Lottery

What are your views on those who kill then?

Many would consider it wrong that anyone can have a swish lifestyle that they haven't earnt, crook or not.

That is the lottery for you. If you and a serial rapist both buy a ticket, then there is equal chance of you both matching 6 numbers. (13,983,816 to 1 if you want to be precise)

Say instead of the lottery, he was left a large inheritance of £7million. Would you feel the same way?

he hasn't served his sentence yet though, that's the issue.

Hanging .

You might change your opinion if you got married and had to puit up with being beaten often, perhaps raped yourself. And you go and kill your partner in a fit of rage. Bet you shouldn't think you will be hung now I bet. So here we have a woman who doesn't believe in Battered Women Syndrome because obviously if you kill you should be hung. Great.

Or you patheticly looked after your children at the sea side and left your 2 year old toddler by the beach who wondered off to a near by train track and got struck by an incoming train and subsequently died.

Hanging for people like Huntley, Fred & Rose West, Harold Shipman etc., the reasons you mentioned for murder aren't acceptable but they are far more understandable. You cannot compare Fred and Rose West's rapes and murders with accidently letting your child out of your sight.

Why not? I asked a simple question on your thoughts on those who kill and you said they should be hung. I never distinguished between anything else. Which means that they must be acceptable according to your response earlier. I believe you wish to slightly alter that now.

You seem to think a law or a crime covers everyone, yet you have to realise to each case their are different circumstances to each case.

Hanging for people like Huntley, Fred & Rose West, Harold Shipman etc., the reasons you mentioned for murder aren't acceptable but they are far more understandable. You cannot compare Fred and Rose West's rapes and murders with accidently letting your child out of your sight.

So in some cases it is acceptable to kill and in others it isn't. You say that Ian Huntley should be killed even though there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests that he may be mentally ill. I know that cases which involve children are always very emotive but I really don't feel that they should be treated any differently to the murders of adults. Do you think that parents should be punished if their child gets killed in their care. What about a man who causes the death of two people by dangerous driving. I think that you would feel differently if you looked at these people as human being which they are. Then you have the problem that the person may be not guilty after you have hung them. I think that it is just to risky to execute people.

In reguards to the lottery. Maybe the law should be changed to prevent people who are serviving prison sentances from buying lottery tickets. However like I have said before this should not effect this man because he has already won. The sad fact of the matter is that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. The whole point of the lottery is that it is random and anyone can win. In this case this man won. Just because he has raped women doesn't mean that he isn't entitled to his money.

I know bad can happen to good and vica versa, but surely you would want to prevent bad happening to good? As you would good happening to bad? Clearly, no one is going to agree on the subject, but he broke laws, his rights were taken away when he acted like he did, why should he have laws protecting him now?

I wouldn't like to live in a country where prisoners have no rights whatsoever.

The way I see it he has been punished having been in prison for nearly 15 years.

He is about to be fully released and yes maybe this money could go to someone more deserving but it isn't.

Well then he serves his sentence and gets the money when he is released.
The article itself says what he did was legal... they're allowed to play the lottery while serving their sentence, why disallow then winning?

with a bit of luck he'll be struck by lightning and die painfully on the day of his release, but what would be the odds of that happening?

Most of the time if you're struck by lightning you die instantly, or not long enough to feel anything, that is what I thought. You can survive from being thunderstruck but that is so rare.

You might change your opinion if you got married and had to put up with being beaten often, perhaps raped yourself. And you go and kill your partner in a fit of rage. Bet you shouldn't think you will be hung now I bet.

If you were to kill your partner in a fit of rage in some circumstances, then it would be most likely that a defence of both provocation and self defence could be argued sucessfully in a court. This would make the death 'lawful' and as such, not murder or indeed a 'homicide' under English Law

Most of the time if you're struck by lightning you die instantly, or not long enough to feel anything, that is what I thought. You can survive from being thunderstruck but that is so rare.

Not true. A lightning stroke may stop your hearth, and that is usually what kills you, but it is not uncommon that people survive, though they typically get quite severe burns.

You could say all wrong-doers are mentally ill, because they do things that normal people wouldn't. However in most cases, they do know exactly what they are doing and if you want to call this a mental illness, do so, but it wont stop them doing crimes again, and possibly KILL AGAIN. Well, the examples you used are all different, and yes, a life was lost but different intentions were envolved. I feel a drunk driver who kills someone should be punished a lot, but not recieve the same punishment of real cruel people like Fred & Rose West, which you have to admit are different because of the vast amount of lives they ruined. I agree, there is that chance, however innocent people are at risk, but punishment by death should only be used in extreme cases.