Originally posted by @divegeester Wow, two people thumbed down a demand for life imprisonment for child-raping murderers.
Nice.
Dive,
It has to be one of those cases where they are thumbing down the poster not the post. At least I would hope that is the case, or we have some pretty sick people on this site.
It has to be one of those cases where they are thumbing down the poster not the post. At least I would hope that is the case, or we have some pretty sick people on this site.
-VR
There is nothing to excuse abusing, malesting or murdering a child. Plenty of explanations but no excuses.
Originally posted by @torunn There is nothing to excuse abusing, malesting or murdering a child. Plenty of explanations but no excuses.
I agreed with dive's post, the people that thumbed the posts were not thumbing down what was said they were thumbing down the poster, happens to me all the time.
Originally posted by @divegeester Perhaps you would feel less pious if it was your little girl that was found wrapped in a bin bag and dumped in the woods after being sexually assaulted and asphyxiated.
But then his opinion would be subjective.
Surely justice demands objectivity?
I'd want to kill anyone that touched my little girl ... but I do not in any way support capital punishment.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 But then his opinion would be subjective.
Surely justice demands objectivity?
I'd want to kill anyone that touched my little girl ... but I do not in any way support capital punishment.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 Surely justice demands objectivity?
It does indeed, collective objectivity, and I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of people would objectively demand a life until death penalty for the offender who abducted, raped and murdered this little girl. Don’t you agree?
Originally posted by @divegeester It does indeed, collective objectivity, and I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of people would objectively demand a life until death penalty for the offender who abducted, raped and murdered this little girl. Don’t you agree?
Without seeing all the facts I cannot say.
But it is certainly possible that I would disagree.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59 I'm sure the Parole Board had a bit more info.
As I understand it is not a case of parole. It is a case of time served.
If we are happy or not about the fact that a court sentenced him to that time is not the issue. A court sentenced him. he has served his sentence. He should go free.
If anybody is not happy about measures they have to go to law-makers to demand automatic indefinite incarceration of rapists, or child rapists, or murderers....
Originally posted by @ponderable As I understand it is not a case of parole. It is a case of time served.
If we are happy or not about the fact that a court sentenced him to that time is not the issue. A court sentenced him. he has served his sentence. He should go free.
If anybody is not happy about measures they have to go to law-makers to demand automatic indefinite incarceration of rapists, or child rapists, or murderers....
Do you feel then that the UK justice secretary is wrong to intervene in the example I gave several posts above, where a multiple rapist (I think over 100 rapes) is being released but because he is considered highly likely to reoffend the state is intervening? And so it goes with the case of this man in the OP of this thread, it is highly likely that he will reoffend. The purpose of the justice system is surely not just to measure out punishment by letter and date, but to protect the innocent and the vulnerable? Such as children in this case.
Originally posted by @divegeester Do you feel then that the UK justice secretary is wrong to intervene in the example I gave several posts above, where a multiple rapist (I think over 100 rapes) is being released but because he is considered highly likely to reoffend the state is intervening? And so it goes with the case of this man in the OP of this thread, it is highly likely that he ...[text shortened]... letter and date, but to protect the innocent and the vulnerable? Such as children in this case.
First I have admit that I probably confused the OP and the parole case from the UK.
Then I don't know the British judical system. It seems like that guy was granted parole. I don't know if it is reversible. And the justice secretary is looking for ways. That is (I expect he is a lawyer) there is no evident way. to revoke parole as long as the person in question is keeping to the measures.
I agree with wolfgang, that the parole board is probably in a much better postiion to decide if the offender is a future risk. Even tough there is no foolproof way to determine this.
I feel that the UK justice secretary is wrong to intervene, this is a media stunt.
Originally posted by @ponderable First I have admit that I probably confused the OP and the parole case from the UK.
Then I don't know the British judical system. It seems like that guy was granted parole. I don't know if it is reversible. And the justice secretary is looking for ways. That is (I expect he is a lawyer) there is no evident way. to revoke parole as long as the person i ...[text shortened]... mine this.
I feel that the UK justice secretary is wrong to intervene, this is a media stunt.
I feel that a convicted sex criminal or serial murderer should only be released if they do not represent a threat to the public at large irrespective of the initial sentence. The purpose of the judiciary and the penal system is to punish, to rehabilitate and to protect. The punishment is served but if the criminal is not rehabilitated then protection of the public should be the primary factor. I’m aware this may be controversial to some but when the criminal in the OP reoffends, and he will, who will then stand up and say it was right that he was released.
13 Jan '18 16:25
Please....
Back to Top