Bleeding heart liberals

[marty]

who insisted on the NZ Bill of Rights *win* again:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9004595

it's a shame victims are not afforded the same level of protection and rights.

[Blakamin]

what a farqin joke!!! :bash: :angry2: :angry2:

[wari]

I"m nott goin'a readitt ..

Itt'll make me madd :mad: ... I mean crazy :crazy: ... I mean angry ... :angry2:

:sunny: :doobey: :spudwave:

[Drunken Monkey]

I would blame this on the bureaucracy and incompetence of our courts system rather than the B.o.R. They should have given the case the priority it deserved, or brought someone in from another district to handle the overload.
There isn't anything wrong with expecting 'undue delay', regardless of your crime.

[spudchucka]

John Rowan QC can feel very proud of himself for this great achievment. What a fucken oxygen thief!

I remember seeing an interview of a retiring Judge a few years ago, can't recall his name but he sat on the Lundy murder trial.

Anyway as he's being interviewed he is cleaning out his office, he takes a volume from his bookcase, looks at it and then says, "The New Zealand Bill of Right Act 1990, thats been nothing but trouble since it was passed". He then unceremoniously dumps it into the rubbish bin, where it belongs.

[avgas]

heh makes me relise how pathetic it all is, not only are our punishments too damn light, sometimes we dont have time to even give them.
To any cops out there that come accross this, accidentally have an accident - and miraculoulsly survive :whistle: while not letting the accused

[toads]

gotta agree with everyone on this, it's gotta stop, we have to start telling it like it is and make sure crooks get what's coming to them. Castration is a pretty final way of dealing with paedophilier imho

[sels1]

We hear how the Govt has lots of $ in the bank why the hell cant they resource the courts properly so this sort of thing doesnt happen. The police work hard to bring offenders to justice and it must be incredibly frustrating for them when this sort of thing goes on. And the victims and their families.....its just awful.

And every alleged offender (yes - they are innocent until proven guilty remember) has a right to a fair trail - in a fair amount of time.

We have a pretty good legal system in this country (compared to some others) but those holding the Treasury benches need to make sure it is properly funded. (along with health,education etc of course)

I note the offender in this case had an intellectual disability but (if found guilty) killing or mutalating him (as someone suggested) is hardly a civilised way to treat a sick NZer

[MikeL]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument. A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether. Is that what you lot want?
We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirely, just stop and imagine yourself in the dock on a trumped-up charge, or detained indefinitely without trial, or given summary "justice" out the back of the police station...
And by the way, it was "bleeding-heart liberals" of the day who ended slavery, child labour and other injustices...

But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...

[MSTRS]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument. A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether. Is that what you lot want?
We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirely, just stop and imagine yourself in the dock on a trumped-up charge, or detained indefinitely without trial, or given summary "justice" out the back of the police station...
And by the way, it was "bleeding-heart liberals" of the day who ended slavery, child labour and other injustices...

But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...

You're one of Them, aren't you ?? 'Undue delay" is a complete crock of shit - it doesn't mean the crime never happened, so where's the redress for the victim. Technicalities are all very well, but in the case of a serious crime, they don't serve the need for justice. I lost my plantation & workhouse to these unjust new liberal laws. There were no technicalities for me :angry2:

[Jamezo]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument. A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether. Is that what you lot want?
We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirely, just stop and imagine yourself in the dock on a trumped-up charge, or detained indefinitely without trial, or given summary "justice" out the back of the police station...
And by the way, it was "bleeding-heart liberals" of the day who ended slavery, child labour and other injustices...

But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...

word.

I think the one thing that we can all agree on, is that our justice system needs to be better funded to prevent future tragedies like this.

