made aware as forcefully as possible just how unacceptable their views are.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Boring-all-sheds wrote,

To write "That said...." is to say that against the downside of innocent people being killed should be set the fact that innocent lives would be saved by preventing murderers from killing again. You may wriggle and claim that you never actually said it was "OK to kill innocent people" but clearly the sense of what you wrote was that the wider view should be taken and the overall balance of innocent deaths considered, so hermes was right to say what he did.

Which is his interpretation of what he wants to believe. The reality is I didn't actually say it is OK to kill innocent people. I clearly don't believe in harming innocent people, this is why I support the DP, it is the only guaranteed way of assuring these people can't re-offend, which is happening all to often.

First of all, that isn't the only guaranteed way.

Secondly, why did you link

"None of us know how many mistakes there have been and fair enough, one would be too many."

and

"how many people have died at the hands of re-offenders? Obviously the DP would have saved those"

with "That said"

if you did not intend that the two issues (not mistakenly applying the DP to innocent people and preventing re-offenders killing more people) should be linked and considered together?

How many of these innocent people would you have wanted put to death at the time

None if they were innocent.

That's a cop-out.

I said at the time.

At the time those people were found guilty of murder.

At the time those people were not considered to be innocent.

So if you had been choosing at the time, how many would you have wanted killed?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

how can you say you would not want to end the life of a murderer that has been caught red handed after doing unspeakable things to a child


what kind of man does that make you

It makes me a more civilised one than the murderer.

 

[Softus]

And as with racism, I think it is right that these people should be made aware as forcefully as possible just how unacceptable their views are.

Sorry b-a-s, and I'm telling you this in case you don't realise it, but this is the very point of view that puts you firmly in the opposition camp wrt to most readers on this topic.

What you've written is still your opinion, therefore the only person to whom you can assert that such views are unacceptable is yourself. Someone else could easily write that you should be made aware, as forcefully as possible, just how unacceptable your view, that david and not julie's views are unacceptable, is.

You might think that such a exchange of views is a healthy indicator of our freedom of expression, but IMHO it doesn't get anyone anywhere, and certainly doesn't lead to opinions being changed. Masona is a rare person indeed, who's brave enough to admit he was wrong and big enough to publish the fact, but everyone else appears to be in deadlock over that single point.