Zampa said:
Zampa said:
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2005
- Messages
- 5,777
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
...Cheers
I base my thoughts on what I see and read really (and no..i dont read the Sun, Star The Mirror or...the daily sport) I cant honestly think of specific examples..but just look how crimes where people are injured or beaten compared to those of fraud etc..sure it would hurt if someone ripped me off for 50 quid...but not as much as if some drunken idiot kicked me all round the pavement on a saturday night...people given just a few years for mugging compared to others who get banged up for longer because they have defrauded a company out of money...both crimes i grant you..and both should be punished but if the fraudster gets 5 years then surely the mugger should get more?
As much as i despise the bloke...Nick Griffen...he was facing a possible seven for something he said at a meeting of people who obviously wanted to listen to him......a rapist...could be out in three
would say the majority of the time the law gets it right...but when theres inbalance then it stands out terribly.
The cases I quoted were real and not just hearsay folk law..I wouldnt have insulted your intelligence by making up cr*ap.
Should be the other way round though shouldnt it...if machines decided he law then you could expect it...they dont think...humans should know better......its a shame really isnt it.
Oh...one for BAS.....
So what?....the man is an incurable pervert...why do we have to keep people like that alive...he will never be cured, no amount of aversion therapy will do the trick...he, like psychopathic murderers are a drain on resources....
Ask these people..give them the choice..'do you want to spend ever waking hour in a prison cell...or would you rather have a nice injection to make you go to by byes forever"..
Give em the choice and see how many pick option one...
And yes..I support the death penalty for certain crimes...not that feel I need to justify it to you
Softus will debate a fair (albeit insulting) argument...
You on other hand...dont!
I wish I hadn't mentioned the 'Glitter' Problem as this is a subject on it's own. I don't see how this can be related to the 'general' (!) crime that I was refering to earlier in this post. What I was refering to is the lack of consideration where a life has been lost due to a crime and its relation to financial reward for information given to aid the arrest of the perpatrator(s) of that crime. My apologies, Hairyjon.
Zampa, I can see where you're coming from in most of what you wrote above, and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but but a few things stand out as points that I have to challenge, viz:
and
For example, when did you last read a transcript of a trial, and thereby place yourself in the position of being able to understand the reasoning behind the judge's sentence? FYI, it's not something I do either, which is exactly why I don't claim to know when sentences have been rightly or wrongly determined.
On the other hand, "justice must be seen to be done", and some rulings appear to be misguided. In these cases the public should have the vehicle in which rulings can be challenged, and this already exists in the right to free expression.
Zampa said:
and
So, this sounds as though you get most of your information from newspapers. This is where your facts entirely lose credibility, because the papers rarely print the truth, and when they do it's highly selective.Zampa said:
For example, when did you last read a transcript of a trial, and thereby place yourself in the position of being able to understand the reasoning behind the judge's sentence? FYI, it's not something I do either, which is exactly why I don't claim to know when sentences have been rightly or wrongly determined.
On the other hand, "justice must be seen to be done", and some rulings appear to be misguided. In these cases the public should have the vehicle in which rulings can be challenged, and this already exists in the right to free expression.
Do you intend this to be a general principle (because we don't have specific cases to discuss here yet)? If so, then why?Zampa said:
Erm, he is a lunatic, preaching, in an illegal manner (i.e. incitement) to a group of like-minded lunatics. I suspect that he'll be in Broadmoor before he draws his last breath.Zampa said:
And, IMHO, the fact that it does stand out is testimony to the success of the CJ system and the freedom of the press in reporting those events.Zampa said:
OK - can we have some real references to the real cases?Zampa said:
Wot?! Machines don't make decisions - they just follow programming that has been determine by humans.Zampa said:
Nope - I take exception to that, because both of us are equally, but independantly, reasonable up to a point and then intolerant of foolish postings and posters. So if you feel like criticising him then you'll have to take me down tooZampa said:
Sponsored Links
Although I don't want to belittle the crime of rape, whipping up racial hatred is surely a worse crime, the consequences could be far far worse than rape. I'm sure that this kind of rhetoric will have caused many deaths in the past.Zampa said:
Yes thermo I'm sure you're right but multiply the number of rapes you dealt with by the thousands of racially motivated rapes and deaths caused by racial prejudice such as between Hutu and Tutsi, Serbs and ethnic Albanians etc.
See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4078677.stm
See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4078677.stm
didnt realise you were talking the wider context. Thing is alot of the crimes carried out in those context having nothing to do with the beliefs, they are usually carried out during conflict by those that have the power to wield life and death and get carried away with the mob rule and invincibility that goes with it. Still bad though
Yes I agree but my point was that it's people like Griffen who bring about the mob rule in the first place.
Thankfully, as deplorable as the BNP is, it lacks credibility - IMHO Griffen and the Griffinettes are just too extreme.
In spite of the silkiness of his be-suited and seemingly rational demeanor, his followers actually represent a small proportion of the population, and there is no rising tide, equivalent to that of the Third Reich, no matter how much coaxing and whipping he might attempt.
The BNP is a joke party - it would have done better if it had been led by Screaming Lord Such (RIP).
In spite of the silkiness of his be-suited and seemingly rational demeanor, his followers actually represent a small proportion of the population, and there is no rising tide, equivalent to that of the Third Reich, no matter how much coaxing and whipping he might attempt.
The BNP is a joke party - it would have done better if it had been led by Screaming Lord Such (RIP).
