wiggyrichard Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I actually advocate stronger sentencing in some cases.. Can i just ask what sort of crime needs to be committed to advocate a stronger sentance then? Is torturing, sexually abusing and murdering a toddler not enough for you? :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWeedMcGrass Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Yeah , haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 If he has done something serious then he gets no further chances to be let out. If you murder someone then get a second chance, then kill again, you should never be let out again. simples! Then the life of the second victim has unnecessarily ended due to letting the killer out in this example. Should a killer get a chance to kill again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 I actually advocate stronger sentencing in some cases.. Can i just ask what sort of crime needs to be committed to advocate a stronger sentance then? Is torturing, sexually abusing and murdering a toddler not enough for you? :shock: Can you read? I said this one had mitigating circumstances, they were kids themselves. If an adult of sound mind did that I'd ensure they would face life in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 If an adult of sound mind did that I'd ensure they would face life in prison. Bloody vigilante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I actually advocate stronger sentencing in some cases.. Can i just ask what sort of crime needs to be committed to advocate a stronger sentance then? Is torturing, sexually abusing and murdering a toddler not enough for you? :shock: Can you read? I said this one had mitigating circumstances, they were kids themselves. If an adult of sound mind did that I'd ensure they would face life in prison. I can read thank you, kids themselves? I know your only young anyway but at 10 years old did you know right from wrong? No person of any age who commits a crime like that has a 'sound mind'?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 whilst they are costly to implement I am a big fan of the referendum when it comes to certain issues. In this modern technological world I think it should be relatively easy to implement a system whereby a motion can be put, passed by say 10% of the population, then a referendum would be held on the issue. Now there I have to disagree. Referenda are not my cup of tea, at all. Especially referenda made easy. You are Simon Cowell and I claim a tuppence. Campaigning against things is niy impossible now, even a million signatures does **** all to get anyones attention these days. and that downing street petition is the most pointless thing ever Well, yes and no. The whole Gurkha thing seemed to get something done (okay one can't always have Lumley in one's corner!) but I do agree that a lot of it does seem to be banging heads against a brick wall(and now we're back to the whole reforming politics gig, again, which is another thread :winkold). referendums work pretty well in switzerland take the ricoh arena in coventry for example. Original plans had a station built right next to the stadium, but the council said they couldn't, for some stupid reason or another. I would say that a local referendum SHOULD have been open for local residents to vote on whether a station should be placed next to one of the busiest shopping centres in the midlands, right next to a championship football stadium. The fact is now they are going to build it anyway years later and it's going to cost more money that it would have done originally. There was no excuse whatsoever for not having a station there, the track basically runs past the stadium anyway. Just an example on why the elected don't always make the right decisions both locally and nationally. We should have the option to have your twopence worth more than every 5 years. and don't get me started on Brown lying about Lisbon. If you say you will give a referendum on something it should somehow be a legal obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 If he has done something serious then he gets no further chances to be let out. If you murder someone then get a second chance, then kill again, you should never be let out again. simples! Then the life of the second victim has unnecessarily ended due to letting the killer out in this example. Should a killer get a chance to kill again? depends on how they killed. were they driven to do so? did they just do it for shiggles? did they get bummed as a kid? are they a mental? did they persecute the victim through race, religion etc? were they just a nob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 I can read thank you, kids themselves? I know your only young anyway but at 10 years old did you know right from wrong? No person of any age who commits a crime like that has a 'sound mind'?! I did know right from wrong at 10. Crucially though, thats irrelevant because I'm not Jon Venables or Robert Thompson. And by sound mind I mean 'sane' and thus capable of being tried for their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myb Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 All in your opinion. "Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand." From a legal perspective maybe and it's very easy to hide behind that as some kind of way of patronsing an audience. (although i'm guessing you are wrong here as she was probably a witness during the trial at the very least.) In your world, do people get convicted before witnesses are called? In my world, her 'involvement in the legal process' doesn't end when they get charged. Prosecuted maybe, but not charged. As for the rest, i'm not so sure it is as black and white as you're making out. I believe that only 3 people in this country have ever gone through the process of having an identify rebuilt so this is a pretty unique case. In any other criminal case, where a person has reoffended, his first victim would know about his reoffednding as it would come out in the public domain (like the "facebook killer" over the last 24 hours) - on a side note another rehabilitation that went really well. I think we are in pretty unchartered territory here and i'm unsure if the law does take that into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I can read thank you, kids themselves? I know your only young anyway