Ian Huntley trial...

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,14:28)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,14:24)]Erm, this board isn't the right place to discuss such an emotive issue whilst the trial is on. Could we all please exercise restraint until judgement is passed and not comment on evidence passed through the media

Yours, Napster

ps Good call on utilitarianism, earlier, Matt!

Can you explain why not?

Bar a few frankly idiotic postings by some members, on the whole its an interesting subject of discussion - no-one (bar the aforementioned) is pointing any fingers...

You've answered your own question, I guess. I just don't think it's right to discuss such a huge thing when none of us are party to everthing going on. Blimey, even MtS got angry- that's a rarity in itself.

 

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,14:31)]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,14:28)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Nov. 27 2003,14:24)]Erm, this board isn't the right place to discuss such an emotive issue whilst the trial is on. Could we all please exercise restraint until judgement is passed and not comment on evidence passed through the media

Yours, Napster

ps Good call on utilitarianism, earlier, Matt!

Can you explain why not?

Bar a few frankly idiotic postings by some members, on the whole its an interesting subject of discussion - no-one (bar the aforementioned) is pointing any fingers...

You've answered your own question, I guess. I just don't think it's right to discuss such a huge thing when none of us are party to everthing going on. Blimey, even MtS got angry- that's a rarity in itself.

'Tis a fair point.

PB, in you original post, you asked if we had any views on the trial. Without knowing the full evidence, how can we have views on it?

 

[Durera]

<span style='font-family:comic sans ms'>I wouldn&#39;t comment on trial, as frankly I know f**k all what has gone on...

However, the press regarding the original arrests were nothing short of a witch hunt - innocent until proven guilty? NOT in the eyes of the UK press....

The whole things had the PR of SUFC, frankly....</span>

 

[palexander]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,14:33)]PB, in you original post, you asked if we had any views on the trial. Without knowing the full evidence, how can we have views on it?

Fair cop... you can have a personal opinion - but when that opinion is that of what some people have spouted off in this thread, then I think I&#39;d rather not be privvy to it...

 

[Shagster69]

Murder or not. The fact is he was still there when they died and i find his version very worrying and his admitted actions afterwards shocking. As to whether it was murder, who knows but it does appear to be very suspicious.

 

[Shagster69]

Not exactly Shawshank Redemption though is it&#33;

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Shagster69 @ Nov. 27 2003,15:11)]Not exactly Shawshank Redemption though is it&#33;

No- where&#39;s Red?

 

[Surrey Blue]

As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?

 

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (pboreham @ Nov. 27 2003,14:28)]Bar a few frankly idiotic postings by some members, on the whole its an interesting subject of discussion - no-one (bar the aforementioned) is pointing any fingers...

Hope you&#39;re not referring to my idiotic postings&#33;

I was merely trying to stimulate debate on the appropriate form of punishment should the accused be found guilty.

 

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?

It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....

 

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,16:01)]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?

It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....

As my dear old mate Augustus Pinochet used to say

&quot; I didn&#39;t get where I am today by worrying about human rights&#33; If I didn&#39;t see passion in their eyes I used to take them for a one way helicopter ride over the Pacific Ocean&#33;&quot;

 

[Surrey Blue]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,16:01)]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?

It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....

But surely with DNA and the types of scientific evidence now available doesnt it allow us to be 100% sure? and i would be interested to know How many Death Sentences in the states are proved to be wrong through belated evidence?

 

[Usual_Suspect]

We have been discussing this in the office today, along with the 20% discount in House of Fraser.  In theory I am all for it, if my child was murdered then there's no question I would want the person executed.

The only problem being that like most people I would want their guilt to be proven without any doubt what’s so ever.

I think prison appears to be to easy for some people, the main example of late being the PAM AM bomber who's living in a self contained flat with TV, pc, videos, telephones, sofa etc. How can this be right? He probably can't believe his luck.

I also say put all the perverts, rapists and child killers in with everyone else, let them get the absolute sh*te kicked out of them everyday cause they more then deserve it.

 

[steveh1510]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,16:09)]But surely with DNA and the types of scientific evidence now available doesnt it allow us to be 100% sure? and i would be interested to know How many Death Sentences in the states are proved to be wrong through belated evidence?

But, thats my point, we can&#39;t be 100% sure, and until we can I don&#39;t think we should bring back the death sentence....

