Convicted murderer among people who tackled terrorist Usman Khan Watch

QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 days ago
#21
(Original post by londonmyst)
Precisely.

Criminals like: David Copeland, the murderer of Jo Cox, that pair of thugs from britain first, Peter Bryan (multiple murderer & cannibal), Ruby Thomas (London's first convicted gay bashing killer) and the two horrifying habitual offenders that murdered Quyen Ngoc Nguyen (after they raped, robbed & tortured her).
Exactly. It's easy to be civilised and measured when dealing with fraud or art theft or even manslaughter. It's when faced with the truly appalling that we need to demonstrate our ability to rise above our baser instincts. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 days ago
#22
(Original post by RJ7781)
Its entirely within our power to make sure sentencing is fair though.
Who defines "fair"?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 days ago
#23
(Original post by RJ7781)
In this case the criminal was let out early and the outstanding citizen was stabbed to death. Seems like we treated the criminal a lot better than the citizen in this case.
By that argument, we must permanently incarcerate anyone who has the potential to commit a crime. What else can we do if the only consideration is the protection of the public and the rights of the criminal are irrelevant?
We have to accept that such blanket, permanent incarceration is never going to happen. He was given a sentence that was deemed appropriate (remember that he hadn't actually committed any violent crime), and served his sentence . The length of the sentence isn't the problem so much as what happened during the sentence, what steps were taken to prevent reoffending. If no such steps were taken, the length of the sentence is irrelevant.
0
reply
josh75
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 days ago
#24
(Original post by QE2)
Ironically, it is the "lock 'em up and throw away the key, hanging's too good for 'em!" brigade who are letting emotion cloud judgement.
In the heat of the moment, people naturally want revenge - but revenge is not necessarily justice.
but neither is blind forgiveness.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 days ago
#25
(Original post by londonmyst)
I believe that 'life should mean life' for convicted murderers and hate criminals who kill.

Do you believe that everyone convicted of murder should serve the full life imprisonment sentence?
With no prospect of early release, parole, day release and never be allowed out of prison premises for any reason at all (funerals, medical treatment).
Yes, if it is murder they should never be let out. They’ve had their chance, they blew it. However, I do then think with manslaughter it depends on the circumstances, if accidental etc.

But then there are other cases where life should mean life, not just murder. Take for example the case of a one punch victim in the north. The victim is now only just waking up from a coma, three years after the attack. The attacker had previous convictions, it was an unwarranted attack. The victim will take years to recover, if it all, by definition, has the attacker took away the victims life? I’d argue to a degree yes. How many years did the attacker get for this? Three and a half years. Utter disgrace. He should still be locked up.
(Original post by QE2)
Sorry, I must have missed the memo that determined that life must be fair, and what the definition of "fair" is.
Give over. You know what fair is as much as anyone else. Heaven forbid we have a fair and just society, obviously.
(Original post by RJ7781)
In this case the criminal was let out early and the outstanding citizen was stabbed to death. Seems like we treated the criminal a lot better than the citizen in this case.
Exactly this, happens day in day out in this country.
(Original post by QE2)
Ironically, it is the "lock 'em up and throw away the key, hanging's too good for 'em!" brigade who are letting emotion cloud judgement.
In the heat of the moment, people naturally want revenge - but revenge is not necessarily justice.
Justice has been served, he will never hurt anyone else again. I’d rather that then he take up a prison space for 10 years then let back out when he wouldn’t deserve it.
2
reply
username5049966
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 days ago
#26
(Original post by QE2)
By that argument, we must permanently incarcerate anyone who has the potential to commit a crime. What else can we do if the only consideration is the protection of the public and the rights of the criminal are irrelevant?
We have to accept that such blanket, permanent incarceration is never going to happen. He was given a sentence that was deemed appropriate (remember that he hadn't actually committed any violent crime), and served his sentence . The length of the sentence isn't the problem so much as what happened during the sentence, what steps were taken to prevent reoffending. If no such steps were taken, the length of the sentence is irrelevant.
You're assuming it was possible to stop him reoffending. What you're suggesting is basically brainwashing. It's not possible to change someone if they don't want to change. Have you considered its not possible rehabilitate everybody? In which case the best course of action would indeed be to lock him up permanently for the safety of the public. And he didn't potentially commit a crime. He did commit a crime.
1
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 days ago
#27
(Original post by RJ7781)
You're assuming it was possible to stop him reoffending. What you're suggesting is basically brainwashing. It's not possible to change someone if they don't want to change. Have you considered its not possible rehabilitate everybody? In which case the best course of action would indeed be to lock him up permanently for the safety of the public. And he didn't potentially commit a crime. He did commit a crime.
No no, in the lefts eyes, everyone needs a cuddle and a hug, regardless if they’ve brutally murdered someone, or plotted a terrorist attack. If they’re a good boy or girl in prison we should let them out because they’ve been reformed. Makes me sick. This is why we have an issue with law and order in this country. Far too lenient.


