The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fallen
So a conviction resulting in someone being killed deserved no more time or care (and therefore money) than a minor traffic offense hearing?


I don't think that was what the OP was getting at you prick.

Of course this case needs more time on it than "a minor traffic offense." But what the OP was pointing out is that he has been found guilty beyond doubt. It will cost a lot more to keep him than kill him. And I agree with the OP - sod the court appeals, the human rights marlarchy. He had no mercy on his victim, so why the bloody hell should we have mercy on him? :rolleyes:
Reply 141
Original post by Yung Mon£y

That's because they do idiotic things like make sure the person is healthy enough to be executed. Just take them out back into a yard, bullet to the head. Keep it quick, keep it cheap.


They only do this check when they are close to executing them. Even if you cut down on the initial court costs you still have to pay to keep them on death row and have many appeals. If you don't give them these appeals you could easily find an innocent man has been executed.
Original post by Fallen
So a conviction resulting in someone being killed deserved no more time or care (and therefore money) than a minor traffic offense hearing?

What happened to the trial? :lolwut:


Original post by james22
They only do this check when they are close to executing them. Even if you cut down on the initial court costs you still have to pay to keep them on death row and have many appeals. If you don't give them these appeals you could easily find an innocent man has been executed.

Keep the cost of the trial; you need to find out if the person is guilty or not. But when it is clear beyond all doubt they are guilty, just quickly off them, sell them, or make them a government slave. Why should my tax pay for a murderer to do nothing? Either kill him, or make him earn money nonstop until he dies.
This guy doesn't need appeals; he's clearly guilty.
Reply 143
Original post by simonbellringer
I don't think that was what the OP was getting at you prick.

Of course this case needs more time on it than "a minor traffic offense." But what the OP was pointing out is that he has been found guilty beyond doubt. It will cost a lot more to keep him than kill him. And I agree with the OP - sod the court appeals, the human rights marlarchy. He had no mercy on his victim, so why the bloody hell should we have mercy on him? :rolleyes:

Firstly, calm down.

And if the case needs more time on it than a minor traffic offense, then it is going to cost more money! A lot more money! Every piece of evidence will have to be mediculously examined in front of a jury, and judge, and legal experts. The hourly cost of a court case like this will run into many thousands of pounds.

Who says we are having mercy? I do not propose we give him satelite TV and Facebook. He should work 9 hours a day in prison like everyone else, and life with only the basic comforts (warmth, sleep, sanitation, food, some basic entertainment like books so long as he looks after them).
We aren't giving him mercy, he deserves nothing, but we are giving the wrongly convicted a chance at life. If you have to kill an innocent person to kill a murderer, how is our justice system any different from them?
Reply 144
Original post by Yung Mon£y
What happened to the trial? :lolwut:


Well you only budgetted 30 pounds! You want a proper trial now? That's going to cost you... The jury want food, money, and accomodation. The judge wants a salary. The barristers want a salary. The courtroom needs upkeep. Thousands and thousands of pounds per hour of court time.
Reply 145
Original post by Yung Mon£y

Keep the cost of the trial; you need to find out if the person is guilty or not. But when it is clear beyond all doubt they are guilty, just quickly off them, sell them, or make them a government slave. Why should my tax pay for a murderer to do nothing? Either kill him, or make him earn money nonstop until he dies.
This guy doesn't need appeals; he's clearly guilty.


Because there have been many cases in the past where the person was found guilty beyond all doubt, but was later proven innocent. You can never be 100% certain.
Original post by Fallen
Well you only budgetted 30 pounds! You want a proper trial now? That's going to cost you... The jury want food, money, and accomodation. The judge wants a salary. The barristers want a salary. The courtroom needs upkeep. Thousands and thousands of pounds per hour of court time.


Stop being thick!! That is the budget once the trial is finished and the guy has been found guilty - which he has.

£30 for a bullet and a soldier's hourly salary. As opposed to £30000+ A YEAR to keep him!!
And you can argue "well he'll want appeals against the death penalty." Well surely he's going to want to appeal against his sentence anyway!! So that argument becomes void. :rolleyes:
Original post by simonbellringer
Minimum of 30 years..... So he could be out when he is 51. That's not life!! He could have 30+ more years to live, especially with healthcare ever improving!!!

I disagree with you on the death penalty argument but that is not matter for this thread.


Well, yeah, but the 30+ years that he'll have even after prison won't exactly be a merry time.

He'll leave prison and enter the world as a 50 year old man with no house, no friends, no money, no job, and given a 30 year murder convictions, it's highly unlikely that anybody will every befriend him, give him a job, and unlikely he'll ever afford a mortgage.

He'll live in a dingy council flat in the middle of a hell-hole, and he'll live off the dole and probably spend the majority of it on booze or drugs - meaning he'll probably not last too long.

