What is it with the Law?

[WorAl]

Just been watching the news and two blokes have been jailed. One for manslaughter, the other for murder.

Now I didnt hear what the sentence was for the manslaughter charge, but the one for murder was 9 years, 9 fkING YEARS!!! how is that going to put someone off murdering someone else if they really don't like them?

[vonhosen]

There must be some people you don't like. Are you going to murder them now because of that ?

[paddyhasneeds]

vonhosen said:

There must be some people you don't like. Are you going to murder them now because of that ?

I suspect the point is that (as an example) if the guys that robbed Graff to however many millions it was are found guilty, I'm betting they will get a lot more than that.

Which deserves the longest, a robbery or murder?

[vonhosen]

paddyhasneeds said:

vonhosen said:

There must be some people you don't like. Are you going to murder them now because of that ?

I suspect the point is that (as an example) if the guys that robbed Graff to however many millions it was are found guilty, I'm betting they will get a lot more than that.

Which deserves the longest, a robbery or murder?

Well that would depend on the circumstances of each offence.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

paddyhasneeds said:

vonhosen said:

There must be some people you don't like. Are you going to murder them now because of that ?

I suspect the point is that (as an example) if the guys that robbed Graff to however many millions it was are found guilty, I'm betting they will get a lot more than that.

Which deserves the longest, a robbery or murder?

It would depend of likelihood of re-offending and number of victims. Murder you get life but serve a term in jail. You are on life licence.

[WhoseGeneration]

Listening to the radio today, the mother of the one shot dead by those attempting to rob the family Post Office was of the view that the death penalty should be reinstated.
Only a victim though, so what does her view count for, against that of all those "experts"?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

WhoseGeneration said:

Listening to the radio today, the mother of the one shot dead by those attempting to rob the family Post Office was of the view that the death penalty should be reinstated.
Only a victim though, so what does her view count for, against that of all those "experts"?

Which experts?

[vonhosen]

WhoseGeneration said:

Listening to the radio today, the mother of the one shot dead by those attempting to rob the family Post Office was of the view that the death penalty should be reinstated.
Only a victim though, so what does her view count for, against that of all those "experts"?

When your son's killers have just been sentenced is not the best time for unemotional rational thought on the subject. Iris Bentley would have something else to say about it, but she's only a victim though.

[PaulHogan]

WorAl said:

...how is that going to put someone off murdering someone else if they really don't like them?

If there's someone in your life that you 'don't like' enough to murder them then you are living your life wrong.

[Eggman]

This morning's Today programme had a man on from Ipsos-MORI who said that they had found 51% of the public to be in favour of the death penalty.

[WhoseGeneration]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Which experts?

Oh, those who "understand", the underlying reasons why those who offend do what they do.
With the "mitigating circumstances".
Back in the early 1970s I was a Sociology student.
I can do chapter and verse on this stuff.
Problem is, many of the attempts, by Politicians, to apply the results of academic study to policies that have any result, have been failures, at great monetary cost.

[Parrot of Doom]

WorAl said:

Just been watching the news and two blokes have been jailed. One for manslaughter, the other for murder.

Now I didnt hear what the sentence was for the manslaughter charge, but the one for murder was 9 years, 9 fkING YEARS!!! how is that going to put someone off murdering someone else if they really don't like them?

You don't measure justice in years ffs. Why does this silly notion persist?

[Parrot of Doom]

Eggman said:

This morning's Today programme had a man on from Ipsos-MORI who said that they had found 51% of the public to be in favour of the death penalty.

Statistically about 50% of the population are less intelligent than the average person.

[Langweilig]

WorAl said:

Just been watching the news and two blokes have been jailed. One for manslaughter, the other for murder.

Now I didnt hear what the sentence was for the manslaughter charge, but the one for murder was 9 years, 9 fkING YEARS!!! how is that going to put someone off murdering someone else if they really don't like them?

AFAIK, a bloke got a three-year sentence for killing his wife by throwing a TV remote at her during an argument.

[WhoseGeneration]

vonhosen said:

When your son's killers have just been sentenced is not the best time for unemotional rational thought on the subject. Iris Bentley would have something else to say about it, but she's only a victim though.

