Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    a) If they have the mental age of a 4 year old and have killed someone segregate them yes but there's a difference between 17 year old psycho in the OPs post and someone with the age of a 4 year old, still the person with a 4 year old mental age has still killed someone.

    b) I don't care for remorse, intention etc I like how you think rehabilitation will work even though repeat offenders are frequent (look at the OP again) it's not easy to condition someone to behave differently.

    c) Why is it not the same?

    d) Acting out of emotion? I don't see it that way at all. This isn't a witch hunt (i'm not saying a relative gets to be the judge...) we're establishing the facts before we're giving the punishment. Rhetoric such as fair and just society may sound good, but when you have people that do not subscribe to these ideas it makes no sense. How is it just and fair for a criminal with a violent passed to be released when things like the above happen? It's not just and fair for the next victim.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amphiprion)
    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?
    Where the hell did you get that from? I'm saying that if some thug punches a guy for no reason, lock him up for good. Next time, and there is always a next time, that punch will eventually kill someone.
    Yes - I would lock that kid up. He is sadistic ergo dangerous.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    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.
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minchui)
    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 :mad:

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

    Ahmed and his cousin Shamraze Khan

    Muslims as usual always of Pakistanis decent ...
    I'm not one to go out of my way to defend pakistanis but pakistani muslim males aren't the only type of low life street criminals in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am by no means ignorant by the way, I have read many liberal philosophers (such as Mill) I just don't think their conclusions are working as well as they could and we need to amend them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    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).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In some parts of the world, rape victims can face death sentences if they are women... Chill.

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    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
    Ofc there are improvements which could be made, but statements like the judge's "this was a murder waiting to happen" don't add up and aren't provable so can't be relied upon as evidence. There is evidence that prisons currently are not enough of a deterrent to crime, but neither is the death penalty, so something else is needed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Per)
    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.
    I do think with these sorts of cases though we need something a bit more brutal
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I truly feel sorry for the Sri Lankan guy. But, it doesn't mean that a flawed system is barbaric.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would agree to the extent that a justice system which offers pathetic sentences which are disproportionate to the crime committed do not act to deter future crimes of the same ilk, which therefore leads to a more barbaric society.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Said this for years. I would bring back the death penalty, and especially in a case like this, these guys will never change so we should just kill them and be done with it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    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.
    If you put somebody in jail for 25 years, you make it impossible for that person to properly and usefully re-enter society. Sometimes people do need to be kept in that long, other times it would be better for all concerned to give them a shorter sentence and actually attempt to rehabilitate them. What needs to stop is just locking them up as a punishment, and then being shocked that somebody kept surrounded by criminals for years and made to hate the system even more doesn't magically exit as a model citizen.

    I think this talk illustrates my point well. Do you genuinely think society would have been better off if this man had just been executed or left to rot in jail?



    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minchui)
    Even in China/India they kill rapists,murderers ,drug addicts but in here they protect them ...
    In India and China women are gang raped on public transport and hung on trees, and children are kidknapped and have their eyes taken out with spoons so they can be sold into a life of begging with no escape. I don't think we should follow their model.

    Instead, let's follow the model of countries without violent crime, and with low reoffending rates: e.g. Norway and Denmark, two of the safest countries in the world.

    It's a proven fact: being nice to criminals PROTECTS the rest of us, because most people are only criminals because the state has failed them. Once you set them on a course that leads away from a life of crime, people don't tend to commit crime again. Of course, some people are just dangerous psychopaths who need to be locked up, but killing them doesn't do any good, it just creates more killers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    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.
    Which is why a balance needs to be struck between deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. Neither pathetic nor excessive sentences meet this balance and I think Britain can be guilty of the former in many instances.

    In addition, sentencing represents the extent to which society views an act as unacceptable. A suspended sentence for a violent assault resulting in serious injuries, for example, provides a poor reflection of society's outlook on how we should treat each other.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    R.I.P Thavisha my sympathy's to the parents.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.