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

a- ofc it has relevance. The reasons why the crime has happened are just as key as the crime itself. If that crime's happened because someone has the mental age of a 4yr old and doesn't understand the consequences of their actions then killing them for it is inhumane.

b- So killing them is legitimate? No, not in my book, not straightaway. Needs to be proven beyond all doubt that there's no remorse, no intention to rehabilitate and willingness to do it again.

c- Not the same.

d- You're in the minority. Most do see it that way. It's acting out of emotion rather than logic and detachment. And I don't believe it would ever save money in a fair and just society.

You're talking about jailing people based on a suspicion that they might do something. My first year flat mate was creepy as ****, talked about all sorts of weird crap, dressed like a goth teenager from the mid 90s and bragged about having "accidentally" killed his cat once. Is that enough reason for you to jail him on suspicion of being a future murderer?

Rhetoric such as fair and just society may sound good, but when you have people that do not subscribe to these ideas, you have to put the victims who do over them.

Kasim Ahmed, then 17, already had a string of convictions for violence and thefts when he stabbed Thavisha Peiris 14 times

REALLLY?


Ahmed and his cousin Shamraze Khan (pictured), 26, targeted Mr Peiris for his iPhone

Seriously they killed him for his Iphone......

Ahmed and his cousin Shamraze Khan

Muslims as usual always of Pakistanis decent ...

And you can do that by locking them away forever, letting them exist while depriving them of the human existence they would otherwise have had.

Then we both agree that the judicial system has failed on the account of the above yes? Consider locking someone up again for example would it not be better for that money to be spent on either compensating the victim or preventing further crime? I'm not talking about handing it out with cereal only in very specific instances. I simply think that in certain circumstances pragmatic considerations might outweigh the rights of the criminal (and I don't tolerate harsh measures such as stoning, no unnecessary suffering).

I don't know enough about the specifics of the the guy in question. For every criminal who does go onto re-offend, there are just as many who don't, and even if they do re-offend, there's no guarantee that it's going to escalate, so any blanket ruling is going to be ineffective. I'd rather judges take it on case by case.

I still can't - and won't - get past the fact that you must be 100% without doubt that a person is guilty before you can use something like the death penalty. The processes necessary for that would cost more than merely imprisoning them for life (though I am in favour of making prisons far less hospitable).

I understand your reasoning and think it is sound, I of course will stubbornly stick to my own (as we humans usually do), my thought is not systematic on this matter (I will take time to reflect on this and come up with a list of satisfactory answers to the questions you pose when I have time) but something does need to be done about the judicial system (harsher sentences and less hospitable prisons would be a start, although not BNP style lol)

I imagine you have a dislike of civil law in other countries given your desire of case by case justice

British law is probably the most well developed, humanitarian, ethically sound legal system in the world. It's not perfect, but then again nothing is, is it? Unfortunately cases like this do occur, but they are not necessarily as a result of failings in the justice system. It is difficult to judge whether someone will commit such atrocities, and even harder to ensure that they don't. I have great faith in our law, but at the same time great sadness for the loss of this man's life. No system is perfect, but it's the best we've got and I would say better by far than the rest of the world.

The justice systems first priority should be to keep the public safe, and its second should be to reform criminals and helping them rehabilitate into society. State sanctioned vengeance shouldn't even factor into it. Punishing criminals as harshly as possible may feel good, but in the end it benefits nobody.

That's wrong.
I know many cases where locking the guy up on their first conviction for 25+ years would have saved many lives. It also stops these vermin from breeding thus stopping the problem with them.
99 years for any crime would solve a lot of problems.

And where does deterrence factor into your hierarchy of what the justice system should aim to achieve? A pathetic sentence does not deter future crime.

Even in China/India they kill rapists,murderers ,drug addicts but in here they protect them ...

If the sentencing drives convicted criminals to re-offend (as current systems do), it isn't doing its job as a deterrent very well is it? Acting as a deterrent is important, but it needs to be balanced with other factors and there is only so much increasing a sentence can do to act as a deterrent. I am not saying that we should just give criminals light sentences, I am saying that we should actually use prison as a way to try and break the cycle of re-offence rather than ensuring that once someone commits a crime they are stuck in that life.