I have changed my mind .....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27972796

Four deaths - because the attackers were so thick they got the wrong house (not that it would have been right if they had the right house!)

Just look at them - absolutely no doubt that they will all be dolers - and if they had not been convicted we would let them sponge off us for years.

Now they have been convicted they will definately sponge off us for years !

Get rid of them ! (and set an example)

In The Know (as always) wrote:
I have changed my mind .....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-27972796

Four deaths - because the attackers were so thick they got the wrong house (not that it would have been right if they had the right house!)

Just look at them - absolutely no doubt that they will all be dolers - and if they had not been convicted we would let them sponge off us for years.

Now they have been convicted they will definately sponge off us for years !

Get rid of them ! (and set an example)


But what if one of them was wrongly convicted?

ITK knows that I've been totally opposed to state sanctioned murder all my life and remain so.

JK2006 wrote:
ITK knows that I've been totally opposed to state sanctioned murder all my life and remain so.

Apart from the danger of making a mistake, I like to think that anyone, given the right help, can change.

I just happen to think killing people is wrong whether you do it yourself or get someone else to do it.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Apart from the danger of making a mistake, I like to think that anyone, given the right help, can change.

Extremely unlikely, honey! ..... And anyway the deterrent value alone far outweighs and negligible 'risk'.

The many many lives saved - because others will be too afraid - is a far better alternative to this continual downward spiral.

What about putting the innocent FIRST for a change?

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Apart from the danger of making a mistake, I like to think that anyone, given the right help, can change.

Extremely unlikely, honey! ..... And anyway the deterrent value alone far outweighs and negligible 'risk'.

The many many lives saved - because others will be too afraid - is a far better alternative to this continual downward spiral.

What about putting the innocent FIRST for a change?


But locking people up for ever would have the same effect, surely? Anyway, a lot of serious crimes are committed by people with psychiatric or mental illness so a deterrent wouldn't work for them, and young people have a tendency to not be able to consider future consequences so it might not work for them either.
But yes, I agree that our safety and security should come first.

I personally think Small Town Tories should be tarred & feathered and sent packing backwards on an old horse.

Fortunately more sensible minds prevail.

## ITK's main complaint seems to be the cost.

Few know he was consulted by the Chinese Central Committee and conceived the notion of charging relatives for the bullet used in executions.

He's quite generous though...they get to keep the bullet afterwards as a momento.

The 'throw away the key' deterrent is just as strong - and more civilised.

citizen hedda wrote:
Few know he was consulted by the Chinese Central Committee and conceived the notion of charging relatives for the bullet used in executions.

He's quite generous though...they get to keep the bullet afterwards as a momento.

What a good idea !

Jedda is not as dumb as he often appears to be !

OK, so lets look at the two sides

- Capital Punishment -
State maintained law and order under governing rules of behaviour for the society in question.....includes legal process, legal review and is enshrined in law by Act of Parliament. Acts of Parliament are created by the sitting Government, voted in by whichever legal voting means is employed at the time, reflecting the views of the majority population (I state majority population based on the voting system, not by overall % and not by volume of noise generated by objection in debates or protest.....like it or not, thats 'the system')

- No Capital Punishment -
An society that accepts abhorent and illegal behaviour by the population including murder, abuse, torture and other dispicalble acts, but with a view to accepting and tolerating that these people are a) capable of being supported to change their bad behaviour b) are to be leniently dealt with by detention methods of prison or mental hospital c) allowed some form of 'parole' to re-enter society based on a humanitarian baseline belief that all men are equal, but that also represents a repeat risk of offence to an unsuspecting innocent..........

So, one system tries to remove offenders from society with no chance of repeat offending = one way of looking after the population by duty of care remove risk and threat

the other system tolerates a small risk of re-offending and the chance that the duty of care to remove a risk and threat is carried out.......duty of care to wider population to shield them from murderes and very bad offenders carries a small risk of getting it wrong, in the same way that Capital Punishment does with a miscarriage of justice...............

Fine line, but i'd be unhappy if I or a anyone else was wrongly convicted.....I'd be as unhappy if a family member or close friend was killed by a re-offending murderer on parole.........

I know which side of balance i'd currently choose.

SP17 wrote:
The 'throw away the key' deterrent is just as strong - and more civilised.

Well to bring back the death penalty we have to leave ITK's beloved EU.

Too much chance of murdering the wrongly accused.

Stefan Kiszko - convicted by bent coppers and lying scumbag tarts (who have since admitted they thought it was "a bit of a laugh" at the time). Too many corrupt cops looking to feather their caps by rounding up the nearest likely victim.

Mr Reason wrote:
Fine line, but i'd be unhappy if I or a anyone else was wrongly convicted.....I'd be as unhappy if a family member or close friend was killed by a re-offending murderer on parole.........

I know which side of balance i'd currently choose.

You forget to "factor in" the Jury, Mr Reason.

I suspect that they would be more inclined to acquit if the defendant faced the rope - unless they were really sure.

At the moment it is too easy to abandon all responsibility and convict - thinking someone else (the Court of Appeal etc) will sort it out.

andrew wrote:
Well to bring back the death penalty we have to leave ITK's beloved EU.

Its not "my beloved EU" - I'm just sane enough to realise that you cannot simply walk away from your biggest and best customer and "hope for the best" - like you dumbos !

In The Know wrote:
andrew wrote:
Well to bring back the death penalty we have to leave ITK's beloved EU.

Its not "my beloved EU" - I'm just sane enough to realise that you cannot simply walk away from your biggest and best customer and "hope for the best" - like you dumbos !

When most of the UK laws are made in Brussels ?

We must not forget that most of our goods from China and South Korea.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Now they have been convicted they will definately sponge off us for years !

"must serve minimum terms of 35 years and 25 years respectively for the death"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28015521

The obvious compromise is to make "life" mean for ever.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
The obvious compromise is to make "life" mean for ever.

It will still cost us, hugely, honey!

If they are never going to see freedom again they have already lost their life - bring it to an end swiftly (a very good example to others too).