tombletomble Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 (edited) I think the problem here is that some people have so much vitriol when it comes to subjects like terrorism and such a poor grasp of the facts that aspects of The Human Rights Act are cherry-picked to fuel their arguments. Yes, the HRA protects those people who don't have any consideration for the Human Rights of others but that doesn't mean that we have to suspend their rights as a consequence. To do so would mean that we, as a civilisation, would be regressing to exactly the same level as they are; and we should, in a liberal democracy, put ourselves above their level. Otherwise we would have anarchy and the rule of violence instead of the rule of law. This, IMO, is the most important post on this thread. Rising above those that wish us harm and not subjecting them to cruel/painfull/inhumane conditions is one of the factors that makes a democracy like ours better than many other countries where the citizens can only dream of the generally fair and equal treatment that everyone recieves. We should not be moaning about the HRA. It's something that every human lucky enough to live in a country that follow it should be immensely proud. Everyone should remember that we are all Homo Sapiens! Edited 21 October, 2008 by tombletomble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 In the goths thread you said that goths always go on about how they want to be individual and you disagreed saying that by clinging onto a well established social clique they were, by definition, not individual. Oh, so your resulting to childish name calling. Very intellectual. I would like you to highlight where in the above extract, I have disagreed with myself. By saying 'They all say they want to be different, yet they all group together a like, meaning they by definition are not being different'. How is this contradicting? Im merely saying that there is a flaw in their statement as they are not being turely different if they all group together. Do you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Everyone should remember that we are all Homo Sapians! 'I'm not' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 in this instance you have said if Bin Laden was captured people would be sticking up for him and that would annoy you. Again, I fail to see how stating my opinion is contradiction? I feel you may not understand what contradiction actually means? Just because I can see the other side of the coin, doesnt mean I like the look of it! No, I dont know if OBL will be caught, I also do not know if when/if he is caught, if anyone will bother with his HR, however, I am entitled to my opinion, and this is a forum where people discuss things. I see no difference in discussing what may be the case here to what maybe the case in a years time with the credit crunch. Or do you go on those threads saying... If this happened and then this happened, surely this would happen and that would **** me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 We should not be moaning about the HRA. It's something that every human lucky enough to live in a country that follow it should be immensely proud. I feel a lot of people have misunderstood my initial post. I have not said the HRA should be abolished and thus leaving us with a country like Iran or Syberia. I merely commented that I do not agree with certain aspects of it which mean the likes of OBL will be treated like a law abiding human if/when caught. I can see why as DSM explains, it is so, but I do not agree with it. The HRA in general is obviously something for our benefit as a country which I am glad of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I feel a lot of people have misunderstood my initial post. I have not said the HRA should be abolished and thus leaving us with a country like Iran or Syberia. I merely commented that I do not agree with certain aspects of it which mean the likes of OBL will be treated like a law abiding human if/when caught. I can see why as DSM explains, it is so, but I do not agree with it. The HRA in general is obviously something for our benefit as a country which I am glad of. No. Your point was not that you do not agree with "certain aspects of the human rights act" but that you think there are certain people to whom any human rights should not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 No. Your point was not that you do not agree with "certain aspects of the human rights act" but that you think there are certain people to whom any human rights should not apply. I agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I agree with this. You agree that Special K says my point was the later part of that quote, or you agree that certain people shouldnt be given human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 No No what? I cant see where that no relates to? No people havent misunderstood my initial post perhaps? What you go onto say is correct, I personally do think certain people shouldnt be granted human rights, when they waive they humanity and kill others. This is all IMO of course and I know a lot of people disagree. Out of interest, and I do not wish to start an arguement, merely gauge people's opinions... What are your views on capital punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombletomble Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 No what? I cant see where that no relates to? No people havent misunderstood my initial post perhaps? What you go onto say is correct, I personally do think certain people shouldnt be granted human rights, when they waive they humanity and kill others. This is all IMO of course and I know a lot of people disagree. Out of interest, and I do not wish to start an arguement, merely gauge people's opinions... What are your views on capital punishment? Very much against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 No what? I cant see where that no relates to? No people havent misunderstood my initial post perhaps? What you go onto say is correct, I personally do think certain people shouldnt be granted human rights, when they waive they humanity and kill others. This is all IMO of course and I know a lot of people disagree. Out of interest, and I do not wish to start an arguement, merely gauge people's opinions... What are your views on capital punishment? paraphrasing partridge (cos i cant find the script). "There are no statistics that show capital punishment would reduce the number of criminals on our streets" ..."Well it would reduce them by one" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 No what? I cant see where that no relates to? No people havent misunderstood my initial post perhaps? What you go onto say is correct, I personally do think certain people shouldnt be granted human rights, when they waive they humanity and kill others. This is all IMO of course and I know a lot of people disagree. Out of interest, and I do not wish to start an arguement, merely gauge people's