[toads]

I note the offender in this case had an intellectual disability but (if found guilty) killing or mutalating him (as someone suggested) is hardly a civilised way to treat a sick NZer

there is no way to "treat" a sick Nzer or any other person guilty of such a crime, intellectual disability or otherwise, paedophiles have the lowest reform rate of all criminals, one with an intellectual disability even lower, if we can't be decisive about such matters in this area, then we are never going to have a bottom line about what sort of sentencing is appropriate, I think we all agree paedophiles are not the sort of person we want in our society and that is unfortunate for those who are paedophiles you could say.
Bringing back the death penalty for recidivist offenders in most catergories of criminal behaviour would help immeasurably too imho.
We can't complain about wishy washy sentencing if we have endless amounts of sympathy for the perpertrators of crime, and that means being prepared to make harsh and absolute judgments and stand by them rightly or wrongly, no doubt Arthur Allan Thomas and people like him who have been falsely imprisoned for crime they have not committed have swayed public opinion against harsh sentencing, but any recidivist offender should be immediately given the harshest sentence appropriate for their crime, don't you think!

[moko]

Many different sides to this one,while agreeing with the basis of what MikeL says it must be galling for the parents of that girl to see relatively minor cases in court on a regular basis while something so serious that a danger to society has admitted apparently not even getting that far.Probably far-fetched but it seems to me that the Father seems to know the piece of slime responsible,know what you mean about proof Mike but the guy`s admitted guilt in this case surely let alone any other evidence?O.k. so he does the guy up then contacts the media telling them what he`s done and why,he then calls the Police and gives himself up admitting assault.They`ve got to arrest him,media have a field day.Govt on the rack and just maybe things will change,can you imagine the shit flying when he has his day in court?O.k. so maybe that`s simplistic but it takes such action to get things done sometimes and the media is a very powerful weapon.

[Ms Piggy]

Bringing back the death penalty for recidivist offenders in most catergories of criminal behaviour would help immeasurably too imho.

Why will killing the perpetrator of a violent crimes stop others committing the same or a similar crime? Do you think a criminal thinks of the consequences of what may heppen to him if he kills/rapes/commits a violent act on another person? I don't believe so.

I have to disagree with ya on this one Lucy.

Now onto the other 1300 posts...

[MSTRS]

Why will killing the perpetrator of a violent crimes stop others committing the same or a similar crime? Do you think a criminal thinks of the consequences of what may heppen to him if he kills/rapes/commits a violent act on another person? I don't believe so.

.
Then why bother weeding your garden?? I'm sorry, but it's as obvious as bald tyres - you'll never stop the rapes/murders etc, but a rope is guarantee that at least some of them won't be breeding. :no:

[sels1]

Bringing back the death penalty for recidivist offenders in most catergories of criminal behaviour would help immeasurably

When in the last 2000 years has the death penalty proven a cure for serious crime? Do they still have rapes and murders in the states that have the death penalty? Yes they do! so does the death penalty work? NO IT DOESNT!
Never has - never will.How much bloody proof do you need?

Death penalty is state sanctioned killing - how can you have a peaceful society when the Govt sets this example?

Do you really think your advocating violence helps create a more enlightened society for your children to grow up in?

Most civilised European countries haved moved away from capital punishment. We need to look at countries with low rates of viloent crime and see what they are do right, rather than following the wild west lynch mob attitude - its called evolution

[MSTRS]

Most civilised European countries haved moved away from capital punishment. We need to look at countries with low rates of viloent crime and see what they are do right, rather than following the wild west lynch mob attitude - its called evolution
They have had longer to weed out the Neanderthals, so can be more gentlemanly about such things. We, on the other hand, are out there at the Frontier.....

[spudchucka]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument.WTF are you doing on an internet forum then? You must be constantly perturbed.


A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
Are we condemning the Act or condemning the injustices done in its name?


And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
You must be calling pretty much everyone here, (yourself included I'll assume) a hypocrite by that analogy.


Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Propbably not, whats the point. What was this case by the way, can you post details.


Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether.Would you mind posting a link to that thread, because I don't recall making a comment like that, or are you just paraphrasing to suit yourself?


We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirelyDispensed with entirely - No. Ammended with some common sense added - Yes.


But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...Lets try and apply this pearl of wisdom to ALL threads and we'll all get on fine.

[spudchucka]

Many different sides to this one,while agreeing with the basis of what MikeL says it must be galling for the parents of that girl to see relatively minor cases in court on a regular basis while something so serious that a danger to society has admitted apparently not even getting that far.
And lets all think about the injustice of this situation next time some wanker says "lets defend all our speeding tickets etc to clog up the court system, that'll stop the cops from dishing out so many tickets.

It won't!

All it will do is help facilitate further injustices like this one.

[spudchucka]

Why will killing the perpetrator of a violent crimes stop others committing the same or a similar crime? Do you think a criminal thinks of the consequences of what may heppen to him if he kills/rapes/commits a violent act on another person? I don't believe so.

I have to disagree with ya on this one Lucy.

Now onto the other 1300 posts...
1: Harsh penalties may be a deterant to others with enough of a brain to think about the consequences of their actions before they commit a crime.

2: Extermination of a proven violent offender means that that particular person can't offend against another innocent person.

BTW I'm not an overt supporter of the death penalty but these are obvious benefits to society that would support the death penalty.

[MSTRS]

There was strong support in another thread for individuals using deadly force to defend self & property. There wasn't too much support for criminals' rights. Why all the bleating about State-sanctioned murder :no:

[spudchucka]

There was strong support in another thread for individuals using deadly force to defend self & property. There wasn't too much support for criminals' rights. Why all the bleating about State-sanctioned murder :no:
Because people get off on contradicting each other for the sake of it.

[Ms Piggy]

1: Harsh penalties may be a deterant to others with enough of a brain to think about the consequences of their actions before they commit a crime.

2: Extermination of a proven violent offender means that that particular person can't offend against another innocent person.

BTW I'm not an overt supporter of the death penalty but these are obvious benefits to society that would support the death penalty.
Ok, great arguments but, I do believe that the good ole US of A has an terrible crime rate & the death penalty. So what does that say?

[spudchucka]

Ok, great arguments but, I do believe that the good ole US of A has an terrible crime rate & the death penalty. So what does that say?
I'm not disagreeing with you, the US of A is a special case all on its own however. The litigation that drags out the process contributes to the overall problem. Commit murder and get sentenced to death, you will probably die of natural cause on death row before making it to the chair.

Just watch the Scott Peterson case for an example ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/13/peterson.case/ ) he's jsut been sentenced to death for murdering his wife and unborn child. See how long it takes to execute him, I'm picking we'd have to revisit this topic in about 25 years.

If the process was made extremely quick, as in get sentenced and then executed at dawn the next morning, things may be different in the states. Other countries that have various forms of capital punishment don't have the problems that the US does. For instance look at various eastern countries where poverty is rife but violent crimes, (in particular against women) are extremely low.

I'm not actively trying to argue for or against the death penalty, however in some extreme cases I would have no problem with certain offenders being executed.

[MSTRS]

Because people get off on contradicting each other for the sake of it.
No they don't :Pokey:

[Stevo]

It really perturbs me to read all these knee-jerk reactions masquerading as opinions. Emotive terms like "bleeding heart liberals" are a substitute for rational argument. A blanket condemnation of the Bill of Rights without attempting to analyze where the blame lies for individual mistakes or injustices is intellectual laziness or political prejudice.
And there is a whiff of hypocrisy in such condemnations coming from people who in all likelihood have already used, or will use, every resource of the law, include "technicalities", to get off a traffic charge...
Incidentally, I note in the article that a police officer charged with careless driving benefitted from the same or a similar "loophole". Did he and his colleagues vehemently protest against this miscarriage of justice?
Some time ago Spud agreed with me when I suggested that, as the police were in the best position to know who was guilty and who was not, we dispense with the courts altogether. Is that what you lot want?
We know the judicial system can be improved, and it may well be that some of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are unsatisfactory - but if you think that this and other safeguards of our freedom can be dispensed with entirely, just stop and imagine yourself in the dock on a trumped-up charge, or detained indefinitely without trial, or given summary "justice" out the back of the police station...
And by the way, it was "bleeding-heart liberals" of the day who ended slavery, child labour and other injustices...

But hey! Why let rational thought get in the way of a good whinge...