P
paulbrown
Ignorance is bliss.
Screaming lord SUTCH,
http://www.carlolittle.com/savages/tribute.htm
Nick GRIFFIN
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=78
Joke parties should suit jokers, surely it should be just your sort of thing?
Screaming lord SUTCH,
http://www.carlolittle.com/savages/tribute.htm
Nick GRIFFIN
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=78
Joke parties should suit jokers, surely it should be just your sort of thing?
Got a mate who gets discount on KY if your interested.
What does this mean - that you're feeling blissful? Or is it a crass and weak attempt at an insult?paulbrown said:
With such elegant logic, perhaps you'll find it easy to explain why it isn't my thing then.paulbrown said:
As it happens, I'm not. Please use it yourself during the process of b*ggering completely off.
So what??Zampa said:
You said you weren't an anarchist, that you were in favour of the police, and justice, and that any crime irrespective of its severity should be dealt with fairly.
And then you said that hopefully someone will slice him or engrave 'beast' into his forehead with a branding iron.
If you can't see the dichotomy there then you really are hard-of-thinking.
Quite possibly.
Because that's what civilised societies do. I know you'd like to make our society less civilised, by using all manner of violence against offenders, including taking their lives.
Quite possibly.
People who are psychopaths are ill. Many people who are ill are a "drain on resources". That is no reason to kill them. Providing resources to safely care for them is one of the costs that have to be borne by civilised societies. I know you'd like to make our society less civilised, by using all manner of violence against people who are ill, including taking their lives.
Maybe that is a choice that they should be given, if it can be determined that they are are competent to decide. Many people believe that such a choice should be available to those who are terminally ill and with a low quality of life, so why not?
You can't justify it to me.
There are no fair arguments that can be made against the moral imperative that the state should not use institutionalised violence and killing as a means of social control.
There are no fair arguments that can be used by people who are uncivilised and want to drag society down to their level.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2005
- Messages
- 5,777
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
I dont really read the news papers..for the actual reasons you mention..they dont give the full picture and they often tiwst things around to suit their own political bias or adgenda..but when I do I ry to give the rags a very wide berth.
I have debated crimes and punishment with a Magistrate friend of mine many times and as you say its hard making a judgement on things hen you dont know the full facts of the matter...the reason behind so called soft sentencing..it isnt the sentence itself that annoys me so much, its the rationale behind some of them...stupd old farts of judges who tell women who have bene raped that they 'were asking for it' because they dressed in a certain manner..
Nope and that wasnt intended to make it look like the norm in all sentences...just sometimes certain howlers stand out....you dont really have to compare..if you have access to local papers from inner cities look at the sentences handed out to 'people' who commit crimes against other (physical crime that is)
Isnt it sickening to see the bruised and battered face of a pensioner..and see that the perpetrator got a couple of years..?
No of course they dont..otherwise a recent bank statement of mine would have read that i had penny's in the bank as opposed to pounds...i was thinking more on the lines of infailable machines that might one day decide crimes..
But wouildnt that be awful..as what as just occured to me is...
We need a human brain...that can show reasoning and compassion...a brain that can balance and judge..understand feelings and emotions...the down side of which is....as you said ' human nature'...because with all that comes the failings of that element too...the ability to make mistakes...which is fir enough i guess..
But it looks like clear favouritism has been shown...or judging human feelings over monetary loss...then that makes my blood boil.
As a footnote...slightly off the subject...I have recently binned my application pack to become a Magistrate...(a magistrate actually suggested I apply!!!...so thats a bit worrying for a start isnt it!!!...just gos to show how much they know about people!! )...I wanted to get involved because im interested in law and felt i would like to have done 'my bit' for justice...all the wrong reasons apparently...
Now how many of you thought 'phew thank god for that'!!?
I have debated crimes and punishment with a Magistrate friend of mine many times and as you say its hard making a judgement on things hen you dont know the full facts of the matter...the reason behind so called soft sentencing..it isnt the sentence itself that annoys me so much, its the rationale behind some of them...stupd old farts of judges who tell women who have bene raped that they 'were asking for it' because they dressed in a certain manner..
Nope and that wasnt intended to make it look like the norm in all sentences...just sometimes certain howlers stand out....you dont really have to compare..if you have access to local papers from inner cities look at the sentences handed out to 'people' who commit crimes against other (physical crime that is)
Isnt it sickening to see the bruised and battered face of a pensioner..and see that the perpetrator got a couple of years..?
.
No of course they dont..otherwise a recent bank statement of mine would have read that i had penny's in the bank as opposed to pounds...i was thinking more on the lines of infailable machines that might one day decide crimes..
But wouildnt that be awful..as what as just occured to me is...
We need a human brain...that can show reasoning and compassion...a brain that can balance and judge..understand feelings and emotions...the down side of which is....as you said ' human nature'...because with all that comes the failings of that element too...the ability to make mistakes...which is fir enough i guess..
But it looks like clear favouritism has been shown...or judging human feelings over monetary loss...then that makes my blood boil.
As a footnote...slightly off the subject...I have recently binned my application pack to become a Magistrate...(a magistrate actually suggested I apply!!!...so thats a bit worrying for a start isnt it!!!...just gos to show how much they know about people!!
)...I wanted to get involved because im interested in law and felt i would like to have done 'my bit' for justice...all the wrong reasons apparently...Now how many of you thought 'phew thank god for that'!!?
Sponsored Links