opinions... What are your views on capital punishment? It shouldn't just be down to London to kill the baddies. We all have a duty to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 FWIW, I am too against it. I feel prison sentences should be increased for more severe crimes and then litterally leave them to rot in prison. Capital punichment is the quick and easy way out of it. 40, 50 or even 60 years behind bars would drive you insane which is all someone would deserve for commiting a crime which merit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 FWIW, I am too against it. I feel prison sentences should be increased for more severe crimes and then litterally leave them to rot in prison. Capital punichment is the quick and easy way out of it. 40, 50 or even 60 years behind bars would drive you insane which is all someone would deserve for commiting a crime which merit that. Capital "PUNISHMENT" not punichment, what's to punich huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombletomble Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 FWIW, I am too against it. I feel prison sentences should be increased for more severe crimes and then litterally leave them to rot in prison. Capital punichment is the quick and easy way out of it. 40, 50 or even 60 years behind bars would drive you insane which is all someone would deserve for commiting a crime which merit that. Also, by taking their life the state is no better than the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Capital "PUNISHMENT" not punichment, what's to punich huh? Ah you f*cking b*gger, I was being so careful too! You were waiting to pounch on that weren't you!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 No what? I cant see where that no relates to? No people havent misunderstood my initial post perhaps? What you go onto say is correct, I personally do think certain people shouldnt be granted human rights, when they waive they humanity and kill others. This is all IMO of course and I know a lot of people disagree. Out of interest, and I do not wish to start an arguement, merely gauge people's opinions... What are your views on capital punishment? My post did not confirm any opinion i have, but commented on your post. You mention above that "certain" people waive their human rights when they kill others. Does this mean the guy who actually pulls the trigger or the one who tells the guy to pull the trigger? My opinions on capital punishment? Tough one. Rationally, i can't think of a good enough reason that would justify bringing it back. But the vigilante in me says "yeah", cos i know that (for instance) if my nearest and dearest were (say) murdered i would want the bastard responsible hung from the highest gallows. It's one i haven't squared off yet, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 21 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 21 October, 2008 My post did not confirm any opinion i have, but commented on your post. You mention above that "certain" people waive their human rights when they kill others. Does this mean the guy who actually pulls the trigger or the one who tells the guy to pull the trigger? Hmm, good point. Its difficult to say, I guess the person who actually pulls the trigger is the killer (even if instructed by someone else) as they can make their own choices and choose not to do it. My opinions on capital punishment? Tough one. Rationally, i can't think of a good enough reason that would justify bringing it back. But the vigilante in me says "yeah", cos i know that (for instance) if my nearest and dearest were (say) murdered i would want the bastard responsible hung from the highest gallows. It's one i haven't squared off yet, tbh. Would you not prefer them sat in prison for the rest of their natural life, every day having to live through what they have done. Knowing they will never get out of prison, thinking about things they will never be able to do. You can always give the a piece of your mind too as they will be alive to hear you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Also, by taking their life the state is no better than the criminal. I don't believe that's true. I am not for capital punishment for every murder, but in cold calculated cases I think it can be justified. Not for the bloke who sees red and kills on the spur of the moment. He will forever regret that and 20 years or so in prison plus his head ****ing with him forever will be enough punishment, but then someone like Peter Sutcliffe comes along and it's a whole different ball game. Why should the tax payer pay to keep him alive when he is never going to be decent and forgiving or be pardoned to join the real world again. Maybe if we are looking into Human Rights Issues we should at least offer this to them as an alternative? We are more and more turning a blind eye to people helping loved ones die from painful illnesses. If he is considered ill and can't be mended, then why can't it be at least offered to him? That will at least go some way to appease the PC lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 isnt against the human rights of someone who is locked up for the rest of their natural lives for seriously disgusting crimes....most of that lock up is in solitary confinement..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 You agree that Special K says my point was the later part of that quote, or you agree that certain people shouldnt be given human rights? the latter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 isnt against the human rights of someone who is locked up for the rest of their natural lives for seriously disgusting crimes....most of that lock up is in solitary confinement..? No all the HRA says is: Article 5 Right to liberty and security 1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; Nothing contained therein dictates how that detention may be carried out, save that there hall be no torture or slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Would you not prefer them sat in prison for the rest of their natural life, every day having to live through what they have done. Knowing they will never get out of prison, thinking about things they will never be able to do. You can always give the a piece of your mind too as they will be alive to hear you. No as its us tax payers that lose out in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 this country has faced bigger and nastier threats over its history and didn't feel the need to strip us of our basic human rights. this whole extending the limit for holding suspects is a disgrace. First it absolutely had to be 90 days. Then it absolutely had to be 42 days. What a joke. At least the House of Lords has some backbone. And this attitude of 'if you're not guilty you've got nothing to fear' has been disproved by history time and time again. The net result of this will be you and your family having to prove your innocence every day, and heaven forbid if you forget your i.d. card. The removal of human