This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Cuts to arts and humanities
- Building chances on getting into uni+ chances of getting jobs after from a young age.
- Ian Baker House or Schafer House???
- Hurt or Heal (Actors edition)
- Why does my new bf keep looking
- Best UCL accom 2024?
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
- How do you improve vocab?
- AQA English Literature NEA Help!!!
- which college to apply to?
- Ian Baker garden halls room swap - London
- UCL St. Pancras Way accommodation swap 2023
- UCL accomodation swap
- free online textbooks for a level business
- UCL accommodation swap
- Personal statement content for a Cambridge maths application
- Which former players would excel in today's game?
- is it me or is rishi sunak kinda built????
- Best resources for a level business?
- Science books similar to Cosmos and A Brief History of Time?
What should happen to Ian Huntley?
Scroll to see replies
I don't generally agree with capital punishment. In prison he is prevented from commiting any more crimes, and has his liberty taken away. Society should get some benefit from all the people in prison though - have the less dangerous ones out cleaning the streets, etc. We could always go back to those tread mill things for the others and make them generate electricity.
Apparently today in the news, Ian Huntly was playing cards with a guard when another prisoner walked up and punched him. I thought that was rather nice of the person, but not really. I guess this kinda proves that prisoners don't like people who have been judged as being paedophiles/kid murderers.
*shrug*
But yeah, I figure if he is guilty (I personally haven't seen enough proof to put this through. If he's found guilty by a jury, sure, but the media must have influnced the jury in some way, I'm sure.), he should be punished like any other murderer, in jail.
Since capital punishment doesn't exist in this country (and nor should it, it's unneccessary and somewhat cruel), jail is the alternitive. He shouldn't be killed, as two wrongs don't really make a right, and to be honest, I'd rather see my daughter's killer rot in a jail cell for his life than be injected and dead.
I do, however, state that the country's prison system should be /radically/ changed. Prisoners, having been judged by the law should have no rights under it. Therefore, rather than having a cushy 3 meals a day and TV, they should be made to work. I beleive it currently costs more to keep a prisoner in jail for a week than it would to house him in the Hilton hotel. That is downright scandelous.
China has the right idea, but have taken it a bit far. Make them work to offset some of the damage they have already done, and the cost that they continually drain off taxpayers. Allow them to fix what they have done wrong. This alone will act as more of a deterrant and rehabilitation than the current system.
*shrug*
But yeah, I figure if he is guilty (I personally haven't seen enough proof to put this through. If he's found guilty by a jury, sure, but the media must have influnced the jury in some way, I'm sure.), he should be punished like any other murderer, in jail.
Since capital punishment doesn't exist in this country (and nor should it, it's unneccessary and somewhat cruel), jail is the alternitive. He shouldn't be killed, as two wrongs don't really make a right, and to be honest, I'd rather see my daughter's killer rot in a jail cell for his life than be injected and dead.
I do, however, state that the country's prison system should be /radically/ changed. Prisoners, having been judged by the law should have no rights under it. Therefore, rather than having a cushy 3 meals a day and TV, they should be made to work. I beleive it currently costs more to keep a prisoner in jail for a week than it would to house him in the Hilton hotel. That is downright scandelous.
China has the right idea, but have taken it a bit far. Make them work to offset some of the damage they have already done, and the cost that they continually drain off taxpayers. Allow them to fix what they have done wrong. This alone will act as more of a deterrant and rehabilitation than the current system.
I think prison is enough sure 3 meals a day and a television but being locked up 23 hours a day will be hell and yes i know he does deserve it. I have seen the shock and horror firsthand of what this man has done due to living 20mins away from Soham and 2mins from where the bodies were found. I do agree however that death wouldbe an easy way out.
Maybe I need to be openminded... but I resent our taxes going on keeping a man like Huntley well fed and in a comfortable environment.
I'd have him killed, or locked in a cell with just 4 thick walls for company, and a portion of bread and water once a day. I don't see why he deserves human rights having so seriously disregarded the rights of others.
I'd have him killed, or locked in a cell with just 4 thick walls for company, and a portion of bread and water once a day. I don't see why he deserves human rights having so seriously disregarded the rights of others.
alocin
I don't generally agree with capital punishment. In prison he is prevented from commiting any more crimes, and has his liberty taken away. Society should get some benefit from all the people in prison though - have the less dangerous ones out cleaning the streets, etc. We could always go back to those tread mill things for the others and make them generate electricity.
