This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Personally I would like to see people like Watkins hung drawn and quartered.
I know some would say my reaction is a knee-jerk reaction, but I don't think so. Imho, any sane person would, i'm sure like to see the same.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25412675
I know some would say my reaction is a knee-jerk reaction, but I don't think so. Imho, any sane person would, i'm sure like to see the same.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25412675
In reply to mwr72:
So you think the solution, when someone does very nasty and repugnant things to another human being, is to do similarly nasty and repugnant things to them? That doesn't seem very sane/rational to me.
So you think the solution, when someone does very nasty and repugnant things to another human being, is to do similarly nasty and repugnant things to them? That doesn't seem very sane/rational to me.
In reply to mwr72: So you're arguing that a knee-jerk reaction is a sane one?
Good luck defending your position...
T.
Good luck defending your position...
T.
In reply to mwr72:
It will be 35 years, then he can come out if he is safe to the public. Could be longer
It will be 35 years, then he can come out if he is safe to the public. Could be longer
In reply to mwr72:
Lucky then either your opinion is wrong or most people arent sane.
> Imho, any sane person would, i'm sure like to see the same.
Lucky then either your opinion is wrong or most people arent sane.
In reply to mwr72:
I'm not sure many sane people would like to see someone hung drawn and quartered. Once maybe - not now. (It smacks of a real mental instability to me - you would REALLY 'like' to see that?).
And to answer your question. 'Long enough'? For what? Revenge, healing, transformation, rehabilitation, an alternative to the death penalty?
I'm not sure many sane people would like to see someone hung drawn and quartered. Once maybe - not now. (It smacks of a real mental instability to me - you would REALLY 'like' to see that?).
And to answer your question. 'Long enough'? For what? Revenge, healing, transformation, rehabilitation, an alternative to the death penalty?
In reply to mwr72:
He'll not have a very pleasant time in prison, then maybe he'll decide he's had enough and top himself.
He'll not have a very pleasant time in prison, then maybe he'll decide he's had enough and top himself.
Post edited at 20:01
In reply to itsThere:
He may only do 20 years, if his rehabilitation goes according to plan and is no longer deemed a risk.
He may only do 20 years, if his rehabilitation goes according to plan and is no longer deemed a risk.
In reply to nrhardy:
By which time his victim will be approaching 21, and no doubt trying to come to terms with what happened to them, and piece together some form of relationship with their mother who avidly participated in it.
> He may only do 20 years, if his rehabilitation goes according to plan and is no longer deemed a risk.
By which time his victim will be approaching 21, and no doubt trying to come to terms with what happened to them, and piece together some form of relationship with their mother who avidly participated in it.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I don't get the argument that doing something 'nasty' to someone in return for them committing a serious crime is someone wrong yet locking them up in prison is fine. To me the idea of getting locked up for 35 years (pretty much the rest of his life) inside a prison where I'd be likely to suffer a fair bit of 'nastiness' from the other inmates seems a pretty grim prospect, in fact I think I'd be seriously considering doing myself in given that fate.
The system we have isn't perfect but I think you have to make a call of either rehabilitation or simple punishment. As this guy isn't going to be let out until he's an old man if at all rehabilitation seems a bit pointless so, especially given the nature of his crimes punishment seems the best option. Now I agree prison is a punishment but why is this for of punishment so distinct from a physical one?
> So you think the solution, when someone does very nasty and repugnant things to another human being, is to do similarly nasty and repugnant things to them? That doesn't seem very sane/rational to me.
I don't get the argument that doing something 'nasty' to someone in return for them committing a serious crime is someone wrong yet locking them up in prison is fine. To me the idea of getting locked up for 35 years (pretty much the rest of his life) inside a prison where I'd be likely to suffer a fair bit of 'nastiness' from the other inmates seems a pretty grim prospect, in fact I think I'd be seriously considering doing myself in given that fate.
The system we have isn't perfect but I think you have to make a call of either rehabilitation or simple punishment. As this guy isn't going to be let out until he's an old man if at all rehabilitation seems a bit pointless so, especially given the nature of his crimes punishment seems the best option. Now I agree prison is a punishment but why is this for of punishment so distinct from a physical one?
In reply to nrhardy:
He is already deemed a huge risk, so I very much doubt if such a mistake is made.
> He may only do 20 years, if his rehabilitation goes according to plan and is no longer deemed a risk.
He is already deemed a huge risk, so I very much doubt if such a mistake is made.
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
OK, thanks for your careful comments about what is a huge dilemma. Always we have to think: what is the best option. Unfortunately, prison (given the dangerousness of the convicted, and the absence of any kind of 'medical'/psychiatric defence, and a total lack of repentance) seems like the only possible ""civilised"" option. If you can think of any better, please speak out. I don't think rehabilitation in this case is a realistic option at all. Even if you think you've 'cured' the guy, how do you test it out? Please don't test it out on the public, far too dangerous, I submit.
Remember, these cases are (or certainly used to be) treated very differently from ordinary crimes. It used to be called 'Rule 43' (I worked on a TV documentary about it once in the 1970s, so know a bit about it). I hope that regime/system still applies. Of course, it caused a lot of offence to other prisoners because the sex offenders were treated far better, and kept in isolation, usually in different, special prisons. As I say, I've no idea if that still applies - it wouldn't surprise me a bit if standards have slipped miles under the present regime, or over the last 30 years of certain retrogressive governments.
OK, thanks for your careful comments about what is a huge dilemma. Always we have to think: what is the best option. Unfortunately, prison (given the dangerousness of the convicted, and the absence of any kind of 'medical'/psychiatric defence, and a total lack of repentance) seems like the only possible ""civilised"" option. If you can think of any better, please speak out. I don't think rehabilitation in this case is a realistic option at all. Even if you think you've 'cured' the guy, how do you test it out? Please don't test it out on the public, far too dangerous, I submit.
Remember, these cases are (or certainly used to be) treated very differently from ordinary crimes. It used to be called 'Rule 43' (I worked on a TV documentary about it once in the 1970s, so know a bit about it). I hope that regime/system still applies. Of course, it caused a lot of offence to other prisoners because the sex offenders were treated far better, and kept in isolation, usually in different, special prisons. As I say, I've no idea if that still applies - it wouldn't surprise me a bit if standards have slipped miles under the present regime, or over the last 30 years of certain retrogressive governments.
In reply to off-duty:
Why will they know that there is something to come to terms with?
Who is going to tell them - 5 years down the line? - 10 years down the line? - that they were a 'victim' in something that apparently didn't actually happen (if I've read the court reporting aright).
Can they not just be left alone to get on with their life?
Why will they know that there is something to come to terms with?
Who is going to tell them - 5 years down the line? - 10 years down the line? - that they were a 'victim' in something that apparently didn't actually happen (if I've read the court reporting aright).
Can they not just be left alone to get on with their life?
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
You seem to be deciding, Gordon, that if, in 2034, he was deemed not to be a risk then that would be a mistake.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
> He is already deemed a huge risk, so I very much doubt if such a mistake is made.
You seem to be deciding, Gordon, that if, in 2034, he was deemed not to be a risk then that would be a mistake.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
In reply to off-duty:
From the BBC news website - 'Police watchdog the IPCC is investigating three forces over their handling of allegations made about Ian Watkins between 2008-2012.
South Yorkshire, Bedfordshire and South Wales are being investigated over information received about Watkins prior to his arrest in December 2012.
Three other forces, Essex, West Yorkshire and the Metropolitan Police, also supplied information that they had been given about Watkins for the inquiry but are not currently under investigation.
An officer from South Wales is the focus of the IPCC probe there.'
?
From the BBC news website - 'Police watchdog the IPCC is investigating three forces over their handling of allegations made about Ian Watkins between 2008-2012.
South Yorkshire, Bedfordshire and South Wales are being investigated over information received about Watkins prior to his arrest in December 2012.
Three other forces, Essex, West Yorkshire and the Metropolitan Police, also supplied information that they had been given about Watkins for the inquiry but are not currently under investigation.
An officer from South Wales is the focus of the IPCC probe there.'
?
In reply to andyathome:
No, I didn't say that. I haven't 'decided' anything. How could I? So, of course, no 'conclusion'. I just said they are quite unlikely to make mistakes in this case, given that he is now such dangerous prisoner. I think we have to trust their judgement.
Gosh the internet is such hard work, with people continually putting words into your mouth! ...
> You seem to be deciding, Gordon, that if, in 2034, he was deemed not to be a risk then that would be a mistake.
> How do you arrive at that conclusion?
No, I didn't say that. I haven't 'decided' anything. How could I? So, of course, no 'conclusion'. I just said they are quite unlikely to make mistakes in this case, given that he is now such dangerous prisoner. I think we have to trust their judgement.