rights is a slow but steady decent into fascism. This is the most sensible post I have seen on this forum in a long time. It has made me feel ashamed, because my response to some of the posts on here is to think (and maybe even post) "what a bunch of f*cking idiots". I guess if people are genuinely unaware (some may call it stupid) it is important to make them aware (call it less stupid) of the truth. I am amazed (actually, I'm not sure I am amazed anymore; I am almost used to the stupidity of people on here) by the idiocy of some of the posters on here who are happy to blame foreigners for everything and back the erosion of the things that make the free world the free world. How can we complain about the attitudes and approaches of others whilst stripping away the fundemental rights that people have and deserve to have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 The amusing thing here, WS, is that the same people who continually point the finger at foreigners, immigrants etc, are also those who claim to represent the last bastion opf "British" values. **** off c*nts, as far as I'm concerned if this Britain has ever been great, it's been as a result of freedoms, liberal ideas, progressive thinkers, free speech, social conscience, attemps to create a decent justice system, ability to accept other nations and cultures and work with them. Some of the more retarded amongst us might genuinely think we have some sort of natural status in the world as 'better' than others, but the only thing that has ever made us so in any areas was trying to be that - trying to be just, fair, reasonable, sensible, concerned for our fellow men, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch of Maycomb Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Am I the only one who gets completely peeved off when these Human Rights groups pan on about things. For example, if Osama Bin Laden were to ever be caught, you could bet your boots on some HR gimp coming out saying he shouldnt be treated badly, should have a TV in prison, should have a choice of meals in prison etc etc. Like the amount of time you can detain someone suspected of terror charges. IMO if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Yet HR gimps come out saying its against their rights to detain them for x amount of days. One question... Would you be happier not detaining them, for them to then go and blow up hundreds or thousands of innocent people?! A few innocent people being detained for a few extra days is IMO a hell of a lot better than letting the guilty go a few days earlier! Discuss moron. to say that you are crouchie is an insult. crouchie spoke more sense than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Uh-oh, it's the cool kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch of Maycomb Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Uh-oh, it's the cool kids. moron. to say that you are crouchie is an insult. crouchie spoke more sense than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Yep, it is a particularly braindead thread starter. Many, many people have been killed and labelled based on nothing more than suspicion, rumour, or because they were set up. We claim to be civilised, but the fools of this country (and others, to be fair) prove that man is but a hairs breadth away from beast, and worse, at times. Taking the high ground is only ever reasonable if you are atop the highest hill, and most people, most nations, are not. Bin Laden should be treated as any other prisoner, were he caught here. I don't believe anyone has the authority to take a life unpermitted, or abuse anyone else, and anyone that does so is wrong, as my morals go. If people who fall into that category should be caught, they should be punished as our morality permits, not in some cheap tit-for-tat pettiness. There is never a reasonable price to pay for death, etc, so why bother to ask? It's more of a punishment to stay alive for one thing, and our country believes in rights allowing people to maintain some semblance of dignity. We should not seek to replace the criminals we incarcerate. Also - why the **** should I restrict my life to pander for idiots? An example - the so called anarchists cookbook. Chock full of genuinely dangerous information if used by anyone. Does having it make you a criminal? Most of it's science. It's not like child porn, where there is clearly a victim from point 1. But if the authorities that are, I guess, the 'enemies' of human rights, had their way, anyone who's ever seen it would go to jail 'just in case'. It's like the gun laws in the US. There's no reason why perfectly reasonable people shouldn't own guns. The problem is, some people aren't, but it's ever so difficult to legislate about that. While I'm essentially anti-guns, it still would seem harsh on a people who have grown used to having firearms to remove them due to the occasionally tragic actions of a nutter fringe. If I wanted to, I could go and kill someone. Right now. You can NEVER legislate about that kind of thing. Locking anyone up who so much as touches the Quran, which is what some people seem to want, is senseless. If someone is truly guilty of something, then a better and more reasonable way to conduct matters is to PROVE it, as out law has always been based on. Habias Corpus etc. If there is no evidence, there is no crime, and even if that means sometimes things go wrong, I'd rather live in a fair society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I fail to see the charge here... 'shouting in a public place', raising your voice in a loud manner', verbalising without due care and attention'? If that is the case then you could nick sixty-odd thousand every other Saturday at Old Trafford. Seriously though, there must be alarm or distress; just shouting is not enough unless there are other factors such as the person being drunk or under the influence of drugs, which in themselves are completely separate circumstances. Section 5 public order offence seems to cover a multitude of sins :smt102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Section 5 public order offence seems to cover a multitude of sins :smt102 Just shouting isn't sufficient. There needs to be an element of the following: 1) A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, ( within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. That part is something I would like to see tested in a Court of Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Just shouting isn't sufficient. There needs to be an element of the following: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. That part is something I would like to see tested in a Court of Law. So holding a "NO PIES FOR FAT PEOPLE" banner outside the local Weight-watchers meeting would count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 So holding a "NO PIES FOR FAT PEOPLE" banner outside the local Weight-watchers meeting would count? M3h. Try it. It's a Mute Point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 