Emotional??????? You ever gotten to know a rape victim by any chance. Regardless of this guy's mental state he's still a Ferkin PAEDOPHILE!!!!! Rapists and paedophiles should be shot so that
a) They cannot reoffend
b) My tax money can go to toward health or education, NOT feeding another criminal in jail

[Stevo]

Ok, great arguments but, I do believe that the good ole US of A has an terrible crime rate & the death penalty. So what does that say?

Umm. Some americans are not real clever eh?

[Blakamin]

I'm not actively trying to argue for or against the death penalty, however in some extreme cases I would have no problem with certain offenders being executed.
And any crime against kids is an extreme case to me.....

kill 'em all

[MikeL]

Emotional??????? You ever gotten to know a rape victim by any chance. Regardless of this guy's mental state he's still a Ferkin PAEDOPHILE!!!!! Rapists and paedophiles should be shot so that
a) They cannot reoffend
b) My tax money can go to toward health or education, NOT feeding another criminal in jail

If you bothered to read my comments carefully you would realize that I am arguing for due process of law and safeguard of certain rights, not against appropriate punishment for convicted criminals. The provisions which in some circumstances allow the guilty to go free are the very ones that protect your freedom from unjust punishment. The system is not perfect, we know that. I happen to believe that it is better for 9 guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man to hang. We are not discussing whether rapists and paedophiles should be shot. We are discussing whether, before they are shot, they are given a fair trial and full protection of the law until found guilty.

[toads]

When in the last 2000 years has the death penalty proven a cure for serious crime? Do they still have rapes and murders in the states that have the death penalty? Yes they do! so does the death penalty work? NO IT DOESNT!
Never has - never will.How much bloody proof do you need?

Death penalty is state sanctioned killing - how can you have a peaceful society when the Govt sets this example?

Do you really think your advocating violence helps create a more enlightened society for your children to grow up in?

Most civilised European countries haved moved away from capital punishment. We need to look at countries with low rates of viloent crime and see what they are do right, rather than following the wild west lynch mob attitude - its called evolution

go re read what I wrote, recidivist offenders, means those that re offend, doing the same crime, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt at least once!, and I can tell you that it is because I want my kids to have a decent life that I think this way, how many kids do you have?, and how many times have you been the victim of serious crime?

[sels1]

go re read what I wrote, recidivist offenders, means those that re offend, doing the same crime, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt at least once!,

There are civilised ways to deal with repeat offenders, preventitive detention for one


and I can tell you that it is because I want my kids to have a decent life that I think this way,

I think we all want a decent life for our kids- thats why I want to see less violence in society. Govt. and the Justice system has to lead by example, and not be involved in the violence itself.


how many kids do you have?,

3 grown up ones, quite a few nieces and nephews, and lots I have taught/coached or otherwise been involved with.


and how many times have you been the victim of serious crime?

Not much, but I've thought about it, and I dont think it would change my stance. So long as we have a decent properly resourced justice system,there is no need to kill anybody. Two wrongs have never made a right.
This is my last post on this thread - I will leave you with a couple of quotes to ponder.

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution"
Thomas Edison (Inventor of electric light etc)

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its weakest members are treated" Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)

[avgas]

we need batman

[moko]

And lets all think about the injustice of this situation next time some wanker says "lets defend all our speeding tickets etc to clog up the court system, that'll stop the cops from dishing out so many tickets.

It won't!

All it will do is help facilitate further injustices like this one.

Straying o/t here perhaps.I dont know what the situation is in N.Z. but you`re entitled to a copy of the picture from the camera as evidence,occaissionally there has been fraud(false plates or whatever,even computer balls-up)so it makes sense to do so.BUT if you go to court and argue the toss and are then found guilty the penalty is a lot higher so it`s really not worth the effort.There were loop-holes but they were pretty soon ironed out so most now just accept their fine or whatever.My biggest problem with cameras over here is that they seem to have replaced traffic police and trust me after the third jerk has jumped the lights,cut you up or blinded you with the one working headlight they`ve got in the average journey to work then you`d miss them as well.

[scumdog]

Ok, great arguments but, I do believe that the good ole US of A has an terrible crime rate & the death penalty. So what does that say?