Gosh the internet is such hard work, with people continually putting words into your mouth! ...
In reply to mwr72:
I'd prefer that he got a shorter sentence.
10 mins at the end of a length of rope.
I'd prefer that he got a shorter sentence.
10 mins at the end of a length of rope.
In reply to mwr72:
I'm flabbergasted at some of the responses on this thread.
This piece of s**t committed some of the most heinous crimes against some of the most vulnerable in society, including a baby ffs! and you don't think anything more than imprisonment would be appropriate for someone who shows no remorse for what he's done?
Yes, I think I'm perfectly sane, and would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the population would think the same as I do.
I'm flabbergasted at some of the responses on this thread.
This piece of s**t committed some of the most heinous crimes against some of the most vulnerable in society, including a baby ffs! and you don't think anything more than imprisonment would be appropriate for someone who shows no remorse for what he's done?
Yes, I think I'm perfectly sane, and would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the population would think the same as I do.
In reply to mwr72:
Yes I know it is not right. But I think the same. My opinion.
> (In reply to mwr72)
>
>
> Yes, I think I'm perfectly sane, and would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the population would think the same as I do.
>
>
> Yes, I think I'm perfectly sane, and would hazard a guess that the vast majority of the population would think the same as I do.
Yes I know it is not right. But I think the same. My opinion.
As a father I would rather see him rot in jail for the rest of his days than be put out his misery. I would get no satisfaction to see him not actively being punished on a daily basis.
In reply to mwr72:
Well, the only alternative, of course (hope you're not still clinging to your medieval ones), is the death sentence. And that, of cousre, is a whole very different and difficult debate again … because it then comes down to our value system. Just how highly do we value life, as being sacrosanct etc., and, if we go against that, just how hypocritical/illogical are we being?
Logic is tough one, esp. for your average Daily Mail reader, who probably wouldn't recognise it even once it had hit them in the face. Or, sadly, too late.
> I'm flabbergasted at some of the responses on this thread.
> This piece of s**t committed some of the most heinous crimes against some of the most vulnerable in society, including a baby ffs! and you don't think anything more than imprisonment would be appropriate for someone who shows no remorse for what he's done?
Well, the only alternative, of course (hope you're not still clinging to your medieval ones), is the death sentence. And that, of cousre, is a whole very different and difficult debate again … because it then comes down to our value system. Just how highly do we value life, as being sacrosanct etc., and, if we go against that, just how hypocritical/illogical are we being?
Logic is tough one, esp. for your average Daily Mail reader, who probably wouldn't recognise it even once it had hit them in the face. Or, sadly, too late.
In reply to mwr72: An interesting side comment ... the death was reported today of Ronnie Biggs, who played a minor part in the great train robbery, apparently supposed to find a man to drive the train. He was given 30 years for this. More than a 'life sentence'. Strange disparity.
Does anyone believe you can rehabilitate a paedophile or are they just wrong to the core, i.e. genetically? If so then surely a death sentence is the only way to protect society?
If you think they can be rehabilitated - how would you go about reprogramming their sexual preferences, for example, could somebody reprogram you to be gay (or straight if already gay)?
My personal view (which counts for p*ss all which is why i dont vote) is that paedophiles should be neutered
Post edited at 23:38
In reply to andyathome:
I hesitate to be too critical - but I would suggest that rather than leaping to minimise the offence "something that apparently didn't happen" it might be worth either stopping commenting on something about which you clearly know nothing, or making an effort to find out a bit more about the nature of the multiple offences that he has been involved in - even if they have not been able to charge him with everything he has most likely done..
If I were you I would take the first option, as the events are horrendous.
I accept that it is a horrible thing to have to tell the victims, but at some stage they have a right to know why they are not with their own mothers, either as adults or as children.
> Why will they know that there is something to come to terms with?
> Who is going to tell them - 5 years down the line? - 10 years down the line? - that they were a 'victim' in something that apparently didn't actually happen (if I've read the court reporting aright).
> Can they not just be left alone to get on with their life?
I hesitate to be too critical - but I would suggest that rather than leaping to minimise the offence "something that apparently didn't happen" it might be worth either stopping commenting on something about which you clearly know nothing, or making an effort to find out a bit more about the nature of the multiple offences that he has been involved in - even if they have not been able to charge him with everything he has most likely done..
If I were you I would take the first option, as the events are horrendous.
I accept that it is a horrible thing to have to tell the victims, but at some stage they have a right to know why they are not with their own mothers, either as adults or as children.
In reply to mwr72:
Every time some horrific crime is committed someone posts something on here about the violent punishment that they should get instead of jail. No one ever feels moved to post about how the victims' families' lives have been ruined or any other aspect.
So long as society is protected from this guy I don't give a shit, it makes no difference.
Every time some horrific crime is committed someone posts something on here about the violent punishment that they should get instead of jail. No one ever feels moved to post about how the victims' families' lives have been ruined or any other aspect.
So long as society is protected from this guy I don't give a shit, it makes no difference.
In reply to owena:
Don't think anyone knows what the genetic link might be, but since there is no gay gene it's very almost certain that it isn't purely genetic.
I don't think that rehabilitation is about reprogramming sexual drives, it's about getting someone to understand the harm that their actions cause and ensuring that they don't reoffend.
Quite a lot of people who commit these kinds of offenses are married or otherwise seem to have normal sexual behaviour as well. I'm not sure that people who commit these crimes have a single sexual drive that is for children, it might be a lot more complex than that.
> Does anyone believe you can rehabilitate a paedophile or are they just wrong to the core, i.e. genetically? If so then surely a death sentence is the only way to protect society?
Don't think anyone knows what the genetic link might be, but since there is no gay gene it's very almost certain that it isn't purely genetic.
> If you think they can be rehabilitated - how would you go about reprogramming their sexual preferences, for example, could somebody reprogram you to be gay (or straight if already gay)?
I don't think that rehabilitation is about reprogramming sexual drives, it's about getting someone to understand the harm that their actions cause and ensuring that they don't reoffend.
> My personal view (which counts for p*ss all which is why i dont vote) is that paedophiles should be neutered
Quite a lot of people who commit these kinds of offenses are married or otherwise seem to have normal sexual behaviour as well. I'm not sure that people who commit these crimes have a single sexual drive that is for children, it might be a lot more complex than that.
Post edited at 23:48
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I agree, I dont believe it is entirely genetic, but they surely know its wrong, and if they dont then are they not beyond educating? That sort of behaviour is not consistent with the human condition and classes them as animal surely? Then the normal human laws should not apply?
Just thoughts
I agree, I dont believe it is entirely genetic, but they surely know its wrong, and if they dont then are they not beyond educating? That sort of behaviour is not consistent with the human condition and classes them as animal surely? Then the normal human laws should not apply?
Just thoughts
In reply to owena:
I don't know but I would guess most sex offenders know that what they've done is wrong, but don't think about it. That kind of behaviour is very human indeed.
I don't know but I would guess most sex offenders know that what they've done is wrong, but don't think about it. That kind of behaviour is very human indeed.
Open question to you guys who want to see this guy lynched, what purpose does this serve?
In reply to joh
99.9% self satisfaction
0.01% getting rid of a bad person
sadly neither is likely to prevent other sick f*cks from doing the same again, unfortunately paedophillia has been prevelent throughout human history
99.9% self satisfaction
0.01% getting rid of a bad person
sadly neither is likely to prevent other sick f*cks from doing the same again, unfortunately paedophillia has been prevelent throughout human history
In reply to johnj:
You remove him from society (if he survives his sentence) and what is the point of his existence? He has committed the most atrocious acts against defenseless children and babies.
Why keep him going at a very vast cost?
I dont know, I dont see the point. Yes we live in a civilised society where we dont legally kill people. But we dont legally rape babies either.
You remove him from society (if he survives his sentence) and what is the point of his existence? He has committed the most atrocious acts against defenseless children and babies.
Why keep him going at a very vast cost?
I dont know, I dont see the point. Yes we live in a civilised society where we dont legally kill people. But we dont legally rape babies either.
In reply to MattJP:
Money doesn't exist anyway, it's printed out of thin air by the rich and the poor have little of it! This guy is seriously ill and if the way to find a cure for this illness was extermination, well wouldn't all that needless killing have solved the problem by now?
Money doesn't exist anyway, it's printed out of thin air by the rich and the poor have little of it! This guy is seriously ill and if the way to find a cure for this illness was extermination, well wouldn't all that needless killing have solved the problem by now?
In reply to MattJP:
Basically what I'm saying is killing the guy solves nothing, just another killing, it doesn't even tackle the problem of why this abuse happens and how do we get to the root causes of the motivation for this abuse.
Basically what I'm saying is killing the guy solves nothing, just another killing, it doesn't even tackle the problem of why this abuse happens and how do we get to the root causes of the motivation for this abuse.
