alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Unfortunately that would've seen the Birmingham Six and many others executed for crimes they didn't commit. B*llocks. People like you were banging on about their innocence from the second they were convicted. Hardly bang-to-rights, was it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Is there a bigger attention seeking troll on this forum than alpine_saint? He is actually making a very good point yet as usual the forum superstars are coming up with sarcastic and belittling responses rather than come up with any suitable alternative. I am sure Verbal would be chomping at the bit for public hanging if the child was black though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I would have the death penalty when there is no doubt what so ever Yes, I would too. And show it Live on TV. How would you kill the bad people? Hanging? Lethal injection? Shot? Burned alive? Electric Chair? Cut off head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 The good old days of 1968. http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_mary_bell.html And we are supposed to think she didnt know what she was doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Unfortunately that would've seen the Birmingham Six and many others executed for crimes they didn't commit. Then they would've got what they deserved then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 What, because I dont agree with you and refuse to see murdered toddlers reduced to the ranks of statistical blips ? No because you come out with pathetic comments like that. Your basic stance in this thread has been "if you don't agree with me then you condone child murder". It is absolutely pathetic. Equally pathetic, but much more offensive, as your repetitive "I wasn't at the match but my opinion is unchallengable" doom mongering on the post-match reaction threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Yes, I would too. And show it Live on TV. How would you kill the bad people? Hanging? Lethal injection? Shot? Burned alive? Electric Chair? Cut off head? Not lethal injection. Why should it be painless ? Electric chair or gas chamber for me. Especially like the latter, the panicky holding of breath as you hear the fizzing of the acid under the chair... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 He is actually making a very good point yet as usual the forum superstars are coming up with sarcastic and belittling responses rather than come up with any suitable alternative. I am sure Verbal would be chomping at the bit for public hanging if the child was black though. oh here is the forum prima donna, sure to add value to any debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Not lethal injection. Why should it be painless ? Electric chair or gas chamber for me. Especially like the latter, the panicky holding of breath as you hear the fizzing of the acid under the chair... I'm all for an eye for an eye etc so to be executed the way they killed the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 No because you come out with pathetic comments like that. Your basic stance in this thread has been "if you don't agree with me then you condone child murder". It is absolutely pathetic. Equally pathetic, but much more offensive, as your repetitive "I wasn't at the match but my opinion is unchallengable" doom mongering on the post-match reaction threads. Nope, thats your interpretation of it. I think some people on here are comforting themselves and base their opinion on a supposed lack of frenquency of such crimes. I wonder if their opinion would change (I pray that it never happens) if they were ever personally affected ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 What a bizarre thread. Alpine, if your brain really does function in the way your ramblings suggest then I recommend some sort of protective custody and treatment for you. You really seem to struggle with pretty elementary logical concepts in a way which one would not expect an adult to do. Seriously, you might be a mentalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Then they would've got what they deserved then! eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 And we are supposed to think she didnt know what she was doing No. You are supposed to think that even 11 year old girls commit brutal double murders. She was released aged 24, had a daughter and hasnt re-offended. Would you have killed her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 oh here is the forum prima donna, sure to add value to any debate. Like you did with you fantastic planet Alpina, patronising drivel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Bet you and Sharon Shoesmith would get on great with your pie charts. I actually don't have a clue what you're talking about. Care to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I'm all for an eye for an eye etc so to be executed the way they killed the victim. I must admit I like the idea of a lack of fixed execution method, but instead locking in a soundproof room with an assorted selection of the victims relatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I must admit I like the idea of a lack of fixed execution method, but instead locking in a soundproof room with an assorted selection of the victims relatives. Still not about revenge then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 B*llocks. People like you were banging on about their innocence from the second they were convicted. Hardly bang-to-rights, was it ? I'm sure people like him are really sorry for 'banging' on about people convicted for crimes they didn't commit. Would you have preferred it if they were still in jail or dead for crimes they didn't commit?! Of course not, so your language should be toned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 No. You are supposed to think that even 11 year old girls commit brutal double murders. She