Jump to content
OldNick

Sorry but Iam delighted

Recommended Posts

I remember a documentary about this sicko about a year ago.

The evidence used was his online activity regarding his crimes, rather than direct testimony from the victims, which meant they didn't have to go through any more stress being interviewed and giving evidence which was a small mercy to those poor children.

We all know what will happen to the assailant though, unfortunately....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed the man who did world a favour should be freed and congratulated

 

Presumably you have the full details of the crimes Fitzgerald committed and you’ve checked with his victims that they’re okay with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspecting they would be in the minority, the opinions of the opening 2 posters inspired me to have a look at current opinions on capital punishment of UK people. Turns out there seems to be pretty high levels of support for it, for certain crimes at least.

 

This is yougov and a fairly small sample (1554)...... https://yougov.co.uk/topics/legal/articles-reports/2019/10/01/brits-want-harsher-punishments-criminals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Presumably you have the full details of the crimes Fitzgerald committed and you’ve checked with his victims that they’re okay with this?

 

Maybe just give him some extra rations or a new pillow or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Presumably you have the full details of the crimes Fitzgerald committed and you’ve checked with his victims that they’re okay with this?

 

No I didn't but should have in hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suspecting they would be in the minority, the opinions of the opening 2 posters inspired me to have a look at current opinions on capital punishment of UK people. Turns out there seems to be pretty high levels of support for it, for certain crimes at least.

 

This is yougov and a fairly small sample (1554)...... https://yougov.co.uk/topics/legal/articles-reports/2019/10/01/brits-want-harsher-punishments-criminals

 

Which shows the problems with referendums. What the people want isn’t always for the best. Capital punishment is clearly not a deterrent. Also if it is wrong to take a life, why is it ok for the state to take a life? Many people who have later been found innocent have been wrongly put to death. Life sentences should be for life and there should be longer sentences for certain offences, but a decent society is one that values life, all life. Yes, there is a cost in keeping these people alive, but it is a cost worth paying in a fair and humane society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which shows the problems with referendums. What the people want isn’t always for the best. Capital punishment is clearly not a deterrent. Also if it is wrong to take a life, why is it ok for the state to take a life? Many people who have later been found innocent have been wrongly put to death. Life sentences should be for life and there should be longer sentences for certain offences, but a decent society is one that values life, all life. Yes, there is a cost in keeping these people alive, but it is a cost worth paying in a fair and humane society.

 

What would be the point of a longer sentence than 'life'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would be the point of a longer sentence than 'life'?

 

Longer sentences for lesser but still serious offences that don’t attract the life sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capital punishment is clearly not a deterrent.

It’s not supposed to be a deterrent, it’s supposed to be a punishment. This guy should have been organ-harvested, Chinese style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really agree with vigilante justice, but if someone had done something to my daughter I'd be enthusiastic about ending their life as quickly as possible so I'm conflicted on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s not supposed to be a deterrent, it’s supposed to be a punishment. This guy should have been organ-harvested, Chinese style.

 

Either way it doesn’t stop people killing other people does it. In fact the murder rate is actually higher in US states where they have the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way it doesn’t stop people killing other people does it. In fact the murder rate is actually higher in US states where they have the death penalty.

 

The social make up of America varies from state to state, so there are too many variables in that assumption. Two of the top three lowest homicide rates in the world belong to Japan and Norway, so you could argue that commercial whaling is a good way to prevent murder. You would need to try it in the UK for a few years and see what effect it actually had on our murder rate.

 

Personally I think the effect would be minimal but if it did prevent just 5 innocent people from dying each year, would that be worth it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'The new evidence raises deeply troubling questions': did Arkansas kill an innocent man?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/23/arkansas-death-penalty-ledell-lee-execution?

 

Why I am against the death penalty.

 

IF we had it, it would have to be for the absolute cast-iron, murdering psychopath convictions. People like the Lee Rigby killers or London Bridge attacker (had he lived). There is no way in a million years new evidence is going to come out that they were actually innocent.

 

I hadn't heard about that case before but I'm sure there are plenty like it in the USA. I guess it just sucks to be a black man in Arkansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we say it is morally wrong to take some else’s life and that is the worse thing we can do, how can we then justify taking someone’s life for doing so? No one has the right to take someone’s life, least if all the state who need to uphold the highest virtues. What sickens me is to see multiple killers let out and still being able to live an amount of their lives as free people. Kenneth Noye should never be free again but is edging that way. I am all for redemption and giving people a second chance in the right circumstances, but there are some crimes where life should mean life. If we are talking about punishment surely death is a quick an easy way out? Removing someone’s liberty and letting them live with what they have done for the rest of their lives is punishment enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to add that I can’t find much to be proud about this country at the moment, but the fact that we don’t break people’s necks at the end of a rope, fry them or inject them with a lethal cocktail of chemicals is something worth living here for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we say it is morally wrong to take some else’s life and that is the worse thing we can do, how can we then justify taking someone’s life for doing so? No one has the right to take someone’s life, least if all the state who need to uphold the highest virtues. What sickens me is to see multiple killers let out and still being able to live an amount of their lives as free people. Kenneth Noye should never be free again but is edging that way. I am all for redemption and giving people a second chance in the right circumstances, but there are some crimes where life should mean life. If we are talking about punishment surely death is a quick an easy way out? Removing someone’s liberty and letting them live with what they have done for the rest of their lives is punishment enough.