To be honest, with certain criminals, not even all murderers I’m pretty sure you could make an argument for them being locked up for life. Why should my tax be spent trying to rehabilitate them when they don’t want it?
0
reply
errrr99
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 days ago
#28
(Original post by looloo2134)
I don't think a person who murder a mental disabled woman should even be let out and I don't care that he save a person life. He has murder a woman with mind of child. ,.... But murdering a disabled woman with mind of a child is nothing but pure evil. Not even other prisoners have time for people who murder disabled people.
it's an invisible disability. How could he have known she was "disabled"? She looked like a normal woman, only her behaviour could give it away.
Unfortunately children can behave in a way that might trigger a man with his particular mindset.

But that mindset is useful to society when it faces terrorism - he's brave and courageous, with an unusual mind that may struggle to fit in
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 days ago
#29
(Original post by QE2)
Exactly. It's easy to be civilised and measured when dealing with fraud or art theft or even manslaughter. It's when faced with the truly appalling that we need to demonstrate our ability to rise above our baser instincts. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".
The reason why murder is it against are instincts human being know that murdering is the worst crime than stealing. People have a protective instinct inward children and that why people are more upset by the abuse and murder of child than adult. So your saying that people should not be upset by child murdered.
0
reply
username5049966
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 days ago
#30
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
No no, in the lefts eyes, everyone needs a cuddle and a hug, regardless if they’ve brutally murdered someone, or plotted a terrorist attack. If they’re a good boy or girl in prison we should let them out because they’ve been reformed. Makes me sick. This is why we have an issue with law and order in this country. Far too lenient.


To be honest, with certain criminals, not even all murderers I’m pretty sure you could make an argument for them being locked up for life. Why should my tax be spent trying to rehabilitate them when they don’t want it?
It depends what they do. Brutally knifing someone is very different from say punching them once and then they are accidentally killed. The latter can be rehabilitated, the former probably not.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 days ago
#31
(Original post by josh75)
but neither is blind forgiveness.
Who proposes blind forgiveness - apart from Christians? I certainly don't.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 days ago
#32
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Justice has been served, he will never hurt anyone else again. I’d rather that then he take up a prison space for 10 years then let back out when he wouldn’t deserve it.
But you are now conflating two separate issues. While I am not a fan of summary execution, the attacker's fate was not necessarily unjust or unfair.
However, that is not the same issue as whether he should have been serving life without parole for pleading guilty to a non-violent crime? We cannot punish people for what we think they might do in the future.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 days ago
#33
(Original post by RJ7781)
You're assuming it was possible to stop him reoffending.
You're assuming that it is impossible.

What you're suggesting is basically brainwashing.
Yes. That's what rehabilitation is, in effect. Removing one way of looking at things and replacing it with a different one.

It's not possible to change someone if they don't want to change.
But it is if they do.