was released aged 24, had a daughter and hasnt re-offended. Would you have killed her? No, because a small doubt in my mind of her awareness at that age. A couple of years older, I would have said yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I must admit I like the idea of a lack of fixed execution method, but instead locking in a soundproof room with an assorted selection of the victims relatives. If it was anyone on here the murderer wouldn't die though, they'd spend the whole time trying to understand and empathise with them as to why they did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Electric Bath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Still not about revenge then. For the relatives, absolutely. For the justice system, sentence has been carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 If it was anyone on here the murderer wouldn't die though, they'd spend the whole time trying to understand and empathise with them as to why they did it. just like terrorists...........they don't want them in jail, they want to show compassion...yet I bet they wanted evil rupert murdoch in the slammer.. they = forum super stars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 If it was anyone on here the murderer wouldn't die though, they'd spend the whole time trying to understand and empathise with them as to why they did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 No, because a small doubt in my mind of her awareness at that age. A couple of years older, I would have said yes. What about if one of the Fridl kids who lived in the dungeon all their childhood turns out to have a personality disorder as a result and murders someone. Death penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Nope, thats your interpretation of it. I think some people on here are comforting themselves and base their opinion on a supposed lack of frenquency of such crimes. I wonder if their opinion would change (I pray that it never happens) if they were ever personally affected ??? It's not about lack of frequency at all. It's about having an effective system and the death penalty is proven to be ineffective. And if I was ever affected, it is possible(I don't know, because thankfully it has never happened and I hope it never will) that I would want death upon the murderers who took one of my loved ones... but that's exactly why we shouldn't do it. Those who are victims don't think rationally when it comes to punishment. The law must be blind and fair and NOT motivated by revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I'm sure people like him are really sorry for 'banging' on about people convicted for crimes they didn't commit. Would you have preferred it if they were still in jail or dead for crimes they didn't commit?! Of course not, so your language should be toned down. Listen you stupid tw*t, this woman put a film of her doing it on SKYPE. Where's the f**king doubt that she did it ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Being honest, I would have sentenced to death people like Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Fred West, the caretaker guy etc., i.e. where there is absolute certainty and there really is no hope that you could rid them of the evil thought process. You simply can't! But in this instance, she's disgusting and stupid, but you couldn't kill her for it. She should be beaten. Well okay, sent to prison for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Listen you stupid tw*t, this woman put a film of her doing it on SKYPE. Where's the f**king doubt that she did it ?? Why don't you cut out the abuse. Andy's point is a good one - entirely missed in your fit of pique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 It's not about lack of frequency at all. It's about having an effective system and the death penalty is proven to be ineffective. And if I was ever affected, it is possible(I don't know, because thankfully it has never happened and I hope it never will) that I would want death upon the murderers who took one of my loved ones... but that's exactly why we shouldn't do it. Those who are victims don't think rationally when it comes to punishment. The law must be blind and fair and NOT motivated by revenge. Blind - check Fair - well, that's what we are debating here Motivated by Revenge - Well if its determined to be fair, this is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Why don't you cut out the abuse. Andy's point is a good one - entirely missed in your fit of pique. No its not. The tired old argument against the death penalty is the miscarriage of justice argument. In this case it has nothing to do with it. You all know that because she filmed it, so you've moved on to "well, she must be mental then" without actually having a clue if this is the case. You lot try to find excuses for everything; something or someone else to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I think the main question is the intent behind it. If there was intent and she was mentally fit to understand her actions then it's murder and she Should face the consequences. If not then there are extenuating circumstances. It's not that difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Listen you stupid tw*t, this woman put a film of her doing it on SKYPE. Where's the f**king doubt that she did it ?? Please, why the insults? I do not resort to insulting you. I address your points politely, so please do the same for mine. I was talking about the specific case of the Birmingham Six and your language in relation to it almost as if saying an innocent person was innocent was wrong(use of the phrase 'banging on'.) In regards to this case, where clearly a heinous and evil murder has been committed and there is clearly no doubt, my opinion remains the same for reasons already stated including the right of the state to take away life and justice not motivated by revenge. Now please, if you do