Does anybody know what happens to murderers in Singapore (and other similar countries)? - I bet their 'stay' in prison is pretty short!

BTW Going by the logic in the above quote the reverse must be that there must almost be no punishment because there is not much murder in Singapore.

[toads]

[quote]There are civilised ways to deal with repeat offenders, preventitive detention for one[quote]

well this is ridiculous in the case of an intellectually disabled recidivist sex offender isn't it?, or any sex offender for that matter, 24/7 supervision for the entire life of the person, is probably more cruel than castration.
and with regard to the quotes mentioned well I don't think that either of the famous people who made those statements were referring to the worst of people ( serious criminals) when they made those statements, here's one for ya
"evil prevails when good men do NOTHING", can't remember who said that but bending over indefinately backwards to help people who, for whatever sick reason destroy the lives of others is not the direction our country or any other country should be heading. Help should be directed to the victims of crime, who are far more needy and deserving of resources than the perpertrators of the crime.

[matthewt]

Does anybody know what happens to murderers in Singapore (and other similar countries)? - I bet their 'stay' in prison is pretty short!

BTW Going by the logic in the above quote the reverse must be that there must almost be no punishment because there is not much murder in Singapore.

Last guy that was executed when I was there (93-96) was a drug smuggler on his way to Europe, thought that because he was only going to be in Singapore in "transit" that he'd be OK. Once convicted (no jury in Sg) he was hung 2 weeks later.

Crime stats in Sg don't really compare to anywhere else in the world largly because of :
a) the population density - Imagine all of NZ crammed into an area the size of Lake Taupo. I'm not an expert but I think this makes a whole lot of things logistically harder to do.
b) you can't trust the Sg government to post the real figures anyway.

Sg is really a benevolent dictatorship. Although you have to give them credit, if they say they'll do something, they do it.

Cool thing is that gun control is very simple in Sg, only the cops are allowed them. No exceptions.

[F5 Dave]

we need batman

Nah he was a leftie pinko & kept preaching that criminals could be reformed yet there they were re-offending every week, same Bat time, same Bat channel.

Hey maybe the death penalty is too harsh, but I don’t see why we can’t have tiered prisons & the repeat offenders & those likely to re-offend are put in a small cell & left there with regular feeds of nutritious brussel sprouts, their own tv, toilet & shower. If they break anything -too bad.

Surely this could be done cheaply. These guys would only be drawing the dole & ruining people’s lives & costing taxpayer’s dollars in police time & court costs. Problem is it is all on someone else’s budget.

I can’t get with the argument that longer sentences don’t work. I mean is their argument that the people on the outside commit more crimes to keep the averages up while the criminals are detained?

The thing is once you really F’up someone’s rights, destroying or taking their life then you deserve to progressively lose your own.

I think any Judge, Lawyer, social or medical worker who is responsible for letting these guys out should have to have them stay at their place for a couple of weeks, then we’ll see how carefully they screen these guys.

[Ms Piggy]

I dunno how many of you have heard of a woman called Celia Lashlie. She has some pretty radical ideas about the prison system and offenders. Basically she believes that we (the community) are all partly responsible for criminals and their behaviour. I can see some of you leaping up and down from here! She has a book which I posted previously under the "Read a good book lately?" Reading her book made me do a lot of rethinking about my attitudes - I still get angry & repulsed by rapists & violent criminals but, IMO violence isn't the answer.


Just thought I'd revive this thread b/c I've just about finished reading a really good book.

It's by Celia Lashlie, she was the 1st woman prison officer in N.Z and caused a huge stir back in 2001 when she made a comment a little blonde haired, blue eyed boy who she knew would end up in prison.

Her book is called The jouney to Prison, who goes and why.

The reason I liked it was b/c it was practical and real, this woman is not some flowery bleeding heart liberal, she has written to book from her own experiences of the prison system and observations she has made. She also challenges us as a community that we're responsible as well.

It's an easy read as well.

[Deano]

Im a big hypocrite so I would just kill any paedophiles/rapists who tried to mess with my kids, then use the old temporary insanity clause to get off.

If evolution still applied to humans this would be seen as natural selection - weeding out the weak and depraved, and thus improving the gene pool.

[F5 Dave]

There there, Deano, insanity must be a terrible burden on you. Can we get you some compensation to rub on that? :msn-wink:

[Ms Piggy]

Im a big hypocrite so I would just kill any paedophiles/rapists who tried to mess with my kids, then use the old temporary insanity clause to get off.

If evolution still applied to humans this would be seen as natural selection - weeding out the weak and depraved, and thus improving the gene pool.
Yes well of course I freely admit I have never been a victim of crime so, all this talk may be nothing more than hot air.

The only problem with natural selection though is, it may weed out the weak but not necessarily the depraved.

[Indiana_Jones]

Time for the people to storm the Kremlin (AKA the beehive) in Helengrad (AKA Wellington) :pinch:

-Indy

[Deano]

There there, Deano, insanity must be a terrible burden on you. Can we get you some compensation to rub on that? :msn-wink:

Sorry about boxing day - I came down with a temporary case of :mobile: soon after you came over for a chat. Then you disappeared....

[Deano]

The only problem with natural selection though is, it may weed out the weak but not necessarily the depraved.

I consider all peter files and rapists depraved.

[MSTRS]

The thing is once you really F’up someone’s rights, destroying or taking their life then you deserve to progressively lose your own.

I think any Judge, Lawyer, social or medical worker who is responsible for letting these guys out should have to have them stay at their place for a couple of weeks, then we’ll see how carefully they screen these guys.
Abso-fucking-lutely!! Pointy thing pressured on noggin there. THe other side of that coin is to jail the do-gooder that signed the release papers of a reoffending crim

[Jamezo]

now, I love a good killin' as much as the next guy, and pedophiles are right at the top of the list.

the problem is, it is nigh on impossible to apply the death penalty in a way that is less expensive than coddling them in prison for life, without having a ridiculously high number of 'false positives' (it makes me shudder to even type that)

the US death penalty is incredibly expensive to the country, results in the tragic numbers of said 'false positives', and serves little useful purpose to the community.

those on death row waste huge amounts of money making frivulous appeals, and not unfrequently get away on idiotic technicalities, while those without the cash get railroaded through the sytem and sent to an early and too frequently unjustified grave.

the only objective of the US death penalty is to appease those who feel SOMEBODY has to PAY!!!, while ignoring that it has a large net detrimental effect on society.

like CSL, I feel that crime is a social problem first, and a individual problem second. punishing individuals demonstratably does not lead to lowering total crime, and the social cost is high.

however, I believe this largely applies only to crimes of 'necessity' (shuddering from the conservatives...:P), thefts, carjackings etc; not the tradgedies that usually result in death sentences (murder, rape, etc) and I am in favour of death for recidivist perpetrators of these offences, if they are proved beyond doubt (2 strikes and you are out, matey. side note: california 3-strikes laws, that's just wrong. steal 3 loaves of bread and they put you away for life. no parole. yeah...), purely for reasons of economic expediency. locking them away would cost us money that could be running hospitals or what have you. no fancy lethal injections, just a cheap 9mm round to the back of the head.

[sels1]

There are civilised ways to deal with repeat offenders, preventitive detention for onewell this is ridiculous in the case of an intellectually disabled recidivist sex offender isn't it?, or any sex offender for that matter, 24/7 supervision for the entire life of the person, is probably more cruel than castration


How can it be ridiculous - are you saying scrap all mental hospitals? there are many institutions here and overseas that have patients who will live out their lives inside. Killing them is not a new idea - Hitler's Nazis practiced it.

Interestingly many people are calling for life sentences to mean life





and with regard to the quotes mentioned well I don't think that either of the famous people who made those statements were referring to the worst of people ( serious criminals) when they made those statements,


Sorry - the fact is Gandi was a strict follower of the principle of Ahimsa = Non- Violence- he wouldnt even kill (or eat) animals let alone humans. He wrote books on the subject - they are worth reading
Edison the same. The next line of that quote is "Until we stop harming ALL other living beings, we are still savages"



here's one for ya
"evil prevails when good men do NOTHING", can't remember who said that


The phrase is attributed to English philosopher Edmund Burke
(is that why I'm back in this bloody thread??? :laugh: )


but bending over indefinately backwards to help people who, for whatever sick reason destroy the lives of others is not the direction our country or any other country should be heading.


