I'd say he definitely should have served longer. That is one of very few cases I could get you cases where murderers have been released and re offended. I could get you cases where very violent murderers are due to be released in their 50s when imo they should never be out again. I'm not saying your wrong you have your opinion I have mine. But for me once you murder someone you have taken away a life and shouldn't be released from prison again. For Huntley, whiting, the rigby killers etc jails probably too good for them in my opinion. Anyway that's the last on it for me.
Presumably its found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt after a trial by Jury hard to think of any other definition isnt it I refer @Superhiggy back to the comments made by Ian Hislop in the clip posted earlier in this thread The Jury one is an difficult one though I've done jury service and in once case the jury all agreed the defendant was guilty I m sure they were at least from the evidence presented in court. The case was just an assault charge though - I dont know what the sentence was as the case was adjourned but I know it wouldnt be more than a year or 2 in prison if that so I dont lose sleep over the small chance we got it wrong and the defendant was framed. But just think if you are on a Jury where the evidence points to guilty and its a capital offence - like for example the Guildford 4 Id hate to be on that jury- the evidence you have points to guilty but what if there is some evidence that was missing. just imagine you find someone guilty then a few years later additional evidence comes to light that proves the conviction was wrong how would you feel as a juror. Id be pretty sick if I was on the Guildford 4 jury anyway knowing I had condemned innocent men to lose a large chunk of their lives, but if they were dead - it doesnt bear thinking about Just one reason why jurors are far more likely to acquit a guilty person if there is a death sentence waiting
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". Gandhi. Great statement I agree with. Sadly he was not able to stop mass murder during partition. Tragic & still a cause of inbred hatred not only in India, but between Sikhs, Hindus & Muslims living here of a certain age. Their parents were largely caught up in this & there was no justice. I think the principle that the state kills people lowers its own level of morality to that of a killer. This is before we even consider the many miscarriages of justice, or making martyrs of people. Should we be soft on justice, no. On a personal level if someone killed one of my close friends or family I'd find it hard not to want to kill them, but it would in reality not bring my loved one back, or make me a happier or better person. I hope I'm not in that situation ever, but I cannot feel the pain of people that are. What we have to look at is the morality of the state in dealing with this, with a proper justice system & ensuring the safety of people who could be victims of people who might be released early. I reckon not everything is right, but if you look at places like the USA with their crazy gun laws we are ahead of the curve on this a lot of the time. Of course there is great tabloid opportunities for people wanting the death penalty. The general populous also voted for Brexit. We can all see how well that has panned out.
Another murder by an already convicted murderer from Serbia who has entered UK as an asylum seeker from Afghanistan will be getting free bed and board in an British prison.
I thought you inferred you were not in favour of capital punishment a couple of posts back. Or just asylum seekers?
If that story is true then the problem is our lack of correctly processing asylum seekers - if he is a convicted murderer from Serbia he shouldnt have got in but been deported back to Serbia in the first place
The thing about capital punishment is that its flawed. That's the main reason Im against it. There are countless examples of 'sound' convictions which turn out not to be sound so that the entire principle is crap. Its understandable wanting a complete nasty twa.t to have his/her life ending for committing evil crime but we have to stand back and think. There are too many errors, too many cases with flawed or manipulated evidence and too many cases with political bias for the idea to work 'safely'. Its ok quoting the moors murderers, Sutcliffe etc. They were indeed nasty, evil twa.ts but you can't introduce capital punishment on a case by case basis for the reasons I mentioned above. You either have capital punishment or you dont. We are a more civilised society without it.
Yeah but it’s a thread on capital punishment. What’s the point you’re trying to make? I didn’t get it either.
I think he's referring to the people on here who think murderers should be given a 2nd chance. A bloke kills 2 in Serbia flees is sentenced to 20 years in his absence but manages to get to England and kill someone. Definitely should be deported to Serbia. Haven't seen much of this news on the mainstream BBC etc.
Well if he doesn't serve any time then of course he hasn't been rehabilitated. Using a murderer who never faced consequences as evidence of how offenders can't be rehabilitated is as moronic as supporting the death penalty.
Sounds like a lovely bloke doesn't he. Can murderers be rehabilitated? Very debateable. Is it a risk to the public releasing them? Definitely. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227 Bit of bed time read for you... throw away the keys.