Ever heard of prison labour? Stitching goal nets and such...
Tednol
I don't see why he deserves human rights having so seriously disregarded the rights of others.
I agree, i find it very hard to justify treating people such as Huntley ,who have committed terrible crimes, with the respect and dignity owed to everyone else in society even though they have done what they have...
I am undecided as to the death penalty. Crimes such as his stir great feelings of anger and hatred inside me, yet i always remember a quote from the Lord of the Rings when i think of the death penalty, it goes something like:
"Many that live deserve death, but many who have died deserve life, can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement..."
Though from an odd source, this quote really makes me think about the death penalty and whether anyone really should be in such a position that they can choose whether another person lives or dies. However i am still unsure, my beliefs swing depending on my mood :P
There are so many things I disagree with in this thread, I'd be here all day if I listed them all. I'll just go through the main arguments...
1. Who says 3 meals a day and access to a TV is "cushy"? If the Hilton offered this alone, there'd be an uproar! Three meals a day is a basic human right, and if we're going to keep him alive (I'll come back to that later...) then food is pretty much essential.
So he's allowed to watch TV - big deal! Why is TV considered such a luxury? It's generally used to keep prisoners quiet. If they didn't have something to distract them, they would get restless.
2. If you're so concerned about TV, you should be equally pissed off at prison labour - this keeps prisoners occupied, and many of them are grateful to have something to do. I'm not saying I disagree with prison labour (I think it's a good thing), I'm just highlighting an insonsistency in your arguments.
3. From what I've seen and read about this case (quite a lot), I think there's not much chance that Huntley is innocent of the crime. However, it's true that bringing back the death penalty would open a huge can of worms and more innocent people would be killed. Who wants that? The only solution seems to be to reserve the death penalty for criminals whose guilt seems obvious. But who decides this? There could be cover-ups or forced confessions involved - where do you draw the line?
4. I was apalled by what Ian Huntley did, and if I was one of Holly or Jessica's parents I would want him dead. But the justice system is designed to give punishment from a subjective viewpoint - no one who has had previous contact with the victim or perpetrator is allowed on the jury, for instance. No matter what the emotional implications are, all crimials should be treated in the same way.
5. The money argument is just an excuse. What kind of society kills someone just because it doesn't want to spend money on them? The UK is a rich, developed country. We can afford it.
6. Finally, the ethical standpoint seems clear to me. Didn't your mums ever tell you that beating up a bully makes you just as bad as them? An establishment that willfully takes away someone's life is barbaric. The UK's justice system is not there to take revenge, no matter how awful the crime. It is there to punish and rehabilitate if possible, or to keep dangerous individuals from having contact with people they may harm. The system in place in the US makes it clear to me; even in the 21st century, there is still a much greater proportion of black people on Death Row than is reasonable, even when you take class and income differences into account. Do we really want a system like this? One that effectively allows the government to pick the people it doesn't like and murder them?
1. Who says 3 meals a day and access to a TV is "cushy"? If the Hilton offered this alone, there'd be an uproar! Three meals a day is a basic human right, and if we're going to keep him alive (I'll come back to that later...) then food is pretty much essential.
So he's allowed to watch TV - big deal! Why is TV considered such a luxury? It's generally used to keep prisoners quiet. If they didn't have something to distract them, they would get restless.
2. If you're so concerned about TV, you should be equally pissed off at prison labour - this keeps prisoners occupied, and many of them are grateful to have something to do. I'm not saying I disagree with prison labour (I think it's a good thing), I'm just highlighting an insonsistency in your arguments.
3. From what I've seen and read about this case (quite a lot), I think there's not much chance that Huntley is innocent of the crime. However, it's true that bringing back the death penalty would open a huge can of worms and more innocent people would be killed. Who wants that? The only solution seems to be to reserve the death penalty for criminals whose guilt seems obvious. But who decides this? There could be cover-ups or forced confessions involved - where do you draw the line?
4. I was apalled by what Ian Huntley did, and if I was one of Holly or Jessica's parents I would want him dead. But the justice system is designed to give punishment from a subjective viewpoint - no one who has had previous contact with the victim or perpetrator is allowed on the jury, for instance. No matter what the emotional implications are, all crimials should be treated in the same way.