but at 10 years old did you know right from wrong? No person of any age who commits a crime like that has a 'sound mind'?! I did know right from wrong at 10. Crucially though, thats irrelevant because I'm not Jon Venables or Robert Thompson. And by sound mind I mean 'sane' and thus capable of being tried for their actions. depends what you determine by sound of mind? you can be sound of mind and evil. just because you have sadistic buggers in the world does not absolve all of them through "being a mental". Some people are just screwed up, but not in a way which means they don't know what they are doing. they might like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I can read thank you, kids themselves? I know your only young anyway but at 10 years old did you know right from wrong? No person of any age who commits a crime like that has a 'sound mind'?! I did know right from wrong at 10. Crucially though, thats irrelevant because I'm not Jon Venables or Robert Thompson. And by sound mind I mean 'sane' and thus capable of being tried for their actions. So you are saying Jon Venables and Robert Thompson didnt know that the act they carried out was wrong? They didnt know that killing someone was wrong? Are the two boys in question insane then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 firstly, their punishment to my mind was actually fair. I stopped reading after this....... If that is true, would you care to explain to me why anyone should bother to continue to engage with you in this thread? The answer he gave may have been uncomfortable, it may not have been what you wanted to hear and it may, even, not have been an answer to your question (in your opinion) but the fact is you won't know because you didn't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I can read thank you, kids themselves? I know your only young anyway but at 10 years old did you know right from wrong? No person of any age who commits a crime like that has a 'sound mind'?! I did know right from wrong at 10. Crucially though, thats irrelevant because I'm not Jon Venables or Robert Thompson. And by sound mind I mean 'sane' and thus capable of being tried for their actions. So you are saying Jon Venables and Robert Thompson didnt know that the act they carried out was wrong? They didnt know that killing someone was wrong? Are the two boys in question insane then? he is not saying they didn't know whether it was wrong or not. He is saying he doesn't feel like he can speculate because he isn't one of the two boys involved. I however do believe they did otherwise they wouldn't have been put on trial and convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 So you are saying Jon Venables and Robert Thompson didnt know that the act they carried out was wrong? They didnt know that killing someone was wrong? Are the two boys in question insane then? No, what I am saying their comprehension of right and wrong is not unquestionable, and whether they realised the magnitude of their actions is also questionable. As said by Snowy and the Don and conveniently ignored time and again, we consider children to be less capable of some things than adults, hence why we try children differently and do not allow them all the priveledges of adulthood, at which point one is considered by society to be understanding of the actions one does. Neither is insane, as far as I'm aware. What they were, were children, who by law would be considered (rightly, imo) incapable of a complete comprehension of their actions. I'm sure they realised that murder was wrong but they, for whatever reason (upbringing, most likely), may not have had the same comprehension of why as an adult or even another child of a similar age. That is why the use of saying 'I knew right and wrong at 10' is irrelevant. It's good that you did, but you aren't them, and neither am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggyrichard Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 firstly, their punishment to my mind was actually fair. I stopped reading after this....... If that is true, would you care to explain to me why anyone should bother to continue to engage with you in this thread? The answer he gave may have been uncomfortable, it may not have been what you wanted to hear and it may, even, not have been an answer to your question (in your opinion) but the fact is you won't know because you didn't read it. The Crime - Abduction, torture, sexual assault and murder The Punishment - Private education, 3 meals a day, private health care, entitled to play games consoles in their cells and released after X amount of years. Oh yeah...sounds really fair to me as well :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted March 9, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2010 says it all. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 She has no right to sit in a trial for him any more than I do.I'd argue she actually has less rights to. Her presence at a trial with influence any verdict against the defendant. If the jury knows the person they are ruling on is Venables (which the inference from her being there will be) then he has no chance of a fair trial, therefore she should be barred from sitting in any trial concerning him as if she is identified in the public gallery it will lead to a mistrial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 referendums work pretty well in switzerland Now I know you're fishing. :winkold: take the ricoh arena in coventry for example. ... Just an example on why the elected don't always make the right decisions both locally and nationally. The elected often get things wrong but so, unfortunately, do the electorate. On single issues, too, there is often more scope for a distortion of the 'facts' to have an impact one way or another. We should have the option to have your twopence worth more than every 5 years. I agree but it's a whole other thread's discussion. and don't get me started on Brown lying about Lisbon. If you say you will give a referendum on something it should somehow be a legal obligation. No disagreements here on that, either. Manifesto pledges becoming 'aspirations' is one of the most weaselly things of our time (it's not just Gordo who is responsible for that, though). I think we had better stop trying to sidetrack the thread, though. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts