Convicted murderer among people who tackled terrorist Usman Khan

So we either
a) let out 2 criminals in the hope that one will stop the other
b) let out 2 criminals in the hope that they dont murder/carry on being a terrorist
c) let out the murderer and hope he doesnt murder again
d) let out the terrorist and hope he has moved on from his terrorist ways
or my prefered option
e) Execute both or keep them in prison forever.

I mean not to brag but if we had gone by my method no innocent people would have died.

The punishment does not fit the crime anymore and the system is too soft. Justice got lost in a cloud of socio-political liberal virtue signalling bull****, with nonsense talk about "rehabilitation" and it costs the lives of innocent individuals.

But you are now conflating two separate issues. While I am not a fan of summary execution, the attacker's fate was not necessarily unjust or unfair.
However, that is not the same issue as whether he should have been serving life without parole for pleading guilty to a non-violent crime? We cannot punish people for what we think they might do in the future.

Who proposes blind forgiveness - apart from Christians? I certainly don't.

That last line which I've just highlighted, that is why things like this will keep happening. How many innocent victims must die because we haven't got the *******s to lock them up and keep them locked up because of snowflakes saying they deserve a second chance?

Until we start locking these people up and throwing away the key, or better still chuck them out the country then these terror attacks will keep happening.

Who is proposing revenge, no one here is.

That last line which I've just highlighted, that is why things like this will keep happening. How many innocent victims must die because we haven't got the *******s to lock them up and keep them locked up because of snowflakes saying they deserve a second chance? Every time anything like this has happened it's been the same rhetoric of he was under surveillance, or police were aware, or he'd had previous offences. Until we start locking these people up and throwing away the key,

or better still chuck them out the country then these terror attacks will keep happening.

Maybe your right, maybe others may be rehabilitated, or maybe they'll go and sell flowers somewhere, or hand out free hugs on the street? Or maybe they'll do something like this. To me, if there is even a hint of risk they shouldn't see the light of day again.

I've always found it a bit odd that the right, supposedly the ones who respect the law so much, are the first ones to bash it...

With what money? and throw them out where exactly?

So if the authorities think that a person may commit a crime in the future, they should be locked up for life. Do you realise how insane that is? How are they supposed to know? We don't have mind-reading of time travel technology.


If they are a British citizen, born in Britain (like Usman Khan), how do you propose we do that?


It appears that the issue with Khan is that there was no attempt at rehabilitation or deradicalisation made. I agree that if a person is convicted of unmitigated violent crime, and they simply sit in prison, in a culture that is likely violent and predatory, they may well not be suitable for early release. But even then, we cannot simply hand out life sentences for almost every crime, which your proposals would necessarily require.

Anyone who has terrorist links in any way shape or form should be locked up.

That one punch victim that I mentioned in either this or another thread. He has lost his life, in a manner of speaking. He’s been in a coma for three years, can’t walk, can’t talk. Why? Because he was a victim of an attack by someone with a history of convictions, who punched him out of the blue. How many years did the attacker get? Three and a half. Are you saying that is fair or just? The punishment does not suit the crime.

IWe have no deterrent to crime in this country at all

because the leftie brigade just want to hug hug hug. Well the thing is, that does not work for everyone.

Simple question for you. If the attacker on London Bridge had lived, should be have been incarcerated for life? Yes or no?

Plenty of people. The death penalty is essentially revenge. Life imprisonment without parole or rehabilitation likewise. In fact, most people's concept of justice carry an element of revenge.
And most religionists, of course. All three Abrahamics prescribe an eye for an eye. (Of course, that then raises the issue of whether some religionists actually believe and accept what their god says, but that's a different subject)

And most religionists, of course. All three Abrahamics prescribe an eye for an eye. (Of course, that then raises the issue of whether some religionists actually believe and accept what their god says, but that's a different subject)

For life, with no chance of parole? Including friends and family of active terrorists?




What about the person who has no history of violence but kills someone with one punch? Do they get life with no parole?


Of course we do.


You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 10 years? Any current problems with law and order are their responsibility. Crime has risen under this right-wing government. It is tehstories who are soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime.


Possibly. Depends. Life isn't either/or.

I can't speak for Judaism and Islam but Christianity is explicitly against retaliation and revenge, so your statement that the Abrahamic religions prescribe an eye for an eye is wrong.

In practice, most Christian hardliners and fundamentalists do openly support the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
Of course there are plenty of New Testament quotes directly apportioned to Christ that can be used to emphasize love, forgiveness, turning the other cheeks and sinners not sitting in judgement of fellow sinners.

I can't speak for Judaism and Islam but Christianity is explicitly against retaliation and revenge, so your statement that the Abrahamic religions prescribe an eye for an eye is wrong.

That's true, but in Christianity the New Covenant, as expressed in Christ's teachings, is traditionally believed to fulfill and supersede the Law of Moses. This means that the most consistently Christian view is that of Matthew 5:38-39 and John 8, where Jesus explicitly replaces Old Testament laws of retributive justice and revenge with instructions of forgiveness.

That's true, but in Christianity the New Covenant, as expressed in Christ's teachings, is traditionally believed to fulfill and supersede the Law of Moses. This means that the most consistently Christian view is that of Matthew 5:38-39 and John 8, where Jesus explicitly replaces Old Testament laws of retributive justice and revenge with instructions of forgiveness.

The NT does not erase Mosaic Law. That is nothing more that an attempt by modernist Christians to distance themselves from the more abhorrent Biblical passages.

I am sorry, this is rubbish. This is completely at odds with the Pauline explanation of the New Covenant which has represented orthodox Christian belief for almost two millennia.

During most of that period the vast majority of Christians have seen no difficulty with the death penalty but they have not justified it in terms of the Mosaic law.

If you look at Aquinas as being reflective of mainstream Christian philosophy (which is a fair reflection of his influence across 600 years) there is no reference to the Mosaic law in his explanation of the validity of capital punishment.

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/cappunsh.html

For Luther and Calvin different rules applied to rulers and ruled. For rulers were (Romans 13) God’s Ministers and avengers to execute His wrath on evil doers.