In reply to johnj:
Not a lot I agree with you, but a previous poster had a point of limiting the risk to society through chemical castration for people that have committed such despicable crimes, and later want to be freed.
A little while ago, but I attach interesting article about such people and the issues of dealing with them.
By nature they are manipulative, and there is a risk that they can play along with whatever programme they are on, to appear to be rehabilitated , and then reoffend .
I would like the ' belt and braces' of chemical castration before release.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-inside-broadmoor-16716...
> Open question to you guys who want to see this guy lynched, what purpose does this serve?
Not a lot I agree with you, but a previous poster had a point of limiting the risk to society through chemical castration for people that have committed such despicable crimes, and later want to be freed.
A little while ago, but I attach interesting article about such people and the issues of dealing with them.
By nature they are manipulative, and there is a risk that they can play along with whatever programme they are on, to appear to be rehabilitated , and then reoffend .
I would like the ' belt and braces' of chemical castration before release.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-inside-broadmoor-16716...
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Godwin!
> Logic is tough one, esp. for your average Daily Mail reader, who probably wouldn't recognise it even once it had hit them in the face. Or, sadly, too late.
Godwin!
In reply to johnj:
Rids the world of some evil.
Saves money.
> Open question to you guys who want to see this guy lynched, what purpose does this serve?
Rids the world of some evil.
Saves money.
In reply to Jim C:
Some very good points there Jim, I would maybe think as long as it's administrated humanly such procedures should at least be looked into. These days the general public at large is administered a cocktail of prescription pharmaceuticals...... Therefore the value of these sick people been used for research, has far greater benefits than some of the other thoughts of blood lust.
> Not a lot I agree with you, but a previous poster had a point of limiting the risk to society through chemical castration for people that have committed such despicable crimes, and later want to be freed.
> A little while ago, but I attach interesting article about such people and the issues of dealing with them.
> By nature they are manipulative, and there is a risk that they can play along with whatever programme they are on, to appear to be rehabilitated , and then reoffend .
> I would like the ' belt and braces' of chemical castration before release.
Some very good points there Jim, I would maybe think as long as it's administrated humanly such procedures should at least be looked into. These days the general public at large is administered a cocktail of prescription pharmaceuticals...... Therefore the value of these sick people been used for research, has far greater benefits than some of the other thoughts of blood lust.
In reply to stroppygob:
Yeah, cos it really works well in the states.
> Rids the world of some evil.
> Saves money.
Yeah, cos it really works well in the states.
In reply to the string-em-up-and-let-god-sort-em-out crowd:
To me its a simple process of elimination. We don't have a death penalty and for good reason. Basically the courts and police have a long and illustrious history of arresting and imprisoning the wrong person. Whilst at lease we can release the mis-convicted and give them lots of money - a poor substitute but its something - you can't do that if the state has killed them.
Of course the immediate response to this is "but what if we know its the right person?". Ans: There's been lots of convictions which were supposed to be "safe" but later turned out to be not. The one that particularly comes to mind is the guy who was convicted of rape based on DNA evidence where the jury were told it was a 1 in xxx million chance it wan't him. Screw-up in the lab it turned out. The victim stood up in court and said "you've got the wrong guy, it WASNT him". Still convicted.
As soon as we start, as a state, killing people (outside of wars, naturally, that's apparently fine (???)), then there will be miscarriages of justice and innocent people will die.
We don't multilate people (or not physically) for similar reasons. Plus we think its a bad thing to do.
Given the above, what do we do. Lock him up and throw away the key appears the least worst option, that's what the judge has done. Appears reasonable to me.
To me its a simple process of elimination. We don't have a death penalty and for good reason. Basically the courts and police have a long and illustrious history of arresting and imprisoning the wrong person. Whilst at lease we can release the mis-convicted and give them lots of money - a poor substitute but its something - you can't do that if the state has killed them.
Of course the immediate response to this is "but what if we know its the right person?". Ans: There's been lots of convictions which were supposed to be "safe" but later turned out to be not. The one that particularly comes to mind is the guy who was convicted of rape based on DNA evidence where the jury were told it was a 1 in xxx million chance it wan't him. Screw-up in the lab it turned out. The victim stood up in court and said "you've got the wrong guy, it WASNT him". Still convicted.
As soon as we start, as a state, killing people (outside of wars, naturally, that's apparently fine (???)), then there will be miscarriages of justice and innocent people will die.
We don't multilate people (or not physically) for similar reasons. Plus we think its a bad thing to do.
Given the above, what do we do. Lock him up and throw away the key appears the least worst option, that's what the judge has done. Appears reasonable to me.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
How on earth did Andy read what you said and come to that conclusion? I'm better off out of this thread....
E
> No, I didn't say that. I haven't 'decided' anything. How could I? So, of course, no 'conclusion'. I just said they are quite unlikely to make mistakes in this case, given that he is now such dangerous prisoner. I think we have to trust their judgement.
> Gosh the internet is such hard work, with people continually putting words into your mouth! ...
How on earth did Andy read what you said and come to that conclusion? I'm better off out of this thread....
E
In reply to mwr72:
I don't want to "see" him mutilated, I don't take any pleasure in seeing gory stuff, but I don't want him to exist any more. Full life term in solitary with no chance of ever being paroled would have done for me, to remove his existence from society without any mutilation or killing. Any chance of him ever being released is getting off lightly as far as I'm concerned.
I don't want to "see" him mutilated, I don't take any pleasure in seeing gory stuff, but I don't want him to exist any more. Full life term in solitary with no chance of ever being paroled would have done for me, to remove his existence from society without any mutilation or killing. Any chance of him ever being released is getting off lightly as far as I'm concerned.
In reply to mwr72:
Personally I'd like to see a coherent evidence based approach to sentencing with gaol generally reserved for cases with a public protection element. Neither of us are likely to see our wishes realised.
I wouldn't like to see anyone hung drawn and quartered. So far as I'm aware I'm sane.
jk
> Personally I would like to see people like Watkins hung drawn and quartered.
Personally I'd like to see a coherent evidence based approach to sentencing with gaol generally reserved for cases with a public protection element. Neither of us are likely to see our wishes realised.
> I know some would say my reaction is a knee-jerk reaction, but I don't think so. Imho, any sane person would, i'm sure like to see the same.
I wouldn't like to see anyone hung drawn and quartered. So far as I'm aware I'm sane.
jk
In reply to John_Hat:
As good as your dramatised example is, it is wrong.
The man was accused, and remanded, but the DNA error was realised prior to his court case and certainly prior to his conviction.
The evidence was scrutinized not least because of the account he provided to the police that he was at the other end of the country (where he lived) at the time.
It is rare (if not non-existent) that DNA evidence would not be accompanied by other evidence.
> Of course the immediate response to this is "but what if we know its the right person?". Ans: There's been lots of convictions which were supposed to be "safe" but later turned out to be not. The one that particularly comes to mind is the guy who was convicted of rape based on DNA evidence where the jury were told it was a 1 in xxx million chance it wan't him. Screw-up in the lab it turned out. The victim stood up in court and said "you've got the wrong guy, it WASNT him". Still convicted.
As good as your dramatised example is, it is wrong.
The man was accused, and remanded, but the DNA error was realised prior to his court case and certainly prior to his conviction.
The evidence was scrutinized not least because of the account he provided to the police that he was at the other end of the country (where he lived) at the time.
It is rare (if not non-existent) that DNA evidence would not be accompanied by other evidence.
In reply to John_Hat and off-duty:
Simple enough for you to both post a link to the case(s) you mean.
Simple enough for you to both post a link to the case(s) you mean.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I'm at work and don't have time to dig (billions of rape/DNA results), but this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html
covers most of the bases. Note the company quoted as saying they "work to the highest possible standards" was recently the centre of a contamination incident.
Also, WTF is or friend off-duty on about? My point was that there are wrongful convictions hence therefore the state killing people was a bad idea.
I'm at work and don't have time to dig (billions of rape/DNA results), but this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9115916/The-case-against-DNA.html
covers most of the bases. Note the company quoted as saying they "work to the highest possible standards" was recently the centre of a contamination incident.
Also, WTF is or friend off-duty on about? My point was that there are wrongful convictions hence therefore the state killing people was a bad idea.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Oh, this will do as an example. You get the general idea.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/blog/post/UK-Teenager-wrongly-...
Oh, this will do as an example. You get the general idea.
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/blog/post/UK-Teenager-wrongly-...
In reply to mwr72:
Interestingly there's no comments on the 2 woman that actively offered their children/babies to Watkins knowing what he wanted and did do to them.
Interestingly there's no comments on the 2 woman that actively offered their children/babies to Watkins knowing what he wanted and did do to them.
