Kiaran Stapleton: Is 30 Years too Leniant?

Original post by Tommyjw

"the killer of Indian student Anuj Bidve, has been jailed for life with a minimum of 30 years."

What is the issue? It is essentially the maximum sentence, how can it ever be described as 'too lenient'?.

In no way shape or form should we ever bring back the death penalty, ever.

Why not? It saves me, the tax payer, money, by killng scum like this instead of paying for food and housing for the next 30 years minimum.

Reply 123

Original post by Yung Mon£y

Why not? It saves me, the tax payer, money, by killng scum like this instead of paying for food and housing for the next 30 years minimum.

The mentally ill are "scum" now?

Reply 124

Original post by Kibalchich

The mentally ill are "scum" now?

Where did I say that? :rolleyes:

Top effort on making things up bro

Reply 125

Original post by Yung Mon£y

Where did I say that? :rolleyes:

Top effort on making things up bro

You described the person in question as "scum". The person in question has been diagnosed with a mental health problem.

Reply 126

Original post by Kibalchich

You described the person in question as "scum". The person in question has been diagnosed with a mental health problem.

The person in question also shot an innocent person, laughed about it, and got a trophy tattoo of said murder.

His mental illness does not make him scum; his actions make him scum.

Reply 127

Original post by Yung Mon£y

The person in question also shot an innocent person, laughed about it, and got a trophy tattoo of said murder.

His mental illness does not make him scum; his actions make him scum.

Maybe his actions were as a result of his personality disorder? I know the judge didn't think so, but the judge is not a mental health professional. Someone with an anti-social personality disorder has an under-developed emotional system, poor impulse control, and a lack of empathy. These are often due to abusive and traumatic formative experiences.

Reply 128

Original post by Kibalchich

The jury, who had more info then we do, clearly decided that his illness should not be considered when handing out the sentence.
Unless you can show that everyone, or many people, with the disorder are murderers, you're simply looking for an excuse. Why the hell are you trying to justify a horrific murder? Shame on you.

Reply 129

Original post by Yung Mon£y

I can show that people with his diagnosis have a faulty emotional system, and often can't empathise with others or display remorse. The judge is not a mental health professional, as I already stated.

Reply 130

Original post by ThePants999

Well, this basically is an argument about the dealth penalty, isn't it? Is 40 years really a much harsher punishment than 30? If you think 30 years is too lenient a punishment, you're basically calling either for a real "life" imprisonment, or the death penalty - and I think real "life" sentences are pointless. Either you think there's a point at which they might have redeemed and reformed themselves and can be released, or you don't - and if you think they're irredeemable, why keep them around?

Because they might be proven innocent 5, 10, 20 years down the line.
And because it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to kill them.

Reply 131

Original post by Kibalchich

I can show that people with his diagnosis have a faulty emotional system, and often can't empathise with others or display remorse. The judge is not a mental health professional, as I already stated.

A faulty emotional system does not make someone a dangerous and vicious murderer. That disorder does not make someone go out and kill another person, therefore your conclusion that he should be treated differently to a normal person who committed the same crime doesn't make sense.

Reply 132

simonbellringer

Original post by Fallen

Because they might be proven innocent 5, 10, 20 years down the line.
And because it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to kill them.

This discussion has been had.

IMO, he will not be proven innocent 5, 10, 20 years down the line, mental illness or not.

I can think of a very cheap way of killing someone. One gun. One bullet. Probably works out cheaper than one day of keeping him behind bars. And no, I would not let him have any more than one appeal. There are far better places to spend the taxpayers money - education and healthcare for instance. :rolleyes:

Reply 133

Original post by Yung Mon£y

Why not? It saves me, the tax payer, money, by killng scum like this instead of paying for food and housing for the next 30 years minimum.

Why the death penaly is bad:
a) False convictions. They happen. We kill innocent people. That should be enough.
b) Due to the severity of the punishment false conviction rate has to be low (but is never zero). This means you need years of appeals and every level of court. Costs more than housing them for 50 years.

It is inferior to incarceration on both a moral and a practical level.

Reply 134

james22

Original post by simonbellringer

In America the death penelty is far more expensive than locking someone up. In fact the total court costs of simply finding someone guilty and sentencing them to death is higher than the total cost of locking someone up for life. It's easy to look up but if you don't believe me I can easily find sources.

Reply 135

Original post by Fallen

And because it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to kill them.

No it's not.
Bullet and hourly salary for a soldier is what, £30?

Prison upkeep for 30 years is closer to probably £300,000

Original post by james22

That's because they do idiotic things like make sure the person is healthy enough to be executed. Just take them out back into a yard, bullet to the head. Keep it quick, keep it cheap.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 136

Dukeofwembley

human rights laws are sometimes so restrictiv

i say they should give him solitary confinement for 20 years
that would only be fair!!!

Reply 137

Original post by simonbellringer

Oh, so your opinion is enough to kill someone?

Some cases are clear cut, but others are not. Killing someone like this or Brevik might seem like a good idea because "c'mon, they are definitely guilty", but it has been shown time and time again that false convictions do happen.

What about serious crimes which in the future are seen as moral? What if Mandela would have been executed?

It is easy to have a blasé attitude towards issues like this, but it is a fact that the death penalty would result in innocent people being executed. You, your parents, your siblings could be killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? How does that not sicken you?

Reply 138