5. The money argument is just an excuse. What kind of society kills someone just because it doesn't want to spend money on them? The UK is a rich, developed country. We can afford it.
6. Finally, the ethical standpoint seems clear to me. Didn't your mums ever tell you that beating up a bully makes you just as bad as them? An establishment that willfully takes away someone's life is barbaric. The UK's justice system is not there to take revenge, no matter how awful the crime. It is there to punish and rehabilitate if possible, or to keep dangerous individuals from having contact with people they may harm. The system in place in the US makes it clear to me; even in the 21st century, there is still a much greater proportion of black people on Death Row than is reasonable, even when you take class and income differences into account. Do we really want a system like this? One that effectively allows the government to pick the people it doesn't like and murder them?
Trousers
There are so many things I disagree with in this thread, I'd be here all day if I listed them all. I'll just go through the main arguments...
1. Who says 3 meals a day and access to a TV is "cushy"? If the Hilton offered this alone, there'd be an uproar! Three meals a day is a basic human right, and if we're going to keep him alive (I'll come back to that later...) then food is pretty much essential.
So he's allowed to watch TV - big deal! Why is TV considered such a luxury? It's generally used to keep prisoners quiet. If they didn't have something to distract them, they would get restless.
2. If you're so concerned about TV, you should be equally pissed off at prison labour - this keeps prisoners occupied, and many of them are grateful to have something to do. I'm not saying I disagree with prison labour (I think it's a good thing), I'm just highlighting an insonsistency in your arguments.
3. From what I've seen and read about this case (quite a lot), I think there's not much chance that Huntley is innocent of the crime. However, it's true that bringing back the death penalty would open a huge can of worms and more innocent people would be killed. Who wants that? The only solution seems to be to reserve the death penalty for criminals whose guilt seems obvious. But who decides this? There could be cover-ups or forced confessions involved - where do you draw the line?
4. I was apalled by what Ian Huntley did, and if I was one of Holly or Jessica's parents I would want him dead. But the justice system is designed to give punishment from a subjective viewpoint - no one who has had previous contact with the victim or perpetrator is allowed on the jury, for instance. No matter what the emotional implications are, all crimials should be treated in the same way.
5. The money argument is just an excuse. What kind of society kills someone just because it doesn't want to spend money on them? The UK is a rich, developed country. We can afford it.
6. Finally, the ethical standpoint seems clear to me. Didn't your mums ever tell you that beating up a bully makes you just as bad as them? An establishment that willfully takes away someone's life is barbaric. The UK's justice system is not there to take revenge, no matter how awful the crime. It is there to punish and rehabilitate if possible, or to keep dangerous individuals from having contact with people they may harm. The system in place in the US makes it clear to me; even in the 21st century, there is still a much greater proportion of black people on Death Row than is reasonable, even when you take class and income differences into account. Do we really want a system like this? One that effectively allows the government to pick the people it doesn't like and murder them?
1. Who says 3 meals a day and access to a TV is "cushy"? If the Hilton offered this alone, there'd be an uproar! Three meals a day is a basic human right, and if we're going to keep him alive (I'll come back to that later...) then food is pretty much essential.
So he's allowed to watch TV - big deal! Why is TV considered such a luxury? It's generally used to keep prisoners quiet. If they didn't have something to distract them, they would get restless.
2. If you're so concerned about TV, you should be equally pissed off at prison labour - this keeps prisoners occupied, and many of them are grateful to have something to do. I'm not saying I disagree with prison labour (I think it's a good thing), I'm just highlighting an insonsistency in your arguments.
3. From what I've seen and read about this case (quite a lot), I think there's not much chance that Huntley is innocent of the crime. However, it's true that bringing back the death penalty would open a huge can of worms and more innocent people would be killed. Who wants that? The only solution seems to be to reserve the death penalty for criminals whose guilt seems obvious. But who decides this? There could be cover-ups or forced confessions involved - where do you draw the line?
4. I was apalled by what Ian Huntley did, and if I was one of Holly or Jessica's parents I would want him dead. But the justice system is designed to give punishment from a subjective viewpoint - no one who has had previous contact with the victim or perpetrator is allowed on the jury, for instance. No matter what the emotional implications are, all crimials should be treated in the same way.
5. The money argument is just an excuse. What kind of society kills someone just because it doesn't want to spend money on them? The UK is a rich, developed country. We can afford it.
