Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Put them in a room full of women and give all the women a big stick each with a 6inch nail sticking out of the end then see how long the pedo would last.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/st...799756,00.html

Plus an excellent essay by Prof. David Wilson in yesterday's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/st...799754,00.html

Later the articles discusses an initiative in Canada called, "Circle of Support and Accountability for released paedophiles", using the example of a released paedophile Charlie.


What, for me, this excellent essay establishes is that as much as we may not like to admit it, or as uncomfortable as the initiatives sound, unless we all work together in dealing with the problems, making loud noises about soft sentencing and leniant judges, will not reduce the problem. But of course, I wonder which one is easier?

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

The DNA system which we have in place at the moment is enough to nail any peadophile or muderer, since the DNA testing came about there has been no miscarrage of justice.

Any man who rapes a women or a child boy or girl they should be executed end of story. Sorry it's blunt but this sort of crime like any crime gets my back up big time, sod their human rights they don't deserve any they gave up that right when they committed the crime.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Are you from Saudi Arabia, by any chance, Nidge? That's the policy there, but not in any civilised countries. Still, it's nice to see a vote for strict Islamic theocracy on here, they get such a bad press usually. You haven't said whether you prefer stoning or beheading, by the way.

He was talking about public perception, not reality. If the two are as disconnected as this story indicates, then that's not necessarily a valid point.

Like I said, very tough sentences there. That's a *minor* crime he's been convicted of. There's an intellectual error there with the two 'theys', who are different (the CPS in the first case and the judge in the second, presumably).

This would be the offences for which he was *acquitted*, then? Go and look up the word 'acquit'. Actually, your post doesn't make it clear whether he was cleared by a jury or the CPS withdrew the charge due to lack of evidence, or the witnesses refused to testify or whatver. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Details are important, the law is about the particular, not the general, as someone said.

Yes there has, a student whose DNA was in the area of a crime was arrested for it and had extreme difficulty extricating himself from it. We leave DNA everywhere we go, would you really want to end up being executed for dropping a fag end near the scene of a future rape?

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Well now you come to metion it I'm all for the law they have out there in Saudi, children can play without the risk of being kidnapped, women can go out on their own without the risk of being raped, pensioners can walk the streets without the fear of being mugged, you can leave your car windows down all night with your wallet on display along with your mobile phone and it will still be there in the morning.

If a person rapes a child or a woman take their heads off ("in public"). You see over the last 10 -20 years this country has become a joke where crime is concerned. A person committs a crime he gets 10 years, that's 10 years of luxury to him, he'll get 3 meals a day, wages at the end of the week, an account where relatives can deposit money so he can buy games to play on his playstation while he's watching SKY Sports on his TV, the best medical care money can buy, clean clothes each day, a room with an en-suite for his use only. Thats not a prison it's a holiday camp. The Russians have the right idea when it comes to prisons, bars on the windows, minus 25 at night, 1 meal a day if your lucky, 1 change of clothes a week and a little steel bowl in the corner as your toilet, "now thats a real prison".

This is the prison service in 2006 thanks to the human rights people. I have a family member who works at Franklin Top Security Jail near Durham, it houses some of the most dangerous people in the UK, child molesters, rapists I asked him if you get any time where you can roll them over or let some of the other inmates roll them over, he said you could but the prison service is full of people who are planted there to grass you up if you do anything wrong like give a child molester a ribbing, leave a rapists door open on purpose so the other inamates can get at him.

This is what the human rights people have done to this country, they have made it into a marshmellow.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Rather ironic, considering the thread title, that you support the laws in a country where 126 children are reported to be on death row. LINK

Those pesky human rights, they just get in the way :rolleyes:

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

So children were put on death row for murder? Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth, ask Jamie Bulgers mum if Venables and Thompson should have been spared the death penalty if we had their laws, I know what she'd have said.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Are you really listening to yourself?Have you by any chance read the thread title?You can't have it that children are innocent victims one minute and then advocate that children be killed for murder the next.I could sooo smack you...:bsmack:

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Sorry, I disagree on one account there, you say "Any man who rapes a woman" that is sometimes not as clear cut as it appears, there are cases where the woman claims rape after the event but was more than happy at the time. In that situation DNA evidence on its own is not enough to execute someone.

The boy or girl is a different matter, if a sexual act is proven by DNA evidence with a minor I have no problem with a tough sentence being dished out.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

So they committed murder between the ages of 13 and 18.
What's the age in this country that a "child" is considered responsible for their own actions? 10?

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

What exactly is your point here? Are you saying that it is acceptable for the death penalty for a crime that was committed when somebody was as young as 13? Are you happy that these individuals may have not had proper representation or due process? Is murder an absolute and should be punished the same in all cases, as your post implies? Are you saying that 13 is actually quite reasonable because criminal responsibility in the UK (England and Wales) is 10? Would you not say that a 10 year old child may not fully understand the implications of their actions, and in any case possibly deserves a second chance in a civilised society? (This does not mean that they should escape punishment).

Can you please clarify?

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

My only objection to the death penalty is the inablilty to be 100% certain in all cases that the person found guilty actually committed the crime.

I know 6 year olds who know that murdering someone is wrong.
Are you saying that if someone is fully aware of what they are doing, and murders someone, knowing that it is wrong, they shouldn't be punsished because of their age?

Please justify why you think there should be a difference in sentancing between someone aged 18 murdering a fellow human being, and someone aged 17 and 364 days murdering a fellow human being?

Incidently, just like in the UK back in the days when stealing bread was punishable by death, in Saudi, being sentanced to death does not automatically mean the sentance will be carried out.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

A 6 year old may know that murdering somebody is wrong but this will be a very absolute understanding. A more mature understanding would take into account different scenarios where indeed murder may not be wholly justified, but at least understood. Would a six year old be able to give a full answer to the question, is murder ever justified?

No, I'm saying that they shouldn't be given the death sentence, especially if the crime was committed when very young.

Because a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Well, i'm sure that makes those 126 on death row feel a whole lot better.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Hence why in Saudi their maturity is judged (not just their physical maturity), notice all those mentioned are over 13? Notice also that the article doesn't mention that 125 committed murder at 17, one did it at 13?
It also doesn't mention the cases where as you say, the courts deemed that the action by the accused was justified, or recieved a custodial rather than capital sentance.

Personally I agree that the death penatly shouldn't be used for the reasons I've already stated.
So how about life inprisonment instead?
Why should a 15 year old who beats another teenager to death because he didn't like the look of them (a case I know about) not get the same sentance as someone aged 30 doing the same thing, if both are deemed mature enough to know what they did was wrong and the consiquences?

Yes, and while in Saudi they draw the line at the accused's actual level of maturity, we use an arbitary age where many criminals under that age are as aware of their wrong doings, as someone over that age, but get lighter sentances because of it.

Probably does.

Re: The legal system protects our children again! (NOT)
 

Especially if they are completely innocent like the four Britons who were found guilty of a bombing campaign in Saudi and claim they were forced into confessing to the crimes through being tortured...Seems to me reading that article that there is every indication that the Saudi's are not interested in any form of human rights what so ever for anyone including children.I don't give a stuff that you think a child of 13 should be killed for a crime committed before the age of 10,13,17 because that's a totally barbaric attitude to take.


Some of you seem to have lost all sense of proportion.I am so angry with you all I'm going to have to leave this thread...