Dont have to bend over backwards - a fair trail and a fair sentence is whats required - without killing anyone(that"s the ultimate in abuse)


Help should be directed to the victims of crime, who are far more needy and deserving of resources than the perpertrators of the crime.


Yes, the victims certainly dont get enough we can definetly improve in that area. And the perpetrators? well, perhaps a read of the book Celtic Sea Lily recommended could be a place to start

[MSTRS]

well, perhaps a read of the book Celtic Sea Lily recommended could be a place to start
Ehhh - wrong - Neanderthals can't read. Kill em all and move on :whistle: :Pokey:

[Lou Girardin]

It's a very basic human right to be brought before your accuser quickly. For many reasons, not least that as memory fades, the chance of a fair trial also fades.
As for those calling for the death penalty, I wonder how many have seen violent death up close. Let alone killing someone. Talk is cheap.

[F5 Dave]

one word.

confessed

[scumdog]

It's a very basic human right to be brought before your accuser quickly. For many reasons, not least that as memory fades, the chance of a fair trial also fades.
As for those calling for the death penalty, I wonder how many have seen violent death up close. Let alone killing someone. Talk is cheap.

As per F5DAVE comment above, if they confessed and all the evidence backed it up I would quite cheerfully whack a bullet into their head - and from my experience to "violent death close up" a .22 sideways through the head would leave a tidy corpse should anybody want to view it.
Yup, talk IS cheap but it never got rid of an unstable violent killer either.

[MSTRS]

As for those calling for the death penalty, I wonder how many have seen violent death up close. Let alone killing someone. Talk is cheap.
Talk is cheap & that's all we're doing here. But death needn't be violent (as satisfying as that might be where some of the scum are concerned). After all, thousands of pets are humanely 'put to sleep' every year - their crime merely to be unwanted. Fair & Just are relative terms

[MSTRS]

Oh and by the way Scumdog, who said you could be the one to pull the trigger??? I WANT TO BE THE ONE THAT DOES IT. :Pokey:

[scumdog]

Oh and by the way Scumdog, who said you could be the one to pull the trigger??? I WANT TO BE THE ONE THAT DOES IT. :Pokey:

Oh all right! If you're going to shout I'll let you do it, I'd probably have something more important to do anyway - like mowing the lawns!!

[Mongoose]

Oh all right! If you're going to shout I'll let you do it, I'd probably have something more important to do anyway - like mowing the lawns!!

In this weather, you would be better off going to a good shooting,at least it will be warm and dry, the lawns will not be mowed today!! :crybaby:

[MSTRS]

Oh all right! If you're going to shout I'll let you do it, I'd probably have something more important to do anyway - like mowing the lawns!!
Ahhhhh, my mother WAS wrong. Standover tactics WILL get you what you want. Forget the lawns tho, you get a front row seat to enjoy the show. Bring your knitting if you like. :killingme

[sels1]

I would quite cheerfully whack a bullet into their head .

Which of course puts you in the same catagory as the people you would like to do away with - you think about killing someone you dislike, you want to kill someone you dislike, you just havent actually done it (yet?)


talk IS cheap but it never got rid of an unstable violent killer either.

So you propose a stable violent killer to get rid of an unstable violent killer?
How does that reduce violence in society?
If you are not part of the soluton you are part of the problem

[MSTRS]

Which of course puts you in the same catagory as the people you would like to do away with - you think about killing someone you dislike, you want to kill someone you dislike, you just havent actually done it (yet?)



Doesn't matter whether you like them or not, it's what 'they' do that is the problem. Don't knock the man for wanting to help create a safer society. You one of those that hides their killer dog from the needle??

