The British justice system is the most barbaric in the world.

The death penalty is a good thing ,your country is ****,they protect rapist/pedophiles drug addicts and criminals.

Homosexuality should be illegal

For Women forbidden and driving it's Islamic countries but most of countries don't care about that.

Your thread title doesn't really help your point. The British justice system is categorically one of the least barbaric in the world.

Are you joking?they protect rapists,they release criminals and they put good people in jail if they defend themselves against bad people....

The way you suggest would put more innocent, misunderstood people in prison than it would criminals. It's not moronic to believe innocent people shouldn't be punished for crimes they have not committed.

Are you joking?they protect rapists,they release criminals and they put good people in jail if they defend themselves against bad people....

Innocent people would not be convicted, and if they were wrongly convicted, why could they not appeal like they do now
As for misunderstood? What the **** are you on? You clearly have never met any of these people as you would realise there is nothing "misunderstood" about them, you just want to live in some fantasy world where everyone has a reason to be an *******....rather than reality where some people are just bad people for no reason.

Its a very sad story and clearly mistakes have been made by the justice system, but since when did weak = barbaric??

Using capital punishment or stoning women for being raped is barbaric, not this.

Death penalty is not a good thing - it's overly expensive and pointless.
The country is not ****, although that one's subjective, but there are patently and obviously worse countries out there.
The justice system does not set out to protect anyone, it works purely on a fair and equal basis, the only way a justice system should work.



They're not correct about anything of importance and should not be treated as though they have any sort of insight or intellect.

Why do people believe this lie? It is in America yes because of legal appeals and the difficulty of establishing whether or not someone is beyond a doubt guilty.

Lets think about it Saudi style though, how does cutting of someone’s head cost anything? And please answer me this: How would cutting of someone's head cost less than paying for their food, water etc for the rest of their life? It clearly wouldn't.

the justice system in the uk is sporadic an unreliable.

mostly.
it favours criminals.

people get their lives ruined for committing one off crimes.

but repeat offenders who don't mind having a criminal record don't mind committing crimes again and again.

offenders are often rotated in and out of prison as there is not enough room.

as you can see he was 17 so this would of made things extra problematic as there is less room in young offenders prisons. and usually when the put 17 year olds into big boy prison they get violated. n the only reason they get put into big boy prison as a YO is if they have been badly behaved in the YO.

so yea they recycle a lot of these guys in and out. the police try to keep an eye out on them.

but they weren't robbing him for his phone for any financial reason. they just wanted power over someone else and be able to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

I'd prefer to think about it in a system where all doubt is removed before you take action that can't be untaken. If you imprison someone and it turns out they're innocent, you can release them. If you've killed someone and they're innocent, you can't bring them back to life. Therefore, you'll have to take them through many extra rounds of courts and testing before you can be absolutely certain. That costs money. More money than it costs to accommodate and feed someone for the rest of their life.

The Saudi system is not a benchmark.

Why wouldn't you want to prove someone is beyond a doubt guilty before killing them?!

I'm talking about certain cases like the murder of Lee Rigby.

Arguably that's the least suitable use of the death sentence, those guys wanted to be killed/martyred. Keeping them alive is by far the better option.

In that circumstance I agree, but it does point out the fact that there exist certain cases where the evidence is not doubted.

In some cases, yes, there is no doubt that a person has done something, but even in those cases you have to prove that person is of sound mind. And prove that beyond all doubt. Takes time and money.

I don't get this sound mind thing, someone who kills someone is not of sound mind even if they do not have a mental illness. Does it come into consideration when putting down animals that they may not be of 'sound mind'?

a) Never heard of diminished responsibilities? b) Mental illness can legitimately cause all manner of things including violence and c) you can't compare functional humans to essentially wild animals. Humans can respond to counselling. The criminal justice systems exists not to punish, not to act out of vengeance. That's all a death penalty is. We're above that.

a) I have I just don't think this has any relevance to the crime, the crime has happened regardless.

b) Of course but that doesn't excuse the fact that they are still dangerous and responsible for crime.

c) Most people would argue animals can respond to retraining (in fact behaviourists would assert we are simply animals who respond to stimuli in a similar fashion through a process of operative conditioning - rewards / punishment etc)

d) I agree but I don't see capital punishment as vengeance, I see it as averting further problems and yes sadly saving money in some circumstances comes into account.