reply treat my comments with the same respect I treated your comment. Needlessly adding 'you stupid ****' adds nothing to your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Blind - check Fair - well, that's what we are debating here Motivated by Revenge - Well if its determined to be fair, this is irrelevant. But the case hasn't even come to court yet! And your last sentence makes absolutely no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 When the death penalty was abolished the British people were told that murder would carry a life sentance. The establishment have gone back on their word and that is why their is so much resentment from the British people. Murderers out in 10-15 years, it's a disgrace. We are supposed to be a civilised country, hense the lack of a death penalty, yet how are we civilised when we let murderers out so early. Life should mean life, end of. That was the trade off promised to the British people in return for the abolishment of hanging. Of course the death penalty doesn't deter crime. But what it does do is two fold. One; it gets rid of scum bags like Huntly and two; it can be used as a trade off. Take the Lawernce case,. I'm sure Dobson or Norris would give up the other racist thugs if it meant a lesser sentance. ie, Death penalty or give the other 3 up and serve life. It also helps with a plea, plea guilty and serve life, plead innocent ,get found guilty and you'll swing....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 No its not. The tired old argument against the death penalty is the miscarriage of justice argument. In this case it has nothing to do with it. You all know that because she filmed it, so you've moved on to "well, she must be mental then" without actually having a clue if this is the case. You lot try to find excuses for everything; something or someone else to blame. So why do you resort so readily to abuse? And how many times have the 'obvious' criminals turned out to be nothing of the kind. Is the boyfriend innocent, as he claims, of encouraging it? What was the state of mind of the woman at the time of the killing? What's her history? Was the skype recorded? etc etc. But no - for you, it's simple: boil all bunnies. Kill the guilty, the ultimately proven innocent, the mentally incompetent...just KILL!!! and magically everything will be right with the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I think the main question is the intent behind it. If there was intent and she was mentally fit to understand her actions then it's murder and she Should face the consequences. If not then there are extenuating circumstances. It's not that difficult. Dont think anyone is disputing that. The question is, do you have the death penalty at all, and if you do would you use it for crimes like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 What about if one of the Fridl kids who lived in the dungeon all their childhood turns out to have a personality disorder as a result and murders someone. Death penalty? This is just a variation on the "there must be an underlying explanation" argument. What about that Norwegian tw*t who killed 70-odd kids ? The psychologists say there is nothing wrong with him. Stick him in a very expensive five-star cell for the rest of his life, knowing he has no value and brings no value to society, or fry his f**king brains until his eyes pop out and he sh*ts himself with 50,000volts ?? I know which one I vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Dont think anyone is disputing that. The question is, do you have the death penalty at all, and if you do would you use it for crimes like this?you have it where there is no doubt what so ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Nope, thats your interpretation of it. That's exactly your stance. In response to buctootim saying that he'd have three strikes resulting in a death penalty (instead of other punishments) you said You'd let 2 other babies suffer this fate before doing something about it? In response to me saying that criminals don't think ahead when commiting crime you said Yep, criminals are victims... In response to me pointing out that muderers don't think about punishment when committing murder you said people like anothersaintinsouthsea will make sure I get a nice flat, loads of money, and plenty of understanding In response to Verbal pointing out that statistics were a better indicator of crime levels that an individual's perception you said Bet you and Sharon Shoesmith would get on great with your pie charts In response to me criticising you for being an attention seeking troll you said What, because I dont agree with you and refuse to see murdered toddlers reduced to the ranks of statistical blips ? Really really pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 When the death penalty was abolished the British people were told that murder would carry a life sentance. The establishment have gone back on their word and that is why their is so much resentment from the British people. Murderers out in 10-15 years, it's a disgrace. We are supposed to be a civilised country, hense the lack of a death penalty, yet how are we civilised when we let murderers out so early. Life should mean life, end of. That was the trade off promised to the British people in return for the abolishment of hanging. Of course the death penalty doesn't deter crime. But what it does do is two fold. One; it gets rid of scum bags like Huntly and two; it can be used as a trade off. Take the Lawernce case,. I'm sure Dobson or Norris would give up the other racist thugs if it meant a lesser sentance. ie, Death penalty or give the other 3 up and serve life. It also helps with a plea, plea guilty and serve life, plead innocent ,get found guilty and you'll swing....... Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 When the death penalty was abolished the British people were told that murder would carry a life sentance. The establishment have gone back on their word and that is why their is so much resentment from the British people. Murderers out in 10-15 years, it's a disgrace. We are supposed to be a civilised country, hense the lack of a death penalty, yet how are we civilised when we let murderers out so early. Life should mean life, end of. That was the trade off promised to the British people in return for the abolishment of hanging. Of course the death penalty doesn't deter crime. But what it does do is two fold. One; it gets rid of scum bags like Huntly and two; it can be used as a trade off. Take the Lawernce case,. I'm sure Dobson or Norris would give up the other racist thugs if it meant a lesser sentance. ie, Death penalty or give the other 3 up and serve life. It also helps with a plea, plea guilty and serve life, plead innocent ,get found guilty and you'll swing....... But if such life vs. no life trade offs were done, it could again be used by the state to abuse its position. i.e Interrogator: Tell us this guy is guilty or we will kill you. I don't think that is a desirable circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 This is just a variation on the "there must be an underlying explanation" argument. What about that Norwegian tw*t who killed 70-odd kids ? The psychologists say there is nothing wrong with him. Stick him in a very expensive five-star cell for the rest of his life, knowing he has no value and brings no value to society, or fry his f**king brains until his eyes pop out and he sh*ts himself with 50,000volts ?? I know which one I vote for. But enough about your visits to Mistress Ball-crusher, what do you really think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 January, 2012 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2012 That's exactly your stance. In response to buctootim saying that he'd have three strikes resulting in a death penalty (instead of other punishments) you said In response to me saying that criminals don't think ahead when commiting crime you said In response to me pointing out that muderers don't think about punishment when committing murder you said In response to Verbal pointing out that statistics were a better indicator of crime levels that an individual's perception you said In response to me criticising you for being an attention seeking troll you said Really really pathetic. I feel the same about your bleeding-heart liberal opinion. I've bet you've already forgotten what happened to this baby in carrying out this crusade.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 Dont think anyone is disputing that. The question is, do you have the death penalty at all, and if you do would you use it for crimes like this? As DD says, when there is no doubt whatsoever (such as filming the f*cking thing) and when it's crimes against children, acts of terrorism or serial killers. Huntley should have hung for example. Any cold blooded murder should also be considered. It shouldn't be on the say so of one judge either, after conviction it should go to three judges, after the first judge has made his decision, as they do in the court of appeal. Barristers can then argue it out with the three judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 they = forum super stars Says the man - never short of an opinion - with 22,970 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 This is just a variation on the "there must be an underlying explanation" argument. What about that Norwegian tw*t who killed 70-odd kids ? The psychologists say there is nothing wrong with him. Stick him in a very expensive five-star cell for the rest of his life, knowing he has no value and brings no value to society, or fry his f**king brains until his eyes pop out and he sh*ts himself with 50,000volts ?? I know which one I vote for. Stick him in a Travellodge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 This is just a variation on the "there must be an underlying explanation" argument. What about that Norwegian tw*t who killed 70-odd kids ? The psychologists say there is nothing wrong with him. Stick him in a very expensive five-star cell for the rest of his life, knowing he has no value and brings no value to society, or fry his f**king brains until his eyes pop out and he sh*ts himself with 50,000volts ?? I know which one I vote for. I would probably sentence the Norwegian to death too, though by lethal injection. But generally I would say first offences you get the benefit of doubt that it was a momentary loss of control, or a freak unintended consequence. The three strikes rule deals with that by showing persistence of behaviour, the failure of incaceration to alter behaviour and guilt beyond all reasonable doubt (the odds of three unjust guilty verdicts are astronomical). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 I feel the same about your bleeding-heart liberal opinion. I've bet you've already forgotten what happened to this baby in carrying out this crusade.. You really are totally out of order here. Just because he does not want to reinstate the death penalty, it doesn't mean he is heartless and doesn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 January, 2012 Share Posted 6 January, 2012 That's exactly your stance. In response to buctootim saying that he'd have three strikes resulting in a death penalty (instead of other punishments) you said In response to me saying that criminals don't think ahead when commiting crime you said In response to me pointing out that muderers don't think about punishment when committing murder you said In response to Verbal pointing out that statistics were a better indicator of crime levels that an individual's perception you said In response to me criticising you for being an attention seeking troll you said Really really pathetic. and you said Alps is an attention seeker. If this isn't an "ohh look at me" post what is?!! 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