The past?, we have to be beholden to that?
I had thought investigative methods and Police attitudes and procedures had moved on.
Maybe not?
I would think that those who have suffered have had plenty of time, waiting for the grinding wheels of "justice", to be both unemotional and rational.
Anyway, two scenarios for you.
1, terrorists explode bombs in Manchester, 50 die, 100 injured, terrorists are caught, found guilty, are sentenced to "life", minimum of 30 years.
2, Taliban explode bombs in Afganistan, 50 die, 100 injured, British troops hunt them down and "dispose" of them.
Which of these outcomes does the UK Government approve of and why?

[vonhosen]

WhoseGeneration said:

vonhosen said:

When your son's killers have just been sentenced is not the best time for unemotional rational thought on the subject. Iris Bentley would have something else to say about it, but she's only a victim though.

The past?, we have to be beholden to that?

No.

WhoseGeneration said:

I had thought investigative methods and Police attitudes and procedures had moved on.
Maybe not?

They have, but it's not perfect & that means innocent people will be convicted only for that to be discovered at a later date.

WhoseGeneration said:

I would think that those who have suffered have had plenty of time, waiting for the grinding wheels of "justice", to be both unemotional and rational.

Still looked quite raw when I was viewing it.

WhoseGeneration said:

Anyway, two scenarios for you.
1, terrorists explode bombs in Manchester, 50 die, 100 injured, terrorists are caught, found guilty, are sentenced to "life", minimum of 30 years.

The 'Police' should attempt to detain & bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

WhoseGeneration said:

2, Taliban explode bombs in Afganistan, 50 die, 100 injured, British troops hunt them down and "dispose" of them.
Which of these outcomes does the UK Government approve of and why?

The 'army' should attempt to detain in order to bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

[WhoseGeneration]

vonhosen said:

WhoseGeneration said:

vonhosen said:

When your son's killers have just been sentenced is not the best time for unemotional rational thought on the subject. Iris Bentley would have something else to say about it, but she's only a victim though.

The past?, we have to be beholden to that?

No.

So, why mention it?

WhoseGeneration said:

I had thought investigative methods and Police attitudes and procedures had moved on.
Maybe not?

They have, but it's not perfect & that means innocent people will be convicted only for that to be discovered at a later date.

You do have a point here, which is why I have never been against a DNA database of the whole population, with certain provisos, against ID cards as I am.

WhoseGeneration said:

I would think that those who have suffered have had plenty of time, waiting for the grinding wheels of "justice", to be both unemotional and rational.

Still looked quite raw when I was viewing it.

Personal interpretation perhaps?

WhoseGeneration said:

Anyway, two scenarios for you.
1, terrorists explode bombs in Manchester, 50 die, 100 injured, terrorists are caught, found guilty, are sentenced to "life", minimum of 30 years.

The 'Police' should attempt to detain & bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

I never mentioned "fatal force" from the "Police".

WhoseGeneration said:

2, Taliban explode bombs in Afganistan, 50 die, 100 injured, British troops hunt them down and "dispose" of them.
Which of these outcomes does the UK Government approve of and why?

The 'army' should attempt to detain in order to bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

The "army" is charged with removing the obstacles to that which Western Politicians desire in Afganistan.
You, neatly, avoided my question about the relative view, to each scenario, of the UK Government.
That is to get to the underlying reasons and moral values of the Politicians.

[vonhosen]

WhoseGeneration said:

vonhosen said:

WhoseGeneration said:

vonhosen said:

When your son's killers have just been sentenced is not the best time for unemotional rational thought on the subject. Iris Bentley would have something else to say about it, but she's only a victim though.

The past?, we have to be beholden to that?

No.

So, why mention it?

WhoseGeneration said:

I had thought investigative methods and Police attitudes and procedures had moved on.
Maybe not?

They have, but it's not perfect & that means innocent people will be convicted only for that to be discovered at a later date.

You do have a point here, which is why I have never been against a DNA database of the whole population, with certain provisos, against ID cards as I am.