In reply to mwr72:
(Nearly) all crime can be viewed as a failure of society. For the sake of argument, assume all prisoners can be broken down into three categories - the mentally ill, those outside of society (troubled childhood/drug addiction etc), and possibly the genuinely selfish.
The mentally ill should receive support from society to help them or, if absolutely necessary, isolate them before they become a danger to themselves or others. Arguably paedophilia is a mental illness? But this may not absolve you of blame as you may or may not have to act on your impulses.
I suspect the vast majority of crime is committed by people who's lives are not or have not been as comfortable as mine. Murder rates (as a proxy for crime rates which is universally defined) have been correlated with economic inequality. This doesn't mean that the murderers are not guilty of their crimes, but society also holds responsibility since lowering inequality would reduce the number of murders - everybody wins. Lots of crime is at least anecdotally associated with problems in childhood (a social problem) or drug addiction (also a social problem).
I don't honestly know how many criminals fall into the genuinely selfish - I suspect this only really applies to white collar fraud committed by people who have no need of this. Here perhaps society bears the least responsibility, although that responsibility to protect others always exists (which is why we have a police service).
I'm not sure how choosing whether or not to kill someone who is no longer in a position to cause harm protects or improves society.
(Nearly) all crime can be viewed as a failure of society. For the sake of argument, assume all prisoners can be broken down into three categories - the mentally ill, those outside of society (troubled childhood/drug addiction etc), and possibly the genuinely selfish.
The mentally ill should receive support from society to help them or, if absolutely necessary, isolate them before they become a danger to themselves or others. Arguably paedophilia is a mental illness? But this may not absolve you of blame as you may or may not have to act on your impulses.
I suspect the vast majority of crime is committed by people who's lives are not or have not been as comfortable as mine. Murder rates (as a proxy for crime rates which is universally defined) have been correlated with economic inequality. This doesn't mean that the murderers are not guilty of their crimes, but society also holds responsibility since lowering inequality would reduce the number of murders - everybody wins. Lots of crime is at least anecdotally associated with problems in childhood (a social problem) or drug addiction (also a social problem).
I don't honestly know how many criminals fall into the genuinely selfish - I suspect this only really applies to white collar fraud committed by people who have no need of this. Here perhaps society bears the least responsibility, although that responsibility to protect others always exists (which is why we have a police service).
I'm not sure how choosing whether or not to kill someone who is no longer in a position to cause harm protects or improves society.
Post edited at 12:32
In reply to mwr72:
Well you'll just have to get over it. Punishment through withdrawal of freedom is the best we can do in a civilised society. Long sentences are costly and ineffective. We have no effective cure or rehabilitation for paedophiles and we are not going to find one by mindlessly locking them up for decades.
> I'm flabbergasted at some of the responses on this thread.
> This piece of s**t committed some of the most heinous crimes against some of the most vulnerable in society, including a baby ffs! and you don't think anything more than imprisonment would be appropriate for someone who shows no remorse for what he's done?
Well you'll just have to get over it. Punishment through withdrawal of freedom is the best we can do in a civilised society. Long sentences are costly and ineffective. We have no effective cure or rehabilitation for paedophiles and we are not going to find one by mindlessly locking them up for decades.
In reply to mwr72:
I think you'd have to be quite insane to want to see another person hung drawn and quartered.
I think you'd have to be quite insane to want to see another person hung drawn and quartered.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Incarceration is not just for captive rehabilitation, it is also for protecting society from the criminal. If we have no effective cure or rehabilitation for paedophilia, then locking them up for decades for the protection of society isn't mindless.
> Well you'll just have to get over it. Punishment through withdrawal of freedom is the best we can do in a civilised society. Long sentences are costly and ineffective. We have no effective cure or rehabilitation for paedophiles and we are not going to find one by mindlessly locking them up for decades.
Incarceration is not just for captive rehabilitation, it is also for protecting society from the criminal. If we have no effective cure or rehabilitation for paedophilia, then locking them up for decades for the protection of society isn't mindless.
In reply to mwr72:
I take it , now that the Lee Rigby pair have been convicted, you'll be wanting them dead too?
I take it , now that the Lee Rigby pair have been convicted, you'll be wanting them dead too?
In reply to PeterM:
Did they attempt to rape babies too?
> I take it , now that the Lee Rigby pair have been convicted, you'll be wanting them dead too?
Did they attempt to rape babies too?
In reply to stroppygob:
What difference does it make if the criminal cannot do any more harm?
Wrong. There's massive stacks of evidence to show the opposite and as far as I know, none to support it.
http://www.economist.com/node/13279051
The facts are the DP doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than keeping people in jail. The rational view is that it's a bad policy and the arguments in favour are either purely emotional ("it makes someone e.g. me feel better") or based on spurious facts (e.g. it saves money).
We will never bring it back because it is a bad policy with no benefits and lots of costs. If it upsets ordinary, uninvolved people so much that perpetrators of appalling crimes are allowed to live, then why don't they all just have a cup of tea and think about something else. It makes no difference to you.
> Rids the world of some evil.
What difference does it make if the criminal cannot do any more harm?
> Saves money.
Wrong. There's massive stacks of evidence to show the opposite and as far as I know, none to support it.
http://www.economist.com/node/13279051
The facts are the DP doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than keeping people in jail. The rational view is that it's a bad policy and the arguments in favour are either purely emotional ("it makes someone e.g. me feel better") or based on spurious facts (e.g. it saves money).
We will never bring it back because it is a bad policy with no benefits and lots of costs. If it upsets ordinary, uninvolved people so much that perpetrators of appalling crimes are allowed to live, then why don't they all just have a cup of tea and think about something else. It makes no difference to you.
In reply to mwr72:
Judges report here, WARNING CONTAINS DISTURBING DETAILS!!!!!
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-watkins-a...
I can't even begin to understand what would compel them to commit such horrific acts
Judges report here, WARNING CONTAINS DISTURBING DETAILS!!!!!
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-watkins-a...
I can't even begin to understand what would compel them to commit such horrific acts
In reply to John_Hat: I was asking to see if you were both thinking of the same case. You said "Of course the immediate response to this is "but what if we know its the right person?". Ans: There's been lots of convictions which were supposed to be "safe" but later turned out to be not. The one that particularly comes to mind is the guy who was convicted of rape based on DNA evidence where the jury were told it was a 1 in xxx million chance it wan't him. Screw-up in the lab it turned out. The victim stood up in court and said "you've got the wrong guy, it WASNT him". Still convicted.", but nothing you have cited shows wrongful convictions. So you haven't cited the case you refer to and neither has off-duty.
In reply to John_Hat:
That is indeed the same case. And - as with the previous link I see no-one dramatically claiming they are innocent and then getting convicted based solely on DNA evidence.
The case involving Butler the defence were successfully able to undermine the DNA evidence, which indeed rather undermines any suggestion of a wrongful conviction.
If you want to make a point in relation to unsafe convictions there's no point basing it on a fallacy.
> Oh, this will do as an example. You get the general idea.
> www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/blog/post/UK-Teenager-wrongly-accused-of-rape-because-o...
That is indeed the same case. And - as with the previous link I see no-one dramatically claiming they are innocent and then getting convicted based solely on DNA evidence.
The case involving Butler the defence were successfully able to undermine the DNA evidence, which indeed rather undermines any suggestion of a wrongful conviction.
If you want to make a point in relation to unsafe convictions there's no point basing it on a fallacy.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
>Wrong. There's massive stacks of evidence to show the opposite and as far as I know, none to support it.
The financial argument is (as always) based on figures from the US. All they really demonstrate is that if we were to implement the US system of multiple trials followed by decades of appeals then it will be more expensive.
>Wrong. There's massive stacks of evidence to show the opposite and as far as I know, none to support it.
> The facts are the DP doesn't work as a deterrent and costs more than keeping people in jail.
The financial argument is (as always) based on figures from the US. All they really demonstrate is that if we were to implement the US system of multiple trials followed by decades of appeals then it will be more expensive.
Post edited at 15:07
In reply to off-duty:
True, but it's then incumbent on anyone arguing for the DP to show how the US situation is to be avoided. One presumes it's like that for a reason, rather than that they just enjoy flushing money down the toilet.
> The financial argument is (as always) based on figures from the US. All they really demonstrate is that if we were to implement the US system of multiple trials followed by decades of appeals then it will be more expensive.
True, but it's then incumbent on anyone arguing for the DP to show how the US situation is to be avoided. One presumes it's like that for a reason, rather than that they just enjoy flushing money down the toilet.
Post edited at 15:10
I assume that OffDuty is referring to Adam Scott who spent 5 months on remand accused of rape. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19782917
5 months on remand may not be a conviction, but it's still 5 months in prison.
I can't find a UK case which ended in conviction, but this case seems relevant (US, pled guilty faced with DNA evidence, which turned out be someone else's sample)
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=...
