Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    It's horrible she got such a light sentence yes, however this is just one example, and not even of rape, but murder. Regardless, what makes you think the justice system will get better if people start relying on baying angry mobs to dish out the justice for them? What if the mob turns on you? I mean we're not dealing with any form of rationality here but emotion and a thirst for revenge. Such groups would abuse their power and start torturing anyone who they thought deserved again. Again, vigilante justice is NOT a good idea, reforming the justice system however, is.
    Murder is arguably a lot worse than rape for obvious reasons. Because then people would actually be afraid to commit crimes for the obvious reasons that vigilante justice tends to be swift and brutal. Therefore the crime rate would go down drastically. Back when we used to live in small groups as hunter gatherers there was none of this 'justice system.' If a member commited crime against another member of the group they sorted it out within themselves and the human race survived and evolved from that 'primitive' outlook.

    The justice system should be reformed to be a lot stricter, certainly more of the eye-for-an-eye sort of justice
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I think you are the only one here that it struggling to know what justice is. It means being 'fair or reasonable.' I think it would be 'fair and reasonable' for a rapist to be expected to lose the privilege of his raping apparatus so he can't do it again. Why are you so insistent to defend a rapist? Do you believe a woman is inherently worth less than a man? Do you subconsciously believe rape is acceptable?
    Sigh. Since you seem to have forgotten, despite me writing it twice, I shall say it again. The rapist is a terrible human being who deserves a very lengthy prison sentence.

    Justice as a term is quite vague, as while it does mean to act in accordance with fair play and being reasonable etc. such terms are themselves up for debate especially when applied to specific cases. You believe chopping off his penis was 'just'. I do not. However, when it comes to vigilantes dishing out such justice and an abuse of human rights, it would seem the law is on MY side. You realise another definition of justice is: "the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings" meaning done by a COURT OF JUSTICE.

    As for whether I believe rape is acceptable, or if women are worth less than men, I just have to facepalm really. :facepalm:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Well, that's your opinion, but one thing is for sure; whatever this current mockery of a justice system is in the UK, it isn't working. Our prisons are over crowded. Were doing something wrong. 2.5 years for murder! Do you think that's fair or acceptable justice? Disgusting.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...2-5-years.html
    Yes, our current system has its flaws.

    So obviously the only possible solution to counteract these flaws is cruel, antiquated, retributive vengeance! Bring forth the penises!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    That'l teach him not to mistake China for India
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Yes, our current system has its flaws.

    So obviously the only possible solution to counteract these flaws is cruel, antiquated, retributive vengeance! Bring forth the penises!
    Has it's flaws is an understatement.

    Answer my question. Do you think serving only 2.5 years for murder (not even manslaughter) is the sign of a great justice system? A human life is only worth 2.5 years?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Illiberal Liberal)
    Female rapists should have their penis chopped off, too?
    They could have their clits removed.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I think you are the only one here that it struggling to know what justice is. It means being 'fair or reasonable.' I think it would be 'fair and reasonable' for a rapist to be expected to lose the privilege of his raping apparatus so he can't do it again. Why are you so insistent to defend a rapist? Do you believe a woman is inherently worth less than a man? Do you subconsciously believe rape is acceptable?
    Not only are you ignorant af for assuming only men are rapists and only women are victims, you seem to lack basic empathy as well. A rapist, no matter how deplorable, is still human. Mutilating a person out of revenge, is not "fair or reasonable". No individual has the authority to dish out a punishment like that, or any punishment for that matter. No one's defending him because he's a rapist, they're defending him because he's a human being.

    (Original post by M&F)
    Lol true. are you a men or a woman its not obvious from your name.
    I'm a dude
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Well, that's your opinion, but one thing is for sure; whatever this current mockery of a justice system is in the UK, it isn't working. Our prisons are over crowded. Were doing something wrong. 2.5 years for murder! Do you think that's fair or acceptable justice? Disgusting.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...2-5-years.html
    Wow. So women get 2.5 years for murder now?

    Good job feminism.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Murder is arguably a lot worse than rape for obvious reasons. Because then people would actually be afraid to commit crimes for the obvious reasons that vigilante justice tends to be swift and brutal. Therefore the crime rate would go down drastically. Back when we used to live in small groups as hunter gatherers there was none of this 'justice system.' If a member commited crime against another member of the group they sorted it out within themselves and the human race survived and evolved from that 'primitive' outlook.