[marty]

It's a very basic human right to be brought before your accuser quickly. For many reasons, not least that as memory fades, the chance of a fair trial also fades.
As for those calling for the death penalty, I wonder how many have seen violent death up close. Let alone killing someone. Talk is cheap.

it's also a basic human right for the victim to be vindicated at the earliest opportunity. do a comparison between the BOR Act and the Victim of Offences Act. the differences are obvious - there is no money to be made in supporting victims. i've seen it too often - the lawyer gets remand after remand, usually because they are 'busy' or 'double booked' and then calls for abuse of process. the victim is sick one day and can't come to court - the prosecution can't offer any evidence, and it gets thrown out.

and i've seen my share of violent death lou - in fact i've probably seen your share as well. i'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but i do think that violent offenders should be incarcerated with basic facilities, and made to remember their victims every day for the rest of their life. i don't care if it makes them go mad.

[Lou Girardin]

As per F5DAVE comment above, if they confessed and all the evidence backed it up I would quite cheerfully whack a bullet into their head - and from my experience to "violent death close up" a .22 sideways through the head would leave a tidy corpse should anybody want to view it.
Yup, talk IS cheap but it never got rid of an unstable violent killer either.
Recently a confessed murderer was vindicated and released when the actual killer of his girlfriend was caught. There was no other evidence of his guilt apart from his confession, which consisted of "I was drunk. I don't remember killing her, but I must have done it."
Luckily for him, some of the members here don't make Government policy.

[scumdog]

Which of course puts you in the same catagory as the people you would like to do away with - you think about killing someone you dislike, you want to kill someone you dislike, you just havent actually done it (yet?)



So you propose a stable violent killer to get rid of an unstable violent killer?
How does that reduce violence in society?
If you are not part of the soluton you are part of the problem

Settle down, I never said I would also have to dislike the person, I would no more 'dislike them than the last deer I shot or the last person I arrested, the shooting would be part of the process, nothing more nothing less.

If life meant "in prison until they died" I wouldn't mind so much but it doesn't eh!

The only aspect then of a "life" sentence I would not like would be paying for the sorry-arsed oxygen thief to be kept alive, hopefully though in that case all the "bleeding heart liberals" would dip further into their pockets 'cos in my mind the use of a 20 cent .22 bullet would leave more money available for education/hospitals etc. :sneaky2:

[MSTRS]

Luckily for him, some of the members here don't make Government policy.
Wurkin on it.........

[scumdog]

Recently a confessed murderer was vindicated and released when the actual killer of his girlfriend was caught. There was no other evidence of his guilt apart from his confession, which consisted of "I was drunk. I don't remember killing her, but I must have done it."
Luckily for him, some of the members here don't make Government policy.

Being purely callous (sp) here Lou but if he was dead that would have been the end of the matter anyway. :spudwhat:

[MSTRS]

Settle down, I never said I would also have to dislike the person, I would no more 'dislike them than the last deer I shot or the last person I arrested, the shooting would be part of the process, nothing more nothing less.

If life meant "in prison until they died" I wouldn't mind so much but it doesn't eh!

The only aspect then of a "life" sentence I would not like would be paying for the sorry-arsed oxygen thief to be kept alive, hopefully though in that case all the "bleeding heart liberals" would dip further into their pockets 'cos in my mind the use of a 20 cent .22 bullet would leave more money available for education/hospitals etc. :sneaky2:
Hear hear - trade you some guvmint policy for some relaxing of the speed limit enforcement :Police:

[sels1]

Being purely callous (sp) here Lou but if he was dead that would have been the end of the matter anyway. :spudwhat:

True - until the real killer 'fessed up, as they sometimes do. Who wants the death of an innocent on their concience?

[scumdog]

True - until the real killer 'fessed up, as they sometimes do. Who wants the death of an innocent on their concience?

The 'fesser gets TWO bullets - one for the first victim and one for the 'innocent' guy.

I did qualify my earlier comment by saying the killer had to confess and circumtancial/forensic evidence to back it up, of course on rare occassions things will still go wrong and the wrong guy gets it and that is a sad fact of life- sort of like getting killed riding on NZ roads!