5 months on remand may not be a conviction, but it's still 5 months in prison.
I can't find a UK case which ended in conviction, but this case seems relevant (US, pled guilty faced with DNA evidence, which turned out be someone else's sample)
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=...
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Were I arguing for the DP, it would be reasonable to sentence it at the end of trial - just like any other sentence.
We don't have an American legal system for other aspects of our law, I can't see why we would have to introduce one, particularly in view of it's evident expense.
> True, but it's then incumbent on anyone arguing for the DP to show how the US situation is to be avoided. One presumes it's like that for a reason, rather than that they just enjoy flushing money down the toilet.
Were I arguing for the DP, it would be reasonable to sentence it at the end of trial - just like any other sentence.
We don't have an American legal system for other aspects of our law, I can't see why we would have to introduce one, particularly in view of it's evident expense.
In reply to Nutkey:
As you say, it is very much not a conviction.
Unfortunately wrongly accused people do get held on remand on occasion, as do those who are found not guilty. Not really hugely relevant to an argument about wrongful convictions.
> I assume that OffDuty is referring to Adam Scott who spent 5 months on remand accused of rape. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19782917
> 5 months on remand may not be a conviction, but it's still 5 months in prison.
As you say, it is very much not a conviction.
Unfortunately wrongly accused people do get held on remand on occasion, as do those who are found not guilty. Not really hugely relevant to an argument about wrongful convictions.
In reply to off-duty:
Well this just returns us to the unsafe convictions argument. How you resolve that without spending a fortune more on strengthening the appeal process is yet to be suggested.
Well this just returns us to the unsafe convictions argument. How you resolve that without spending a fortune more on strengthening the appeal process is yet to be suggested.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
How unsafe do you think Watkins conviction is?
> Well this just returns us to the unsafe convictions argument. How you resolve that without spending a fortune more on strengthening the appeal process is yet to be suggested.
How unsafe do you think Watkins conviction is?
In reply to off-duty:
That's an irrelevant point. You can't base a policy on individual examples, it has to apply universally. Or should we see what happens in each case, and think up a policy afterwards?
That's an irrelevant point. You can't base a policy on individual examples, it has to apply universally. Or should we see what happens in each case, and think up a policy afterwards?
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I am not particularly an advocate of the DP.
However it would seem reasonable that not every case would be a DP case.
Your argument was that the DP is uneconomic is based on the US system. There is no particular reason we should adopt that.
If you want to suggest that we don't have it because there is a risk of wrongful conviction, that is a different argument.
> That's an irrelevant point. You can't base a policy on individual examples, it has to apply universally. Or should we see what happens in each case, and think up a policy afterwards?
I am not particularly an advocate of the DP.
However it would seem reasonable that not every case would be a DP case.
Your argument was that the DP is uneconomic is based on the US system. There is no particular reason we should adopt that.
If you want to suggest that we don't have it because there is a risk of wrongful conviction, that is a different argument.
In reply to off-duty:
The wrongful convictions and financial arguments are intimately related. The additional costs come from the need to mitigate the risk of wrongful convictions. Obvious, no?
The wrongful convictions and financial arguments are intimately related. The additional costs come from the need to mitigate the risk of wrongful convictions. Obvious, no?
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The financial rgument then becomes a very different one - ie would whatever safeguards the UK puts in place to prevent a wrongful conviction be more expensive than the cost of a whole life tariff?
Certain cases, Watkons, the murder of Lee Rigby, the murder of pc bone and Hughes, are such slam dunks that there is zero chance of wrongful conviction - known before start of trial.
> The wrongful convictions and financial arguments are intimately related. The additional costs come from the need to mitigate the risk of wrongful convictions. Obvious, no?
The financial rgument then becomes a very different one - ie would whatever safeguards the UK puts in place to prevent a wrongful conviction be more expensive than the cost of a whole life tariff?
Certain cases, Watkons, the murder of Lee Rigby, the murder of pc bone and Hughes, are such slam dunks that there is zero chance of wrongful conviction - known before start of trial.
In reply to off-duty:
Yes. But given that no one has ever made a sensible suggestion about what those safeguards might be (because it's essentially an impossible issue to address), it's not looking like a cheap and practical solution is out there.
So I don't see how you can look to the US and see that it doesn't work there (for whatever reason) and come up with no solutions to make it work here, and still somehow say it's a worthwhile policy.
So a judge decides before the trial that this case is a slam dunk, so we bring out the DP? What???
> The financial rgument then becomes a very different one - ie would whatever safeguards the UK puts in place to prevent a wrongful conviction be more expensive than the cost of a whole life tariff?
Yes. But given that no one has ever made a sensible suggestion about what those safeguards might be (because it's essentially an impossible issue to address), it's not looking like a cheap and practical solution is out there.
So I don't see how you can look to the US and see that it doesn't work there (for whatever reason) and come up with no solutions to make it work here, and still somehow say it's a worthwhile policy.
> Certain cases, Watkons, the murder of Lee Rigby, the murder of pc bone and Hughes, are such slam dunks that there is zero chance of wrongful conviction - known before start of trial.
So a judge decides before the trial that this case is a slam dunk, so we bring out the DP? What???
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think the system we have here works reasonably well. The system could end with a sentence to death rather than "life" (ironically).
We currently have appeals processes. Why do we need to emulate a US system?
If you want to suggest that it would be more expensive then perhaps you should suggest what safeguards need to be added.
The prosecution would make that decision. It might concentrate the mind of defendants who run a highly expensive lengthy trial despite being faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt, or who want to use a trial to make some kind of point.
> Yes. But given that no one has ever made a sensible suggestion about what those safeguards might be (because it's essentially an impossible issue to address), it's not looking like a cheap and practical solution is out there.
> So I don't see how you can look to the US and see that it doesn't work there (for whatever reason) and come up with no solutions to make it work here, and still somehow say it's a worthwhile policy.
I think the system we have here works reasonably well. The system could end with a sentence to death rather than "life" (ironically).
We currently have appeals processes. Why do we need to emulate a US system?
If you want to suggest that it would be more expensive then perhaps you should suggest what safeguards need to be added.
> So a judge decides before the trial that this case is a slam dunk, so we bring out the DP? What???
The prosecution would make that decision. It might concentrate the mind of defendants who run a highly expensive lengthy trial despite being faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt, or who want to use a trial to make some kind of point.
In reply to off-duty:
That's a pretty dangerous attitude.
jk
> Certain cases, Watkons, the murder of Lee Rigby, the murder of pc Bone and Hughes, are such slam dunks that there is zero chance of wrongful conviction - known before start of trial.
That's a pretty dangerous attitude.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
In certain cases there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. I would suggest that recording yourself arranging and then raping one baby is one of those. Similarly trying to hack someone's head off whilst explaining what you are doing to camera.
> That's a pretty dangerous attitude.
> jk
In certain cases there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. I would suggest that recording yourself arranging and then raping one baby is one of those. Similarly trying to hack someone's head off whilst explaining what you are doing to camera.
In reply to off-duty:
True, but what if the person concerned is mentally unbalanced and hence not exactly in control of their actions - not suggesting this is the case here, but could easily be the case?
Or is sentencing mentally unbalanced people to death "collateral damage"?
> In certain cases there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. I would suggest that recording yourself arranging and then raping one baby is one of those. Similarly trying to hack someone's head off whilst explaining what you are doing to camera.
True, but what if the person concerned is mentally unbalanced and hence not exactly in control of their actions - not suggesting this is the case here, but could easily be the case?
Or is sentencing mentally unbalanced people to death "collateral damage"?
In reply to off-duty:
So are you saying that there is no problem with wrongful convictions, or perhaps that they just don't matter?
My view is that introducing the DP necessarily means cases where someone serves most of their life on death row in a never ending series of appeals. It's fundamental to the nature of justice that cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, not on certainty, and that's not compatible with killing someone. The DP is not practical because the justice system does not deliver the level of certainty required to justify killing.
This whole idea of the sentence being dependent on the prosecution declaring a slam dunk is absurd. Is it not fundamental to justice that the crime dictates the sentence, not the nature of the evidence?
> If you want to suggest that it would be more expensive then perhaps you should suggest what safeguards need to be added.
So are you saying that there is no problem with wrongful convictions, or perhaps that they just don't matter?
My view is that introducing the DP necessarily means cases where someone serves most of their life on death row in a never ending series of appeals. It's fundamental to the nature of justice that cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, not on certainty, and that's not compatible with killing someone. The DP is not practical because the justice system does not deliver the level of certainty required to justify killing.
> The prosecution would make that decision. It might concentrate the mind of defendants who run a highly expensive lengthy trial despite being faced with overwhelming evidence of guilt, or who want to use a trial to make some kind of point.