    The justice system should be reformed to be a lot stricter, certainly more of the eye-for-an-eye sort of justice
    The death penalty doesn't work, and would be stupid to implement. So no, we don't need an 'eye-for-an-eye' sort of justice system. It's been proven to NOT WORK. Look at the re-offending rate in the US. Is it a deterrent? No. You may think it is, but looking at the evidence, it isn't. Does it cost more? Yes. You may think it doesn't, but google it. In alot of ways, such barbaric practices are just inefficient and immoral. We have done away with them because our society has evolved for the better. We have progressed, and I would rather not see a regression back to the dark ages thank you very much.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    It was implied that you had a problem with my comment when you brought up the fact he raped a woman. I'm glad we're on the same page anyway.
    Not at all. I was simply pointing out that you should consider both as victims because they are.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Good. Won't be doing that again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Not only are you ignorant af for assuming only men are rapists and only women are victims, you seem to lack basic empathy as well. A rapist, no matter how deplorable, is still human. Mutilating a person out of revenge, is not "fair or reasonable". No individual has the authority to dish out a punishment like that, or any punishment for that matter. No one's defending him because he's a rapist, they're defending him because he's a human being.


    I'm a dude
    Where ever did I say that rapists cannot be women? The subject of this particular discussion is male so therefore it would be fitting that all discussion regarding this particular incident involves references to the criminal being male and penises. You say I lack empathy, but I think you all lack empathy for the victim. If you were in her situation what would you want? You would want justice, correct? And what she got was swift, deadly justice.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skeptique)
    Because he had his penis cut off! females dont have those.
    He or She could have been trans, or using a strapon. OP is sexist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Yes, our current system has its flaws.

    So obviously the only possible solution to counteract these flaws is cruel, antiquated, retributive vengeance! Bring forth the penises!
    PRSOM.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    All of you saying physical castration should happen to rapists are despicable tbh. Are you all barbarians? Rape is a terrible crime and the man in question deserves a lengthy prison sentence, but not to have his penis chopped off. That would break the human rights act, as article 3 of the ECHR states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
    Fair enough Dan. I get your point. But you say getting his penis cut off is a barbaric act, as is rape but what most people seem to forget is rape doesn't just mean you suffer mental truma but there is physical truama to the genitals, it's physically damanging and obviously increases as brutality of the rape increases...in this case, as barbaric as it may seem, you can understand our "well good" opinion on this. Why should the rapist not suffer trauma to his/her genitals as the victim has done?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    Welcome Squad
    how do you know they didn't blur out a chocolate finger :erm:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Has it's flaws is an understatement.

    Answer my question. Do you think serving only 2.5 years for murder (not even manslaughter) is the sign of a great justice system? A human life is only worth 2.5 years?
    It says in the article you posted that the sentence takes into account time spent in custody awaiting trial, although the Daily Mail does their best to spin an alarmist headline despite clearly stating that.

    The actual sentence: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/j...ophobic-attack
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danz123)
    The death penalty doesn't work, and would be stupid to implement. So no, we don't need an 'eye-for-an-eye' sort of justice system. It's been proven to NOT WORK. Look at the re-offending rate in the US. Is it a deterrent? No. You may think it is, but looking at the evidence, it isn't. Does it cost more? Yes. You may think it doesn't, but google it. In alot of ways, such barbaric practices are just inefficient and immoral. We have done away with them because our society has evolved for the better. We have progressed, and I would rather not see a regression back to the dark ages thank you very much.
    I didn't mention the death penalty? You brought the death penalty up. It probably would work if they did it quickly enough instead of dragging it out for months and months like they do in America despite the fact the guilt of the criminal in question is 100% guilty with evidence. That's the only reason it costs so much.

    I would not consider getting less than three years for murder as 'society evolving for the better' and if you do I think there is something seriously wrong with you
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Not at all. I was simply pointing out that you should consider both as victims because they are.
    Don't get me wrong, I do. But I was trying to say that him being a rapist doesn't justify someone else mutilating him. It seems to me that a lot of people think that he was "asking for it" and that he deserves it. I disagree with the idea of someone "asking for it" or being deserving of a crime happening to them in most cases, regardless of who they are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    It says in the article you posted that the sentence takes into account time spent in custody awaiting trial, although the Daily Mail does their best to spin an alarmist headline despite clearly stating that.

    The actual sentence: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/j...ophobic-attack
    Only seven years still? For a full human life? Really? Still disgraceful.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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