Have you considered its not possible rehabilitate everybody?
Yes. That is certain.

In which case the best course of action would indeed be to lock him up permanently for the safety of the public.
Depends on the person and the crime. We can't just lock up every offender forever. That's just bonkers!

And he didn't potentially commit a crime. He did commit a crime.
But the original crime does not attract a life sentence, so it would not have been possible to lick him up permanently. Are you suggesting that whenever someone commits a crime, they should be imprisoned on the basis of the worst time they might commit in the future?

Remember that one of the heroes of the attack is one of those people who you claim cannot be rehabilitated and should spend the rest of their life in prison.
Last edited by QE2; 3 days ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 days ago
#34
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
No no, in the lefts eyes, everyone needs a cuddle and a hug, regardless if they’ve brutally murdered someone, or plotted a terrorist attack. If they’re a good boy or girl in prison we should let them out because they’ve been reformed. Makes me sick. This is why we have an issue with law and order in this country. Far too lenient.
You see, regardless of how reasonable your actual position may or may not be, you just sound daft here. (It is always possible that I have fallen foul of Poe's Law here)
BTW, you do realise that it is the right-wingers who have been in control of law and order for the last 10 years.

To be honest, with certain criminals, not even all murderers I’m pretty sure you could make an argument for them being locked up for life. Why should my tax be spent trying to rehabilitate them when they don’t want it?
Who decides? Maybe we should have a prime-time Saturday show where the public can phone in?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 days ago
#35
(Original post by looloo2134)
The reason why murder is it against are instincts human being know that murdering is the worst crime than stealing. People have a protective instinct inward children and that why people are more upset by the abuse and murder of child than adult. So your saying that people should not be upset by child murdered.
No. I am saying that people should base judgement on reason rather than emotion.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 days ago
#36
(Original post by QE2)
No. I am saying that people should base judgement on reason rather than emotion.
Have you been in a court for child abuse case it is highly emotion even police officers and Judges broken down at the pictures and evidence. Emotion is important when it come to dealing with people who commit the worst crimes.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 days ago
#37
(Original post by looloo2134)
Have you been in a court for child abuse case it is highly emotion even police officers and Judges broken down at the pictures and evidence. Emotion is important when it come to dealing with people who commit the worst crimes.
Logic and reason dictate that child abuse is a very serious crime. Emotion merely clouds our judgement.

Which of these two cases do you think is the more serious?
A) The father of a man who died from a drug overdose strangles the 13 year old dealer who sold him the drugs, or
B) A 13 year old drug dealer from a broken home who was abused in care, stabs a teacher who makes fun of gangsta attitude.
0
reply
username5049966
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 days ago
#38
(Original post by QE2)
No. I am saying that people should base judgement on reason rather than emotion.
The whole idea of the justice system is in fact based on emotion though. Justice exists to basically satisfy our desire for revenge without a descent into barbarity.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 days ago
#39
(Original post by RJ7781)
The whole idea of the justice system is in fact based on emotion though. Justice exists to basically satisfy our desire for revenge without a descent into barbarity.
Your post is contradictory. If we know we must temper our emotional desire for barbaric revenge with some reasonable form of justice - we are applying reason over emotion.
In the past, perhaps, it was based more on emotion - "an eye for an eye" etc. However today, in liberal democracies, it is based much more on logic and reason. Medical, social and psychological research has a greater bearing on the justice system than mere emotion and the desire for revenge.
0
reply
Sabertooth
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 days ago
#40
To be fair, the terrorist had been let out of prison too.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (95)
19.27%
Labour (244)
49.49%
Liberal Democrats (64)
12.98%
Green Party (30)
6.09%
Brexit Party (6)
1.22%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (3)
0.61%
SNP (10)
2.03%
Plaid Cymru (3)
0.61%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (6)
1.22%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (3)
0.61%
UKIP (6)
1.22%
Other (4)
0.81%
None (19)
3.85%

Watched Threads

View All