This whole idea of the sentence being dependent on the prosecution declaring a slam dunk is absurd. Is it not fundamental to justice that the crime dictates the sentence, not the nature of the evidence?
In reply to John_Hat:
"Mentally unbalanced" as in they have a psychiatric report, I would imagine they could be treated in exactly the same way as they are now eg not guilty by reason of insanity and/or hospital orders.
> True, but what if the person concerned is mentally unbalanced and hence not exactly in control of their actions - not suggesting this is the case here, but could easily be the case?
> Or is sentencing mentally unbalanced people to death "collateral damage"?
"Mentally unbalanced" as in they have a psychiatric report, I would imagine they could be treated in exactly the same way as they are now eg not guilty by reason of insanity and/or hospital orders.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Currently cases are decided on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" - whilst not quite "certain" it is substantially more than "balance of probabilities".
If your concern is that there are far too many wrongful convictions - thus the death penalty would be applied far too liberally I would disagree.
In any event that would be an argument for a root and branch reform of our system as it clearly isn't working.
I don't dispute that the possibility of a wrongful conviction does exist (despite the fact that by it's very nature our system is geared up to let the guilty go free rather than to convict the innocent).
The sentence is dependent on the offence. The prosecution make similar decisions on a daily if not hourly basis :-
"We will charge with actual bodily harm not GBH"
"We have sufficient evidence for a charge of manslaughter not murder"
In a similar manner it is possible to envisage - "Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, the circumstances and nature of the offence so extreme that we are happy to charge with murder with the provision of the death penalty"
I think a system is entirely feasible where for heinous offences with cast-iron evidence of guilt then there would be an opportunity to press for a charge with the possibility of a death sentence on conviction.
There would be an additional safeguards in that the jury would have to convict (so the evidence would be tested) and then following conviction the judge would have the option of sentencing to a lesser sentence.
Whether this is the way we want our justice system to go is another matter entirely, but to suggest that it wouldn't work because - a)its too expensive b)we would have to adopt an American system of eternal appeals, c)we wrongly convict far too many people, don't seem particularly strong arguments against it.
> So are you saying that there is no problem with wrongful convictions, or perhaps that they just don't matter?
> My view is that introducing the DP necessarily means cases where someone serves most of their life on death row in a never ending series of appeals. It's fundamental to the nature of justice that cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, not on certainty, and that's not compatible with killing someone. The DP is not practical because the justice system does not deliver the level of certainty required to justify killing.
Currently cases are decided on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" - whilst not quite "certain" it is substantially more than "balance of probabilities".
If your concern is that there are far too many wrongful convictions - thus the death penalty would be applied far too liberally I would disagree.
In any event that would be an argument for a root and branch reform of our system as it clearly isn't working.
I don't dispute that the possibility of a wrongful conviction does exist (despite the fact that by it's very nature our system is geared up to let the guilty go free rather than to convict the innocent).
> This whole idea of the sentence being dependent on the prosecution declaring a slam dunk is absurd. Is it not fundamental to justice that the crime dictates the sentence, not the nature of the evidence?
The sentence is dependent on the offence. The prosecution make similar decisions on a daily if not hourly basis :-
"We will charge with actual bodily harm not GBH"
"We have sufficient evidence for a charge of manslaughter not murder"
In a similar manner it is possible to envisage - "Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, the circumstances and nature of the offence so extreme that we are happy to charge with murder with the provision of the death penalty"
I think a system is entirely feasible where for heinous offences with cast-iron evidence of guilt then there would be an opportunity to press for a charge with the possibility of a death sentence on conviction.
There would be an additional safeguards in that the jury would have to convict (so the evidence would be tested) and then following conviction the judge would have the option of sentencing to a lesser sentence.
Whether this is the way we want our justice system to go is another matter entirely, but to suggest that it wouldn't work because - a)its too expensive b)we would have to adopt an American system of eternal appeals, c)we wrongly convict far too many people, don't seem particularly strong arguments against it.
In reply to off-duty:
The point about wrongful convictions is that with DP, a single one is unacceptable, not that there are hundreds and we would be killing innocent people left right and centre.
I am a bit convinced by this actually, but I don't think it would work in practice as whenever there was a heinous crime there might always be pressure for the DP regardless of how watertight the evidence was. Then you're back at square one.
I can see your point on a) and b) if it were possible to implement it the way you suggest - and I don't think it is. But I'm surprised that you think one has to argue for far too many wrong convictions, when I think it's only necessary to have the possibility of one to make the policy a dreadful idea. I don't see any benefits to the policy so if one person was wrongly convicted and killed, this is completely unacceptable even in the coldest most pragmatic sense.
Unless you think that placating people who say "I wish he was hung drawn and quartered" is a worthwhile benefit, of course. But I think these people should grow up.
> Currently cases are decided on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt" - whilst not quite "certain" it is substantially more than "balance of probabilities".
> If your concern is that there are far too many wrongful convictions - thus the death penalty would be applied far too liberally I would disagree.
The point about wrongful convictions is that with DP, a single one is unacceptable, not that there are hundreds and we would be killing innocent people left right and centre.
> I think a system is entirely feasible where for heinous offences with cast-iron evidence of guilt then there would be an opportunity to press for a charge with the possibility of a death sentence on conviction.
I am a bit convinced by this actually, but I don't think it would work in practice as whenever there was a heinous crime there might always be pressure for the DP regardless of how watertight the evidence was. Then you're back at square one.
> Whether this is the way we want our justice system to go is another matter entirely, but to suggest that it wouldn't work because - a)its too expensive b)we would have to adopt an American system of eternal appeals, c)we wrongly convict far too many people, don't seem particularly strong arguments against it.
I can see your point on a) and b) if it were possible to implement it the way you suggest - and I don't think it is. But I'm surprised that you think one has to argue for far too many wrong convictions, when I think it's only necessary to have the possibility of one to make the policy a dreadful idea. I don't see any benefits to the policy so if one person was wrongly convicted and killed, this is completely unacceptable even in the coldest most pragmatic sense.
Unless you think that placating people who say "I wish he was hung drawn and quartered" is a worthwhile benefit, of course. But I think these people should grow up.
In reply to Jonny2vests:
I really love it when this alleged "rebuttal" is used. Personally I, like most thinking people, wouldn't trust the Yanks to sit the right way on the toilet, let alone organise a justice system. So why you hold them up as an example, thinking we'll all say; "Oooh yes, if those organised, intelligent and philosophically sound people The Americans tend to get it wrong, we shouldn't even bother trying it ourselves."
> Yeah, cos it really works well in the states.
I really love it when this alleged "rebuttal" is used. Personally I, like most thinking people, wouldn't trust the Yanks to sit the right way on the toilet, let alone organise a justice system. So why you hold them up as an example, thinking we'll all say; "Oooh yes, if those organised, intelligent and philosophically sound people The Americans tend to get it wrong, we shouldn't even bother trying it ourselves."
Post edited at 23:08
In reply to mwr72:
My father was a forensic psychiatrist for over 20 years. During his career he dealt with many paedophiles as well as rapists and murderers, Ian Brady was a patient of his. I know for a fact that he would never sanction the release of someone like Watkins. He was of the opinion that they are incurable. Latterly in his career he sat on mental health tribunals and he never recommended the release of a paedophile, in the rare occasion where he was over ruled by other members of the tribunal the person reoffended after his release.
Regarding the death penalty I am totally against it as was my father.
My father was a forensic psychiatrist for over 20 years. During his career he dealt with many paedophiles as well as rapists and murderers, Ian Brady was a patient of his. I know for a fact that he would never sanction the release of someone like Watkins. He was of the opinion that they are incurable. Latterly in his career he sat on mental health tribunals and he never recommended the release of a paedophile, in the rare occasion where he was over ruled by other members of the tribunal the person reoffended after his release.
Regarding the death penalty I am totally against it as was my father.
In reply to icnoble:
Ah, a sensible post!
The reputation the Police have for fabrication and having been on Jury service two times (your average Juror really doesn't give a monkeys. I remember is, 'What sandwhiches are we getting and how soon can we get out of here?!), death penalties etc are fraut (?) with danger.
As for the OP, I've got some rope, a rack and numerous butchering tools; take it away pal.
You'd run a frigging mile!!!
Ah, a sensible post!
The reputation the Police have for fabrication and having been on Jury service two times (your average Juror really doesn't give a monkeys. I remember is, 'What sandwhiches are we getting and how soon can we get out of here?!), death penalties etc are fraut (?) with danger.
As for the OP, I've got some rope, a rack and numerous butchering tools; take it away pal.
You'd run a frigging mile!!!