6. Finally, the ethical standpoint seems clear to me. Didn't your mums ever tell you that beating up a bully makes you just as bad as them? An establishment that willfully takes away someone's life is barbaric. The UK's justice system is not there to take revenge, no matter how awful the crime. It is there to punish and rehabilitate if possible, or to keep dangerous individuals from having contact with people they may harm. The system in place in the US makes it clear to me; even in the 21st century, there is still a much greater proportion of black people on Death Row than is reasonable, even when you take class and income differences into account. Do we really want a system like this? One that effectively allows the government to pick the people it doesn't like and murder them?
The only thing I can say to that is; He killed too innocent young girls who had whole lives ahead of them - He doesn't deserve any human rights.
Apparently sick bastards like Huntley are such a hassle in prisons and they are hated by other inmates and the guards. They often cause fights and riots among prisoners and it has been known for wardens to accidentally leave a belt, or similar, in their cells. Next day, they've killed themselves and the problem has gone.
Don't know an exact figure I'm afraid but it does cost a heck of a lot to keep these guys locked up.
Bugs me that they get so much stuff for free - they get to watch tv, without having to pay for the tv or for a tv licence - they get unlimited use of a gym, which they don't have to pay for - they get books to read, and can even get a free education! I just think that when you commit a crime you give up your rights (including some of the 'basic human rights' too)
Don't know an exact figure I'm afraid but it does cost a heck of a lot to keep these guys locked up.
Bugs me that they get so much stuff for free - they get to watch tv, without having to pay for the tv or for a tv licence - they get unlimited use of a gym, which they don't have to pay for - they get books to read, and can even get a free education! I just think that when you commit a crime you give up your rights (including some of the 'basic human rights' too)
Amb1
Apparently sick bastards like Huntley are such a hassle in prisons and they are hated by other inmates and the guards. They often cause fights and riots among prisoners and it has been known for wardens to accidentally leave a belt, or similar, in their cells. Next day, they've killed themselves and the problem has gone.
Don't know an exact figure I'm afraid but it does cost a heck of a lot to keep these guys locked up.
Bugs me that they get so much stuff for free - they get to watch tv, without having to pay for the tv or for a tv licence - they get unlimited use of a gym, which they don't have to pay for - they get books to read, and can even get a free education! I just think that when you commit a crime you give up your rights (including some of the 'basic human rights' too)
Don't know an exact figure I'm afraid but it does cost a heck of a lot to keep these guys locked up.
Bugs me that they get so much stuff for free - they get to watch tv, without having to pay for the tv or for a tv licence - they get unlimited use of a gym, which they don't have to pay for - they get books to read, and can even get a free education! I just think that when you commit a crime you give up your rights (including some of the 'basic human rights' too)
When you kill 2 innocent little girls you give up all your Human Rights in my opinion.
Amb1
Yeah, I agree! - I think human rights are way out of hand at the mo, people can get away with anything they want.
Well he hasn't got away with anything has he. He's going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Why should anything happen to Ian Huntley that hasn't happened to all of the people before him that have committed similarly heinous crimes? Our system might not be perfect but the death penalty is just an easy way out for him.
However - I don't believe in suicide watch, that's a waste of time and money because if they want to kill themselves they will, and although it is an escape and I'm contradicting what I said in the last paragraph, I just think you can't stop them from doing it if they are determined enough and it is pointless to try to do so.
Gimp
Well he hasn't got away with anything has he. He's going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Why should anything happen to Ian Huntley that hasn't happened to all of the people before him that have committed similarly heinous crimes? Our system might not be perfect but the death penalty is just an easy way out for him.
However - I don't believe in suicide watch, that's a waste of time and money because if they want to kill themselves they will, and although it is an escape and I'm contradicting what I said in the last paragraph, I just think you can't stop them from doing it if they are determined enough and it is pointless to try to do so.
Why should anything happen to Ian Huntley that hasn't happened to all of the people before him that have committed similarly heinous crimes? Our system might not be perfect but the death penalty is just an easy way out for him.
However - I don't believe in suicide watch, that's a waste of time and money because if they want to kill themselves they will, and although it is an escape and I'm contradicting what I said in the last paragraph, I just think you can't stop them from doing it if they are determined enough and it is pointless to try to do so.
I'm not picking on Huntley as an individual, in my opinion all child killers should pay with more that a prison sentance, like I said earlier, I think the parents of the too INNOCENT girls whos lives he stole should be allowed to spend 10minutes in a room with him - where no laws apply.