 

Agree totally, the prospect of spending all or most or ones life in prison is a frightening and hopeless prospect. We should be proud as a country that our police do not walk around with deadly weapons generally and the state does not put people to death, it's morally questionable and innocent people will inevitably die - the very reasons it was abolished on the first place.

The downside is the parole system which in some cases is not used properly and is subject to political influence (Ian Huntly will die in prison, Kenneth Noye may not for example), public safety is put at risk due to poor decisions by judges passing sentence and the probation service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF we had it, it would have to be for the absolute cast-iron, murdering psychopath convictions. People like the Lee Rigby killers or London Bridge attacker (had he lived). There is no way in a million years new evidence is going to come out that they were actually innocent.

 

But you have to define the line beyond which the death penalty applies, and that, by extrapolation, will create 'grey areas' either side where good lawyers will manage to get defendants onto the 'safe' side, or poor defence strategies might do the opposite. Additionally, that line then becomes a political football, where 'Law and Order' zealots look to extend the range of qualifying offences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you have to define the line beyond which the death penalty applies, and that, by extrapolation, will create 'grey areas' either side where good lawyers will manage to get defendants onto the 'safe' side, or poor defence strategies might do the opposite. Additionally, that line then becomes a political football, where 'Law and Order' zealots look to extend the range of qualifying offences.

 

I'm not championing capital punishment but I think there are certain cases where it could be justified. I do think it's handed out far to loosely in America though, in cases which are far from watertight. If we convict people for crimes 'beyond reasonable doubt' then the DP should be for crimes 'beyond any doubt'. There can be absolutely no way that the accused did not commit that offense.

 

Other criteria should also come into play. 'Was it premeditated?' being a big one. Who were the victims and what was his/her motivation? Any previous convictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s very simple. When the death penalty was abolished the leftie pinko establishment promised the British people that it would be replaced by life in prison. This has simply not happened . The average served by someone convicted of murder is 16.5 years. Yet again, we’ve been let down by the soft arsed pinkos that have governed us since the late ‘60’s.

 

A friend of mine had a brother who was murdered by a neighbour who he caught robbing his house on Xmas eve. My friends brother didn’t turn up for Xmas lunch, so his father went to the house, only to find his son tied to a chair with his head smashed in. For that, the scum bag served 12 years. 13 Xmas’ later he could join his family for Xmas lunch & share the festivities. My friends family never celebrated another Xmas and the father eventually died, never having got over finding his 23 year old son like that. People who think “justice “ is served in this country should spend 5 minutes with members of that family, they’d soon change their minds.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s very simple. When the death penalty was abolished the leftie pinko establishment promised the British people that it would be replaced by life in prison. This has simply not happened . The average served by someone convicted of murder is 16.5 years. Yet again, we’ve been let down by the soft arsed pinkos that have governed us since the late ‘60’s.

 

The leftie pinkos were probably more than a little influenced by public revulsion at the hangings of Derek Bentley, and to a lesser extent, Ruth Ellis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sentences should be longer, I would stop letting anyone out early for good behaviour, just add time to their sentence for bad behaviour. The problem is prisons cost money which means paying a bit more tax, and we can’t do that because all the rich people will move abroad or something.

 

I’m not sure about capital punishment, I guess for the most depraved cases where there is no doubt at all about guilt them maybe. But you have to think that in 2020 we have a more civilised way of dealing with these people, and maybe it is worth keeping them alive if only to try and find out why people do those sort of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The leftie pinkos were probably more than a little influenced by public revulsion at the hangings of Derek Bentley, and to a lesser extent, Ruth Ellis.

 

You missed the point entirely.

 

The public were told by the pinkos that life imprisonment would replace the death penalty. It hasn’t, years and years of soft arsed leftie pinkoism has watered the sentencing down to a totally unacceptable level.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the point entirely.

 

The public were told by the pinkos that life imprisonment would replace the death penalty. It hasn’t, years and years of soft arsed leftie pinkoism has watered the sentencing down to a totally unacceptable level.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We have had far more years of Tory Home Secretaries than Labour ones in the last 50 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have had far more years of Tory Home Secretaries than Labour ones in the last 50 years.
Tbf I think Lord duck hunter would consider lots of conservatives to be some of the people he just described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By far the worst culprit was Jenkins the man who was at the forefront of the pinko establishment. His reforms to sentencing, bail, parole, and police mergers are still causing misery today. Unfortunately nobody since , including The Great lady, had the balls to address this. They’re either too pink or won’t spend the cash to do so.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the outset people sentenced to "life" were often released after 10-15 years. Longer terms were introduced for more atrocious cases, the Moors murderers, Yorkshire Ripper, Dennis Neilson etc, where the Home Secretary was empowered to order "whole life" terms.

Since 2002 the presiding judge sets the minimum term on life sentences for adults, previously being in the power of the Home Secretary, following human rights considerations from the House of Lords in a particular appeal case, later upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.

There are guidelines for sentencing, but judges are not obliged to follow them, although they must give an explanation when they don't. 15 years should be the starting point for murder, so I can sympathize with the family of Lord D's friend who, given the MO might have expected a much longer term. Anyone capable of such brutality surely has it in them to do it again given the right circumstances.

It's a difficult balance however between what is seen as justice, and a chance of redemption for the criminal, although those released remain on parole for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})