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.

[SlackDad]

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

Originally Posted by the Guardian

The number of prisoners being jailed for life has nearly doubled in the past 10 years and sentences served are now more than 50% longer than they were when first introduced, despite claims that judges are being too lenient.

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

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

Originally Posted by David Wilson

Outrage over supposedly lenient sentencing or too "easy" parole is one thing, but the bald fact of the matter is that, with the exception of some 30 inmates, all 77,500 of the people currently in our jails will one day return to society; they will be "resettled", as it tends to be described rather quaintly in Home Office policy documents. Murderers, rapists, sex offenders, even paedophiles, will all come back into our world. They might move next door to you, sit beside you on the bus, serve you in the supermarket, or toast England's success with you in the pub.

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.

And so he had, for this child's father, Harry Nigh, had just set up the first ever Circle of Support and Accountability for released paedophiles - in an act that Harry and his wife described to me as "accidental courage". In fact, all they had done was to invite four of their friends over to dinner with Charlie; they wanted to see if they could do anything to help him resettle in the community in the face of public panic. But then, over the next 12 years, they kept following this basic template of the first ever circle. Each day, one of the six would meet with Charlie, the "core member", to buy him a coffee, ensure that he was taking his medication, and just to provide an ear for Charlie to vent his many complaints. Then, on the seventh day, they would all come together to eat a meal, find out how Charlie was doing, and celebrate his successes, or help him to overcome his problems. To put it bluntly, Charlie became part of their extended families. Two months ago, when Charlie died, his circle members were his only mourners. Yet, in the 12 years of liberty before his death, Charlie Taylor had never reoffended.

Harry Nigh was clear that the key to the circles' success is in the name. What it offers is precisely support and accountability - support when the released paedophile is facing a crisis; support in finding work, or a home; support in making certain that there is enough to eat, and that there is someone to talk to. But accountability, too, to ensure that the core member of the circle is not going to the park or loitering around schools.

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?

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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?

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.

[BBKing]

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.

the police officer agreed that the public in general are fed up of criminals not being persued or dealt with effectively if there is the odd chance they are.

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.

I also note in my local rag this week a known sex offender has been jailed for 18 months, they didn't manage to get a conviction for the alleged assault on 2 teenage girls, so they have put him in prison for not providing his new address for the sex offenders register.

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).

and committed the alleged offences.

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.

since the DNA testing came about there has been no miscarrage of justice

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?

Originally Posted by BBKing

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?

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.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Nidge

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.

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

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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

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.

Originally Posted by Nidge

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.

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...

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Nidge

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.

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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...

At least 126 individuals are on death row in Saudi Arabia for crimes they were found to have committed before age 18, the Saudi online news station alarabiya.net reported in November 2005, citing government sources. Human Rights Watch has received reliable reports of children sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were as young as 13.

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?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

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?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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?

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.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I know 6 year olds who know that murdering someone is wrong.

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?

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?

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

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?

Because a line has to be drawn somewhere.

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.

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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?

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.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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

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?

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Because a line has to be drawn somewhere.

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.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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

Probably does.

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...