Daveo
I'm not picking on Huntley as an individual, in my opinion all child killers should pay with more that a prison sentance, like I said earlier, I think the parents of the too INNOCENT girls whos lives he stole should be allowed to spend 10minutes in a room with him - where no laws apply.
Encouraging revenge won't do much for our already violent society, I don't think. I've never been in jail so I don't know, but I'm sure it isn't too cosy for him in there. He certainly can't get his hands on more children.
Gimp
Well he hasn't got away with anything has he. He's going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
Why should anything happen to Ian Huntley that hasn't happened to all of the people before him that have committed similarly heinous crimes? Our system might not be perfect but the death penalty is just an easy way out for him.
However - I don't believe in suicide watch, that's a waste of time and money because if they want to kill themselves they will, and although it is an escape and I'm contradicting what I said in the last paragraph, I just think you can't stop them from doing it if they are determined enough and it is pointless to try to do so.
Why should anything happen to Ian Huntley that hasn't happened to all of the people before him that have committed similarly heinous crimes? Our system might not be perfect but the death penalty is just an easy way out for him.
However - I don't believe in suicide watch, that's a waste of time and money because if they want to kill themselves they will, and although it is an escape and I'm contradicting what I said in the last paragraph, I just think you can't stop them from doing it if they are determined enough and it is pointless to try to do so.
I didn't say he should be given the death penalty, I just think he should be put in a tiny little room with no windows, no bed, no toilet, and minimum amounts of horrible food... but Human rights (hehe, just did a typo and put human tights - but that's way off the point!) means that he has to have so many m2 of space, so many hours of daylight, a variety of food, regular medical checks, access to a variety of recreation activities... and stuff like that. Which annoys me!
it seems like he's being better looked after than us law-abiding, decent people.Gimp
Encouraging revenge won't do much for our already violent society, I don't think. I've never been in jail so I don't know, but I'm sure it isn't too cosy for him in there. He certainly can't get his hands on more children.
I just think that some people may be discouraged from comiting such awful crimes if their life was at stake, and if just one innocent child was saved becuase of this then it would be worth it.
Daveo
I just think that some people may be discouraged from comiting such awful crimes if their life was at stake, and if just one innocent child was saved becuase of this then it would be worth it.
Fear of death discourages people, yes, but I contend that fear of indefinite torture can discourage them just as much if not more. Of course, what people consider to be torture is different, but it's certainly conceivable that indeterminate incarceration in an inescapable institution with limited freedom of expression and communication can tortorous to the mind.
No it wouldn't, especially not if one innocent person was executed because of the fallibility of all human systems and thus the justice system.
As unpopular as this oppinion is I know, I don't believe he should be executed or locked in a tiny room etc because to be fair there are so many people in prison who have killed two people which is what he did in the end. Yes they were two younge girls and it is a very emotive issue and I think he should be in prison for his whole life but at the end of the day how is what he did any different to any other person who killed two people. If you were going to kill him you would have to kill everyone who in the eyes of the law has comitted the same crime. There are people who have comitted worse crimes eg harold shipman.
I disagree with the death penalty because I think everyone not matter what they have done deserves to die. It is easy enough for you to say that he should die but that makes you just as bad as him. Many people not on the board have said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but in my view "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". and that is wronge.
I disagree with the death penalty because I think everyone not matter what they have done deserves to die. It is easy enough for you to say that he should die but that makes you just as bad as him. Many people not on the board have said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but in my view "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". and that is wronge.
Related discussions
- Cuts to arts and humanities
- Building chances on getting into uni+ chances of getting jobs after from a young age.
- Ian Baker House or Schafer House???
- Hurt or Heal (Actors edition)
- Why does my new bf keep looking
- Best UCL accom 2024?
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
- How do you improve vocab?
- AQA English Literature NEA Help!!!
- which college to apply to?
- Ian Baker garden halls room swap - London
- UCL St. Pancras Way accommodation swap 2023
- UCL accomodation swap
- free online textbooks for a level business
- UCL accommodation swap
- Personal statement content for a Cambridge maths application
- Which former players would excel in today's game?
- is it me or is rishi sunak kinda built????
- Best resources for a level business?
- Science books similar to Cosmos and A Brief History of Time?
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 21 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