Oh, and any slight crime will see him recalled to prison because he'll constantly be under watch and will have to report to police stations on a regular basis for the rest of his life.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of the death penalty (in cases of indisputable evidence) and I'm not in favour of welfare, so I'd much rather see him destroyed for relatively little cost, rather than live out a pitiful life behind bars at huge expense, and then follow that with a pitiful life outside bars again at huge expense. You're giving him such a pitiful future that you might as well kill him, and even he will probably benefit from that. Some people say that's revenge and not justice. But then, really, what is the difference, and how is encaging him for his prime years and handing him a life of misery thereafter not "revenge" too? For me it's neither about revenge nor is it about justice. It's about public protection at minimum cost.

But I still wouldn't say that he still has a life to look forward to after he has completed his sentence.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by wwelol
ok tell me y sharia law is wrong?
u get brainwashed of the media


It is the moral code and laws of a minority religion, which in an increasingly secular society such as the United Kingdom (or all of western Europe, for that matter.) has no damn place.

Now **** off with your Sharia law crap and you can take your 'brainwashed' nonsense and poor spelling with you.
The only brainwashed individual on display here is you, and your pathetic middle age outlook on the world. (i.e. Religion.)
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 150
Original post by simonbellringer
Stop being thick!! That is the budget once the trial is finished and the guy has been found guilty - which he has.

£30 for a bullet and a soldier's hourly salary. As opposed to £30000+ A YEAR to keep him!!
And you can argue "well he'll want appeals against the death penalty." Well surely he's going to want to appeal against his sentence anyway!! So that argument becomes void. :rolleyes:

Capital trials cost more, fact.

"Additional costs are incurred from a multitude of factors: two attorneys per side (rather than one), multiple investigators, multiple experts in the penalty phase of the trial, extended jury selection process, the additional penalty phase, and a longer guilt phase."

In a capital trial you have more routes for appeal. These routes shouldn't be removed (more false executions), and can't be removed (we prevent someone going to the European Court of Human Rights, for instance).

And finally, and the single argument which should moot any other, innocent people will be killed for nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time with my money. As someone who actually does pay income tax, I would much rather it goes to housing criminals than killing innocents.
Original post by Yung Mon£y
A faulty emotional system does not make someone a dangerous and vicious murderer. That disorder does not make someone go out and kill another person, therefore your conclusion that he should be treated differently to a normal person who committed the same crime doesn't make sense.


Really? Imagine if you had no empathy and no impulse control. What would you be capable of?
Original post by Kibalchich
Really? Imagine if you had no empathy and no impulse control. What would you be capable of?


But it clearly wasn't impulse as he had a ****ing gun with him.
Original post by Fallen
Capital trials cost more, fact.

"Additional costs are incurred from a multitude of factors: two attorneys per side (rather than one), multiple investigators, multiple experts in the penalty phase of the trial, extended jury selection process, the additional penalty phase, and a longer guilt phase."

In a capital trial you have more routes for appeal. These routes shouldn't be removed (more false executions), and can't be removed (we prevent someone going to the European Court of Human Rights, for instance).

And finally, and the single argument which should moot any other, innocent people will be killed for nothing more than being at the wrong place at the wrong time with my money. As someone who actually does pay income tax, I would much rather it goes to housing criminals than killing innocents.

You're acting as if there is only one way of having a trial.
Keep it the exact same as a standard murder trial. Fixed.

Original post by james22
Because there have been many cases in the past where the person was found guilty beyond all doubt, but was later proven innocent. You can never be 100% certain.


In this case the guy is guilty. He didn't even try to plea innocent.
It's long enough unless he doesn't serve the full term or something...

But prison should not be easy and should make him reflect on his actions. The guy said prison is like being on holiday or something, lets hope it's not.
Original post by Tommyjw
"the killer of Indian student Anuj Bidve, has been jailed for life with a minimum of 30 years."

What is the issue? It is essentially the maximum sentence, how can it ever be described as 'too lenient'?.

In no way shape or form should we ever bring back the death penalty, ever.


The whole point is that the maximum sentence itself is too lenient, and we should have genuine rest-of-life terms given out instead of the current joke that is 'life'.
Original post by Yung Mon£y
But it clearly wasn't impulse as he had a ****ing gun with him.


I'm not claiming it was. I'm trying to open up some discussion about mental health and crime.
Original post by Kibalchich
I'm not claiming it was. I'm trying to open up some discussion about mental health and crime.


Why?
That's not the discussion here; quit getting off topic. What I'm saying is that we should shoot him because he is a danger, doesn't regret what he has done, and it's a waste of money to keep him alive. Either that or make him a slave.
Reply 158
Original post by Yung Mon£y
You're acting as if there is only one way of having a trial.
Keep it the exact same as a standard murder trial. Fixed.

Then you are complicit with state-sanctioned, public-funded murder? The false conviction rate for serious crimes floats around 1%.

A 99% success rate might be good for a lot of areas in life, but when it means life or death I don't think it is anywhere good enough.
Original post by Yung Mon£y
Why?
That's not the discussion here; quit getting off topic. What I'm saying is that we should shoot him because he is a danger, doesn't regret what he has done, and it's a waste of money to keep him alive. Either that or make him a slave.


You called him "scum". I'm saying its more complicated than that as he has a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder, likely as a result of childhood neglect and/or trauma.

Latest