WhoseGeneration said:

I would think that those who have suffered have had plenty of time, waiting for the grinding wheels of "justice", to be both unemotional and rational.

Still looked quite raw when I was viewing it.

Personal interpretation perhaps?

WhoseGeneration said:

Anyway, two scenarios for you.
1, terrorists explode bombs in Manchester, 50 die, 100 injured, terrorists are caught, found guilty, are sentenced to "life", minimum of 30 years.

The 'Police' should attempt to detain & bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

I never mentioned "fatal force" from the "Police".

WhoseGeneration said:

2, Taliban explode bombs in Afganistan, 50 die, 100 injured, British troops hunt them down and "dispose" of them.
Which of these outcomes does the UK Government approve of and why?

The 'army' should attempt to detain in order to bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

The "army" is charged with removing the obstacles to that which Western Politicians desire in Afganistan.
You, neatly, avoided my question about the relative view, to each scenario, of the UK Government.
That is to get to the underlying reasons and moral values of the Politicians.

The army don't have a mandate to execute insurgents. They detain insurgents in Afghanistan & in attempting to do so may have to use fatal force in their attempt to detain (where they meet such resistance that justifies it).

Sadly that may also happen when the Police attempt to arrest suspects in the UK.

[Police State]

WhoseGeneration said:

vonhosen said:

WhoseGeneration said:

vonhosen said:

When your son's killers have just been sentenced is not the best time for unemotional rational thought on the subject. Iris Bentley would have something else to say about it, but she's only a victim though.

The past?, we have to be beholden to that?

No.

So, why mention it?

WhoseGeneration said:

I had thought investigative methods and Police attitudes and procedures had moved on.
Maybe not?

They have, but it's not perfect & that means innocent people will be convicted only for that to be discovered at a later date.

You do have a point here, which is why I have never been against a DNA database of the whole population, with certain provisos, against ID cards as I am.

WhoseGeneration said:

I would think that those who have suffered have had plenty of time, waiting for the grinding wheels of "justice", to be both unemotional and rational.

Still looked quite raw when I was viewing it.

Personal interpretation perhaps?

WhoseGeneration said:

Anyway, two scenarios for you.
1, terrorists explode bombs in Manchester, 50 die, 100 injured, terrorists are caught, found guilty, are sentenced to "life", minimum of 30 years.

The 'Police' should attempt to detain & bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

I never mentioned "fatal force" from the "Police".

WhoseGeneration said:

2, Taliban explode bombs in Afganistan, 50 die, 100 injured, British troops hunt them down and "dispose" of them.
Which of these outcomes does the UK Government approve of and why?

The 'army' should attempt to detain in order to bring to justice those suspected of such crimes. In doing so they should only use fatal force where it's necessary.

The "army" is charged with removing the obstacles to that which Western Politicians desire in Afganistan.
You, neatly, avoided my question about the relative view, to each scenario, of the UK Government.
That is to get to the underlying reasons and moral values of the Politicians.

Morality doesn't really come into it on that one.

In the UK we have a judicial system which is part of the apparatus that prevents us descending into anarchy. In Afghanistan, they have relative anarchy and a corrupt 'establishment'. If, as and when they have an established 'proper' system of law and justice, eg: one where the accused can expect a fair trial, then perhaps the British Army will be in a position to turn them over to the 'authorities'... In the meantime, they have a peace to win, and a nation to build; something the taliban are not interested in doing, other than shooting them, what would you suggest the army's stance should be? Guantanamo incarceration?

[WhoseGeneration]

Police State said:

In the UK we have a judicial system which is part of the apparatus that prevents us descending into anarchy. In Afghanistan, they have relative anarchy and a corrupt 'establishment'. If, as and when they have an established 'proper' system of law and justice, eg: one where the accused can expect a fair trial, then perhaps the British Army will be in a position to turn them over to the 'authorities'... In the meantime, they have a peace to win, and a nation to build; something the taliban are not interested in doing, other than shooting them, what would you suggest the army's stance should be? Guantanamo incarceration?

Are you aiming this at me or vonhosen?

Edited by WhoseGeneration on Saturday 19th December 00:39