In reply to mwr72:
The Stefan Ivan Kiszko was a terrible case of miscarriage of justice, it the police had released crucial evidence to his defence he would never have been convicted. He served 16 years in prison and his mental deteriorated hugely. He died 1 year after his release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
The Stefan Ivan Kiszko was a terrible case of miscarriage of justice, it the police had released crucial evidence to his defence he would never have been convicted. He served 16 years in prison and his mental deteriorated hugely. He died 1 year after his release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
In reply to Jonny2vests:
Where did I say it was "a model of fairness and justice"? Though Japan seems to have made a fair fist of it, maybe we could learn from them?
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> Ok, name some other country where it's a model of fairness and justice.
>
> Ok, name some other country where it's a model of fairness and justice.
Where did I say it was "a model of fairness and justice"? Though Japan seems to have made a fair fist of it, maybe we could learn from them?
In reply to stroppygob:
I didn't say you did.
> Where did I say it was "a model of fairness and justice"? Though Japan seems to have made a fair fist of it, maybe we could learn from them?
I didn't say you did.
In reply to stroppygob:
Definitely NOT.
There's a high number of complaints about police incompetence in Japan, regularly televised. The whole justice system is typically non-transparent as are many other organisations in Japan.
European justice system seems pretty decent in comparison.
> Though Japan seems to have made a fair fist of it, maybe we could learn from them?
Definitely NOT.
There's a high number of complaints about police incompetence in Japan, regularly televised. The whole justice system is typically non-transparent as are many other organisations in Japan.
European justice system seems pretty decent in comparison.
In reply to icnoble:
I agree with you. Paedophilia like this is not generally curable, but many of those with lesser crimes in this category do get let out of prison. I guess the question is whether an individual can alter their thoughts sufficient to control their behaviour. I don't see, nor want Watkins to ever be released! Unless the experts like your father do think they've affected a real change in the individual. What about Myra Hindley? Supposedly a reformed character unlike Brady.
I agree with you. Paedophilia like this is not generally curable, but many of those with lesser crimes in this category do get let out of prison. I guess the question is whether an individual can alter their thoughts sufficient to control their behaviour. I don't see, nor want Watkins to ever be released! Unless the experts like your father do think they've affected a real change in the individual. What about Myra Hindley? Supposedly a reformed character unlike Brady.
In reply to Jimbo W: I'd be quite relaxed about Myra Hindley being released, she's probably not much of a threat now.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No shit. ..the point was, she wasn't allowed out despite her being reformed. As usual with your bile. Where do you get off?
No shit. ..the point was, she wasn't allowed out despite her being reformed. As usual with your bile. Where do you get off?
In reply to off-duty:
And who sees the prosecution evidence *and* the defense evidence pre-trial... nobody, you get at best a one sided view.
You appear to be effectively saying some people are so self evidently guilty that a trial is pointless?
That I think is a very dangerous attitude irrespective of the evidence you have or think you have against them.
Incidentally I see Adebolajo and Adebowale were found not guilty of the attempted murder of a Police officer. Slam dunk?
jk
> In certain cases there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. I would suggest that recording yourself arranging and then raping one baby is one of those. Similarly trying to hack someone's head off whilst explaining what you are doing to camera.
And who sees the prosecution evidence *and* the defense evidence pre-trial... nobody, you get at best a one sided view.
You appear to be effectively saying some people are so self evidently guilty that a trial is pointless?
> ...such slam dunks that there is zero chance of wrongful conviction - known before start of trial.
That I think is a very dangerous attitude irrespective of the evidence you have or think you have against them.
Incidentally I see Adebolajo and Adebowale were found not guilty of the attempted murder of a Police officer. Slam dunk?
jk
In reply to icnoble:
This is the point many people seem to misunderstand, he is not insane, or ill from a medical or psychiatric perspective. He has a personality disorder (one assumes) ASPD, psychopathy etc etc the complete lack of empathy, natural talent to manipulate and false charm cannot be cured as that is his personality, as with so may serial killers and paedophiles- they are not insane. Although psychopaths are kept in Broadmoor indefinitely now (thankfully).
I believe 1 in 100 people rate highly on the psychopath scale and 1 per cent of them will act to hurt others, or something like that. Sorry if this point has been made, I've not read the entire thread.
> He was of the opinion that they are incurable.
This is the point many people seem to misunderstand, he is not insane, or ill from a medical or psychiatric perspective. He has a personality disorder (one assumes) ASPD, psychopathy etc etc the complete lack of empathy, natural talent to manipulate and false charm cannot be cured as that is his personality, as with so may serial killers and paedophiles- they are not insane. Although psychopaths are kept in Broadmoor indefinitely now (thankfully).
I believe 1 in 100 people rate highly on the psychopath scale and 1 per cent of them will act to hurt others, or something like that. Sorry if this point has been made, I've not read the entire thread.
In reply to jkarran:
That's not quite how I read it. However, some people are, but a trial will still occur if they do not plead guilty, it is just very short lived. He was on camera committing the crime! What more evidence does a jury need? How long did they retire for to consider their verdict?
> You appear to be effectively saying some people are so self evidently guilty that a trial is pointless?
That's not quite how I read it. However, some people are, but a trial will still occur if they do not plead guilty, it is just very short lived. He was on camera committing the crime! What more evidence does a jury need? How long did they retire for to consider their verdict?
In reply to stroppygob:
Why not? Are they somehow intellectually or culturally inferior? Most thinking people think.
jk
> I really love it when this alleged "rebuttal" is used. Personally I, like most thinking people, wouldn't trust the Yanks to sit the right way on the toilet
Why not? Are they somehow intellectually or culturally inferior? Most thinking people think.
jk
In reply to Lukeva:
Where's the distinction between psychiatric disorders and personality disorders.. ..and why isn't it anything but artificial? People with personality disorders can have very distressing lives, dependent upon the disorder. Furthermore, they can be associated with real measurable organic changes such as to neuroanatomy e.g. gross neuroanatomical difference in those with psychopathy opening the door to questions of chicken or egg, but many of which are also present in recognised and well described psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, there are genetic and environmental factors that are being increasingly securely associated with various personality disorders as they are with psychiatric disorders. So to me the distinction between personality and psychiatric disorders seems to me to be pretty artificial, and probably mostly historically derived, and socially convenient (but ever decreasingly so).
> This is the point many people seem to misunderstand, he is not insane, or ill from a medical or psychiatric perspective. He has a personality disorder (one assumes) ASPD, psychopathy etc etc the complete lack of empathy, natural talent to manipulate and false charm cannot be cured as that is his personality, as with so may serial killers and paedophiles- they are not insane. Although psychopaths are kept in Broadmoor indefinitely now (thankfully).
Where's the distinction between psychiatric disorders and personality disorders.. ..and why isn't it anything but artificial? People with personality disorders can have very distressing lives, dependent upon the disorder. Furthermore, they can be associated with real measurable organic changes such as to neuroanatomy e.g. gross neuroanatomical difference in those with psychopathy opening the door to questions of chicken or egg, but many of which are also present in recognised and well described psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, there are genetic and environmental factors that are being increasingly securely associated with various personality disorders as they are with psychiatric disorders. So to me the distinction between personality and psychiatric disorders seems to me to be pretty artificial, and probably mostly historically derived, and socially convenient (but ever decreasingly so).
In reply to Lukeva:
Erm, isn't that basically the system we have now? Or are you suggesting that in cases where the prosecution evidence is apparently strong the defense should not be allowed to present in the interests of saving court time?
Not long but at least they'd heard the defense evidence rather than simply accepting the prosecution's assertion it's a 'slam dunk' and convicting. As I pointed out, they acquitted on another charge in the same time-frame.
jk
> That's not quite how I read it. However, some people are, but a trial will still occur if they do not plead guilty, it is just very short lived. He was on camera committing the crime! What more evidence does a jury need?
Erm, isn't that basically the system we have now? Or are you suggesting that in cases where the prosecution evidence is apparently strong the defense should not be allowed to present in the interests of saving court time?
> How long did they retire for to consider their verdict?
Not long but at least they'd heard the defense evidence rather than simply accepting the prosecution's assertion it's a 'slam dunk' and convicting. As I pointed out, they acquitted on another charge in the same time-frame.
jk
In reply to daniel_c_baron:
Ive just read a few excerpts from this and I can say that for someone with a reasonable constitution, this has turned my stomach. As a father of young girls, I feel nothing but utter revulsion.
If the evidence is unchallengeable, and I feel slightly awkward proclaiming this, I would be most happy seeing this person put to death. I can understand perfectly, why relatives and friends of these children would want to see him tortured.
Please do not read those judge notes if you dont want your afternoon spolied. i wish i hadnt read it now and I want to forget it as quickly as possible
> Judges report here, WARNING CONTAINS DISTURBING DETAILS!!!!!
