Singer : Watkins

Simple solution - chemical castration for all paedophiles.

 

If a jury member opposed to the death penalty thinks that if they deem the defendant to be guilty and the sentence will be the death penalty then he/she will say they think the defendant to be not guilty. This is because they don't want to have any part in condemning someone to be hung.

 

That's why it's win-win though because their sentence will be increased as well.

 

Paedophiles or rapists?

 

You've just repeated the first post. How will they know what the sentence is going to be at the time of verdict? You think people would find serious criminals not guilty on the chance they might get death? And there's 12 on a jury who all discuss their reasons for their verdict don't they? If they objected to the possibility of a death sentence they could object at the start and be replaced surely? Just doesn't sound like a plausible reason not to bring it back. There are plenty of other reasons mind.

 

I get what he means though. If it was a murder charge for example you'd know that the person was looking at death without having to be told that

 

Would all murderers be given the death penalty? These are all questions btw not stating I know, as we are talking about something that isn't happening.

 

Both but I would use the paedophiles as Guinea pigs.

 

Yes. Some people would find serious criminals not guilty on the chance they might get death.

 

You would vote on the verdict guilty or innocent and a second vote if you are in favour of the death penalty or not.

 

2 members of my family work at Wakefield Prison, which has a wing set aside to keep some of most dangerous paedophiles and other sex offenders in the country, as many will know. They tell me that there is a wierd kind of code in there that determines what people think is acceptable. So paedophiles who think it is acceptable to go for 13 year olds, for example will think that it is disgusting that some go for 10 year olds, and will beat the **** out of them given the chance. Meanwhile those who go for 10 year olds think the same about those who go for 6 year olds and beat the **** out of them etc.

I'm just glad that it is a world that i know nothing about. It's proper f*cked up. Based on that kind of 'code' though, I can't imagine that this piece of scum will feature high on the food chain.

 

That's interesting to know DSL.
And I very much doubt the prison officers will ever see anything amiss when the retributions are dished out. Pleasing.

Talking of the food chain. I really wouldn't want to have to eat what will be presented to him. HA HA.

 

There are sme things that are unforgivable. 35 years if he serves it in full is an ok sentence but I think a sentence to the point where he can no longer physically be a threat to any child would be appropriate and I'm not sure that covers it given his age at the minute. I would have gone for life meaning life myself

On a separate note as a few posters have said one of the great tragedies is the fact that are prisons are full of people who really should be paying their debt to society in a different way.

 

Thats fine as long as you comply with the clinical definition of paedophilia - adults sexually attracted to children under the age of 13. You might also want to include hebephiles as well (attraction to teenagers under 16), but that is a grey area and you could end up having to apply that punishment to older teenagers (16-17 year olds) with younger partners (15).

 

I may be proved wrong but I would be extremely surprised if there were many, if any 16-17 year olds who were banged up for shagging their 15 year old partner.

 

No such problems with this case.
That beast raped a baby. FFS how bad is that?

 

I couldn't even picture how that would be possible, and I am not going to even try - it would just repulse me too much.

 

My mate was on a jury in Dundee 2 weeks ago. Similar thing. Paedo stuff. He still won't talk about what he heard in the trial and he had to study pictures.

After the trial, back in the jury room everyone of the jury broke down in tears.

Mate ended up having to go to the doctors, signed off work and I think councelling could be on the cards.

All the jury have been exempted from jury duty for 10 years.

 

Jesus, that's just sick beyond belief. Question Arabian_Ian - when the group were picked from the pool on duty to serve on that trial, did your mate get told in advance of being selected on that jury what he would be exposed to and did he get the chance to object to being selected?. Reason I ask is that there was a thread on the same subject when this Watkins scum pleaded guilty and the jury were stood down, as the judge said they had been saved from having to see some proper disturbing material.

 

I don't think so mate. But I'm not sure.
I only found out he was on jury duty when I met him in the pub. I came in and said Hi Jim hows things and he didna really acknowledge me. Whats wrong I said and he just mumbled just finished jury duty. Oh right I said what was the case? He said I dinna want tae speak about it its on the front page of the Evening Telegraph.
Fk sake couldna believe what I read and that was obviously diluted for the paper. He learnt much worse.

How so called humans can prey on children is unbelievable. No punishment is bad enough for those animals.