Convicted murderer among people who tackled terrorist Usman Khan Watch

Djtoodles
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 days ago
#41
So we either
a) let out 2 criminals in the hope that one will stop the other
b) let out 2 criminals in the hope that they dont murder/carry on being a terrorist
c) let out the murderer and hope he doesnt murder again
d) let out the terrorist and hope he has moved on from his terrorist ways
or my prefered option
e) Execute both or keep them in prison forever.

I mean not to brag but if we had gone by my method no innocent people would have died.

The punishment does not fit the crime anymore and the system is too soft. Justice got lost in a cloud of socio-political liberal virtue signalling bull****, with nonsense talk about "rehabilitation" and it costs the lives of innocent individuals.
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 2 days ago
#42
(Original post by Djtoodles)
So we either
a) let out 2 criminals in the hope that one will stop the other
b) let out 2 criminals in the hope that they dont murder/carry on being a terrorist
c) let out the murderer and hope he doesnt murder again
d) let out the terrorist and hope he has moved on from his terrorist ways
or my prefered option
e) Execute both or keep them in prison forever.

I mean not to brag but if we had gone by my method no innocent people would have died.

The punishment does not fit the crime anymore and the system is too soft. Justice got lost in a cloud of socio-political liberal virtue signalling bull****, with nonsense talk about "rehabilitation" and it costs the lives of innocent individuals.
Did you just throw together a load of vapid buzz words there?
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 days ago
#43
(Original post by QE2)
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.
That last line which I've just highlighted, that is why things like this will keep happening. How many innocent victims must die because we haven't got the *******s to lock them up and keep them locked up because of snowflakes saying they deserve a second chance? Every time anything like this has happened it's been the same rhetoric of he was under surveillance, or police were aware, or he'd had previous offences. Until we start locking these people up and throwing away the key, or better still chuck them out the country then these terror attacks will keep happening. Maybe your right, maybe others may be rehabilitated, or maybe they'll go and sell flowers somewhere, or hand out free hugs on the street? Or maybe they'll do something like this. To me, if there is even a hint of risk they shouldn't see the light of day again.
1
reply
josh75
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 days ago
#44
(Original post by QE2)
Who proposes blind forgiveness - apart from Christians? I certainly don't.
Who is proposing revenge, no one here is.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 2 days ago
#45
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
That last line which I've just highlighted, that is why things like this will keep happening. How many innocent victims must die because we haven't got the *******s to lock them up and keep them locked up because of snowflakes saying they deserve a second chance?
I've always found it a bit odd that the right, supposedly the ones who respect the law so much, are the first ones to bash it...
Until we start locking these people up and throwing away the key, or better still chuck them out the country then these terror attacks will keep happening.
With what money? and throw them out where exactly?[/quote]
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 days ago
#46
(Original post by josh75)
Who is proposing revenge, no one here is.
Plenty of people. The death penalty is essentially revenge. Life imprisonment without parole or rehabilitation likewise. In fact, most people's concept of justice carry an element of revenge.
And most religionists, of course. All three Abrahamics prescribe an eye for an eye. (Of course, that then raises the issue of whether some religionists actually believe and accept what their god says, but that's a different subject)
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 days ago
#47
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
That last line which I've just highlighted, that is why things like this will keep happening. How many innocent victims must die because we haven't got the *******s to lock them up and keep them locked up because of snowflakes saying they deserve a second chance? Every time anything like this has happened it's been the same rhetoric of he was under surveillance, or police were aware, or he'd had previous offences. Until we start locking these people up and throwing away the key,
So if the authorities think that a person may commit a crime in the future, they should be locked up for life. Do you realise how insane that is? How are they supposed to know? We don't have mind-reading of time travel technology.

or better still chuck them out the country then these terror attacks will keep happening.
If they are a British citizen, born in Britain (like Usman Khan), how do you propose we do that?

Maybe your right, maybe others may be rehabilitated, or maybe they'll go and sell flowers somewhere, or hand out free hugs on the street? Or maybe they'll do something like this. To me, if there is even a hint of risk they shouldn't see the light of day again.
It appears that the issue with Khan is that there was no attempt at rehabilitation or deradicalisation made. I agree that if a person is convicted of unmitigated violent crime, and they simply sit in prison, in a culture that is likely violent and predatory, they may well not be suitable for early release. But even then, we cannot simply hand out life sentences for almost every crime, which your proposals would necessarily require.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 days ago
#48
(Original post by Napp)
I've always found it a bit odd that the right, supposedly the ones who respect the law so much, are the first ones to bash it...