 

[Wessex Blue]

On the subject of the Press whipping up hysteria around these kind of emotive subjects - I was chuckling to myself about an incident that happened in Pompey a few years ago. The local council had been obliged to rehouse a couple of nonces on the Paulsgrove Estate in the city. This caused uproar amongst the locals and a series of protests were organised. Things escalated and several people were eventually driven out of their homes.
The most shocking event was a local paediatrician having to flee after a mob trashed his house. Unbelievable&#33;

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Usual_Suspect @ Nov. 27 2003,16:10)]We have been discussing this in the office today, along with the 20% discount in House of Fraser.  In theory I am all for it,

I'm not surprised- that's a good bargain.

 

[Surrey Blue]

Quote[/b] (Wessex Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,16:07)]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Nov. 27 2003,16:01)]

Quote[/b] (Surrey Blue @ Nov. 27 2003,15:52)]As we shouldnt discuss the trial, lets discuss something as interesting and thats peoples opinion on the Death Penalty?

Should we have it for hidious crimes, such as Peadophilia, Murder, etc or is a stretch inside good enough?

I would welcome everyones opinion and especially Matts being as you practise law?

It always seems to me to be a question of how well people are found guilty. If you are gonna kill someone then you must be 100% sure they are guilty, how many times are people acquitted due to fresh evidence. How are you gonna come back from that if they are dead? There needs to be a near fool-proof justice system for this to work properly and unfortunately we are living in dreamworld if we think that could ever be.

So, no, I wouldn&#39;t bring back the death sentence, because as soon as one person is convicted, executed then found not guilty due to fresh evidence, the system hasn&#39;t worked, it offers limited rights of appeal.....

As my dear old mate Augustus Pinochet used to say

&quot; I didn&#39;t get where I am today by worrying about human rights&#33; If I didn&#39;t see passion in their eyes I used to take them for a one way helicopter ride over the Pacific Ocean&#33;&quot;

You Sure that wasnt Ron Martin?

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Clearly, you don't need to have a career in the law to have an opinion on the death penalty - it's something that everyone should have an opinion on.

I'm vehemently opposed to the death penalty - always have been.  It's the ultimate example of two wrongs not making a right.  It is state-sponsored murder.

I'm all for hard labour, life imprisonment meaning just that, chemical castration, even castration with a blunt teaspoon, or making people break stones on a remote island off the Falklands or whatever.  Occasionally, some people are so evil that it's simply not worth trying to rehabilitate them.

But miscarriages of justice do occur - and if you've hanged someone under a death penalty, you can't really turn around 20 years later and say "oops, sorry, we got that one wrong", can you?

Given that as a species, we do (or ought to) treasure the sanctity and inviolability of the right to life above every other thing, it seems to be hypocrisy and illogicality of the highest order if, in response to a dreadful crime like murder, the state turns around and says "as a result of you killing someone, we're going to kill you."

Of course, the excpetion to this is in war, when all bets are off.  If it's a case of kill or be killed, then the killing of another human being is akin to a form of self-defence, and in those circumstances it is justified to kill someone.

In all other circumstances, IMHO, killing a human being is simply wrong - whether it's a criminal who does it, or the state.

Matt

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,16:38)]illogicality

I&#39;m sure that&#39;s made up.

 

[Surrey Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 27 2003,16:38)]Clearly, you don't need to have a career in the law to have an opinion on the death penalty - it's something that everyone should have an opinion on.

I'm vehemently opposed to the death penalty - always have been.  It's the ultimate example of two wrongs not making a right.  It is state-sponsored murder.

I'm all for hard labour, life imprisonment meaning just that, chemical castration, even castration with a blunt teaspoon, or making people break stones on a remote island off the Falklands or whatever.  Occasionally, some people are so evil that it's simply not worth trying to rehabilitate them.

But miscarriages of justice do occur - and if you've hanged someone under a death penalty, you can't really turn around 20 years later and say "oops, sorry, we got that one wrong", can you?

Given that as a species, we do (or ought to) treasure the sanctity and inviolability of the right to life above every other thing, it seems to be hypocrisy and illogicality of the highest order if, in response to a dreadful crime like murder, the state turns around and says "as a result of you killing someone, we're going to kill you."

Of course, the excpetion to this is in war, when all bets are off.  If it's a case of kill or be killed, then the killing of another human being is akin to a form of self-defence, and in those circumstances it is justified to kill someone.

In all other circumstances, IMHO, killing a human being is simply wrong - whether it's a criminal who does it, or the state.

Matt

Matt, although i greatly appreciate you dont need a career in law to have an opinion of the death penalty, i was intrigued to know what someone who does have a career in law thought.

Now would you say your opinion as someone who has a career in law is in the majority within law circles? or can you really not say?