> I can't even begin to understand what would compel them to commit such horrific acts
Ive just read a few excerpts from this and I can say that for someone with a reasonable constitution, this has turned my stomach. As a father of young girls, I feel nothing but utter revulsion.
If the evidence is unchallengeable, and I feel slightly awkward proclaiming this, I would be most happy seeing this person put to death. I can understand perfectly, why relatives and friends of these children would want to see him tortured.
Please do not read those judge notes if you dont want your afternoon spolied. i wish i hadnt read it now and I want to forget it as quickly as possible
In reply to the thread:
Quite interesting for a website that often rings with the phrase 'the thin end of the wedge', that some of us would like the public to give our government permission to kill those of us it deems deserving. I would rather NOT let that particular cat out of the bag.
Quite interesting for a website that often rings with the phrase 'the thin end of the wedge', that some of us would like the public to give our government permission to kill those of us it deems deserving. I would rather NOT let that particular cat out of the bag.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle: You mean permission to kill more of us, we've already given the government permission to kill some people.
In reply to stroppygob:
So how do you respond to Jon Stewarts point about costs? And douwe's point about flaws in the Japanese system.
So how do you respond to Jon Stewarts point about costs? And douwe's point about flaws in the Japanese system.
In reply to douwe:
Ok, so when someone doesn't do something right, we shouldn't learn from that. Gotcha. Sorted.
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> [...]
>
> Definitely NOT.
> There's a high number of complaints about police incompetence in Japan, regularly televised. The whole justice system is typically non-transparent as are many other organisations in Japan.
>
> [...]
>
> Definitely NOT.
> There's a high number of complaints about police incompetence in Japan, regularly televised. The whole justice system is typically non-transparent as are many other organisations in Japan.
Ok, so when someone doesn't do something right, we shouldn't learn from that. Gotcha. Sorted.
In reply to daniel_c_baron:
Having read this I wonder what is the dividing line between evil and mental illness, I just cannot believe a sane person could carry out these acts. I cannot accept there will be any rehabilitation. I cannot understand why the Mothers have got lesser sentences. I tend not read newspapers or watch news much so though I was vaguely aware of the case, I did not know much about it. What can you do with creatures like this? The poor children, tragic.
> Judges report here, WARNING CONTAINS DISTURBING DETAILS!!!!!
>
Having read this I wonder what is the dividing line between evil and mental illness, I just cannot believe a sane person could carry out these acts. I cannot accept there will be any rehabilitation. I cannot understand why the Mothers have got lesser sentences. I tend not read newspapers or watch news much so though I was vaguely aware of the case, I did not know much about it. What can you do with creatures like this? The poor children, tragic.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Having read that link I presume you would say that 'those persons' should be put to death? Its a little unclear about what Watkins actually did but pretty clear about what the motheres agreed to.
A triple execution?
Having read that link I presume you would say that 'those persons' should be put to death? Its a little unclear about what Watkins actually did but pretty clear about what the motheres agreed to.
A triple execution?
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
So you kill all three and the poor abused child grows up in care wondering what happened to his mother and this early abuse severely alters the course of his life and when he finds out the truth, well you can work out the rest....
So you may as well make a mercy killing! :_(
So you kill all three and the poor abused child grows up in care wondering what happened to his mother and this early abuse severely alters the course of his life and when he finds out the truth, well you can work out the rest....
So you may as well make a mercy killing! :_(
In reply to johnj:
OK, John, better call the grid as there will be a fair bit of electricity being used shortly.
(have you got the sarcasm yet, and not the witty, funny, Bill Murray type)
This is a tragic tale containing the worst possible kind of human behaviour. I'm not a fan of the death penalty for reasons outlined above by many contributors but in some circumstances I also dont see the point in keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive, especially where there is no doubt about the guilt - Brady or Huntley for instance.
I'm not religious so I dont have a perverted view on the unconditional sanctity for human life - this is for a different thread. I also, rightly or wrongly, have an economic view on these matters so I dont see the point in paying indefinitely to keep people alive when, in my opinion, the crimes committed are so severe - as in this case - that parole should never be granted.
Its a complex situation and even more complex to comprehend my own view on all this, especially when I read the judges comments.
OK, John, better call the grid as there will be a fair bit of electricity being used shortly.
(have you got the sarcasm yet, and not the witty, funny, Bill Murray type)
This is a tragic tale containing the worst possible kind of human behaviour. I'm not a fan of the death penalty for reasons outlined above by many contributors but in some circumstances I also dont see the point in keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive, especially where there is no doubt about the guilt - Brady or Huntley for instance.
I'm not religious so I dont have a perverted view on the unconditional sanctity for human life - this is for a different thread. I also, rightly or wrongly, have an economic view on these matters so I dont see the point in paying indefinitely to keep people alive when, in my opinion, the crimes committed are so severe - as in this case - that parole should never be granted.
Its a complex situation and even more complex to comprehend my own view on all this, especially when I read the judges comments.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Yeah I know how it sounds it's f*cked up beyond all possible recognition and folk just rant on about killing people with no real thoughts of the implications, and I didn't post that comment lightly, but that's the way it is, if like me you've ever had a serious relationship with someone who's suffered from the hands of a paedophile as a minor, you'd maybe understand that suicide attempts is something you learn to live with.
Yeah I know how it sounds it's f*cked up beyond all possible recognition and folk just rant on about killing people with no real thoughts of the implications, and I didn't post that comment lightly, but that's the way it is, if like me you've ever had a serious relationship with someone who's suffered from the hands of a paedophile as a minor, you'd maybe understand that suicide attempts is something you learn to live with.
Post edited at 08:31
In reply to stroppygob:
Hm ok, so when you say "Where did I say it was "a model of fairness and justice"? Though Japan seems to have made a fair fist of it, maybe we could learn from them?" You actually mean to imply that the Japanese justice system is messed up and we should take a good look at that to learn how not to do it? Gotcha. Sorted.
Hm ok, so when you say "Where did I say it was "a model of fairness and justice"? Though Japan seems to have made a fair fist of it, maybe we could learn from them?" You actually mean to imply that the Japanese justice system is messed up and we should take a good look at that to learn how not to do it? Gotcha. Sorted.
Post edited at 09:19
In reply to douwe:
No, as any English reader will tell you; when someone says "to make a fair fist" means, they have had a good go at it, (hence the word "fair",) not that they have got it perfect.
If someone has made a good try at something, we can learn from what they have got right, and what they have got wrong.
To dismiss their efforts out of hand, as you did, is not very productive, educational, moral, or intelligent.
> (In reply to stroppygob) Hm ok, so when you say "Where did I say it was "a model of fairness and justice"? Though Japan seems to have made a fair fist of it, maybe we could learn from them?" You actually mean to imply that the Japanese justice system is messed up and we should take a good look at that to learn how not to do it? Gotcha. Sorted.
No, as any English reader will tell you; when someone says "to make a fair fist" means, they have had a good go at it, (hence the word "fair",) not that they have got it perfect.
If someone has made a good try at something, we can learn from what they have got right, and what they have got wrong.
To dismiss their efforts out of hand, as you did, is not very productive, educational, moral, or intelligent.
In reply to stroppygob:
Been living in Japan and it has occurred to me that regarding police and justice matters the system in Europe seems quite decent and transparent in comparison to the Japanese.
Maybe you are very knowledgeable about the Japanese justice system and can enlighten us in a very productive, educational, moral and intelligent way about it's musings. I would love to hear it.
By the way, I don't think this discussion is very relevant to the question/statement the O.P. posted.
> If someone has made a good try at something, we can learn from what they have got right, and what they have got wrong.
> To dismiss their efforts out of hand, as you did, is not very productive, educational, moral, or intelligent.
Been living in Japan and it has occurred to me that regarding police and justice matters the system in Europe seems quite decent and transparent in comparison to the Japanese.
Maybe you are very knowledgeable about the Japanese justice system and can enlighten us in a very productive, educational, moral and intelligent way about it's musings. I would love to hear it.
By the way, I don't think this discussion is very relevant to the question/statement the O.P. posted.
In reply to douwe:
How do you quantify that?
Not particularly, I would not and have not made that claim.
I gave my views on the OP, I was questioned further, I answered.
> (In reply to stroppygob)
> Been living in Japan and it has occurred to me that regarding police and justice matters the system in Europe seems quite decent and transparent in comparison to the Japanese.
> Been living in Japan and it has occurred to me that regarding police and justice matters the system in Europe seems quite decent and transparent in comparison to the Japanese.
How do you quantify that?
> Maybe you are very knowledgeable about the Japanese justice system and can enlighten us in a very productive, educational, moral and intelligent way about it's musings. I would love to hear it.
Not particularly, I would not and have not made that claim.
> By the way, I don't think this discussion is very relevant to the question/statement the O.P. posted.
I gave my views on the OP, I was questioned further, I answered.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...