Robsk and jeff leopard just owned this thread. Good work, chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch of Maycomb Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 Robsk and jeff leopard just owned this thread. Good work, chaps. :smt081 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 moron. to say that you are crouchie is an insult. crouchie spoke more sense than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 My opinions on capital punishment? Tough one. Rationally, i can't think of a good enough reason that would justify bringing it back. But the vigilante in me says "yeah", cos i know that (for instance) if my nearest and dearest were (say) murdered i would want the bastard responsible hung from the highest gallows. It's one i haven't squared off yet, tbh. If something had just happened to a family member, friend, then you would be in no position to make a rational judgement on punishment. You have to take this out of the equation when thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublesaint Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 No as its us tax payers that lose out in the end. Can you explain what it would be that you are 'losing' exactly, or would you prefer to have the option of deciding individually where your tax revenue would be apportioned to? Perhaps you are 'losing' more money by paying for the upkeep of the nuclear defence system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 If something had just happened to a family member, friend, then you would be in no position to make a rational judgement on punishment. You have to take this out of the equation when thinking about it. Can i ask how you would know? I may well be in a better position to make a rational judgement. Just because it may not agree with your liberal sentiments, doesn't make it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 Can i ask how you would know? I may well be in a better position to make a rational judgement. Just because it may not agree with your liberal sentiments, doesn't make it wrong. You could come to the same conclusion from not being involved. I didn't say what my thoughts were on that. What I'm saying is someone with emotional involvement should not be involved in making a decision on the possible punishment, as they are more than likely going to over react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 No as its us tax payers that lose out in the end. Do you know how much it costs to serve someone with the death penalty? You may be surprised at the cost of life incarceration vs death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 Do you know how much it costs to serve someone with the death penalty? You may be surprised at the cost of life incarceration vs death penalty. Very true. Just one example and there are many more: the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 What are the breakdown of these costs then? I don't understand how it could be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 What are the breakdown of these costs then? I don't understand how it could be higher. For starters: At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defence over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel. On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defence averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases. Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defence costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 Unfortunately this is a never ending spiral. If someone is caught and shoved in say, Guantanamo Bay and later found to be a terrorist - great. They've potentially saved the lives of thousands of innocent people. If not - then it's terrible and they've devastated people's lives. Based on the old law I do believe people shouldn't get their human rights taken away from them without a fair trial. I think a great deal more monitoring should be done on people before they are put in prison 'just in case'. At the moment it is suspected terrorists mainly that are inprisoned, the worry is that soon it will be other crimes that are treated the same. Basically taking away human rights without a fair trial is as close to a dictatorship as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 Well here's a new law that should please the knee-jerk paedophile haters. (And no, I think paedophilia is one of the worst crimes a human being can be guilty of) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any parent or other person convicted of forcible anal or oral sodomy, rape, rape by instrumentation, or lewd molestation of a child under fourteen (14) years of age subsequent to a previous conviction for any offense of forcible anal or oral sodomy, rape, rape by instrumentation, or lewd molestation of a child under fourteen (14) years of age shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life without parole. Just the action is enough. The child does not have to have been killed for the law to be enacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 Well here's a new law that should please the knee-jerk paedophile haters. (And no, I think paedophilia is one of the worst crimes a human being can be guilty of) Just the action is enough. The child does not have to have been killed for the law to be enacted. Can of worms. I agree with that law. If they've been caught and punished before and done the same hideous act again, then the punishment and no doubt counselling & psychotherapy that they have received has made no difference. Many would argue that they should have been killed the first time, or at least never let out of prison (narrow minded IMO.) Also worth noting that you only put the punishment by death in bold. They could spend their life in prison instead. I imagine only the worst cases would be sentenced to death, however neither of us could really say without being involved in such a case. Lots of paedophiles go to prison and receive treatment and don't offend again, so if they are capable of living without abusing children then it shows the treatment has worked. what can we do with others that continue to abuse? Only other option would be to put them in asylums like there are for mentally disabled people. and yes, I appreciate paedophilia is a mental problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 For starters: At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defence over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel. On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defence averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases. Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional$137,000 in public defence costs. So not REAL costs then, just over inflated officials fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 22 October, 2008 Share Posted 22 October, 2008 So not REAL costs then, just over inflated officials fees. I refuse to admit that lawyers fees are excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now