With what money? and throw them out where exactly?
The law at times is not just, nor is it fair. There is a growing trend in this country of protecting the criminals rather than the victims.
(Original post by QE2)
So if the authorities think that a person may commit a crime in the future, they should be locked up for life. Do you realise how insane that is? How are they supposed to know? We don't have mind-reading of time travel technology.


If they are a British citizen, born in Britain (like Usman Khan), how do you propose we do that?


It appears that the issue with Khan is that there was no attempt at rehabilitation or deradicalisation made. I agree that if a person is convicted of unmitigated violent crime, and they simply sit in prison, in a culture that is likely violent and predatory, they may well not be suitable for early release. But even then, we cannot simply hand out life sentences for almost every crime, which your proposals would necessarily require.
I’m all for second chances but this isn’t about mind reading, it’s about common sense. Everyone knows that terrorism in any form is wrong, yes? Anyone who has terrorist links in any way shape or form should be locked up. That isn’t mind reading, that’s common sense. Protect the many, not the few.

We cannot hand out life sentences for every crime, no, but we can move towards reflective punishment in terms of the outcome of the crime. That one punch victim that I mentioned in either this or another thread. He has lost his life, in a manner of speaking. He’s been in a coma for three years, can’t walk, can’t talk. Why? Because he was a victim of an attack by someone with a history of convictions, who punched him out of the blue. How many years did the attacker get? Three and a half. Are you saying that is fair or just? The punishment does not suit the crime.

I reiterate what I’ve said previously. It has now gone too far in this country, people get away with far too much constantly. What use it rehabilitation to a serial offender? One with say 50 or so burglary or theft convictions who doesn’t learn? Has he not had his chance? Lock him up, for life.

We have no deterrent to crime in this country at all because the leftie brigade just want to hug hug hug. Well the thing is, that does not work for everyone.

Simple question for you. If the attacker on London Bridge had lived, should be have been incarcerated for life? Yes or no?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 days ago
#49
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Anyone who has terrorist links in any way shape or form should be locked up.
For life, with no chance of parole? Including friends and family of active terrorists?



That one punch victim that I mentioned in either this or another thread. He has lost his life, in a manner of speaking. He’s been in a coma for three years, can’t walk, can’t talk. Why? Because he was a victim of an attack by someone with a history of convictions, who punched him out of the blue. How many years did the attacker get? Three and a half. Are you saying that is fair or just? The punishment does not suit the crime.
What about the person who has no history of violence but kills someone with one punch? Do they get life with no parole?

IWe have no deterrent to crime in this country at all
Of course we do.

because the leftie brigade just want to hug hug hug. Well the thing is, that does not work for everyone.
You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 10 years? Any current problems with law and order are their responsibility. Crime has risen under this right-wing government. It is tehstories who are soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime.

Simple question for you. If the attacker on London Bridge had lived, should be have been incarcerated for life? Yes or no?
Possibly. Depends. Life isn't either/or.
0
reply
josh75
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 days ago
#50
(Original post by QE2)
Plenty of people. The death penalty is essentially revenge. Life imprisonment without parole or rehabilitation likewise. In fact, most people's concept of justice carry an element of revenge.
And most religionists, of course. All three Abrahamics prescribe an eye for an eye. (Of course, that then raises the issue of whether some religionists actually believe and accept what their god says, but that's a different subject)
I'm not arguing against the death penalty but life in prison is not revenge, as justice does not require the offenders punishment to be able to be paid back by the offender. To give an analogy if you steal £1million, but you have no skills; its perfectly reasonable for the court to say you have to spend a huge amount of time in prison and you will never stop paying back the person you stole from. In the same way if you commit a heinous crime its perfectly reasonable to say you have committed such a horrible crime that the punishment is going to be longer than your life time. Its not an eye for an eye, its that the crimes each have a number of years attached to them and if yo u commit enough you can end up with more prison years than your life.

Also its not religionist its called theist. And with Theist its not revenge either. Becuase the punishment is dictated by God, God has perfect judgement and so would not be swayed by human emotions like revenge, but even if he was the epistemological difference is so great he wouldn't care anayway so his judgment cant really be argued its revenge. Furthermore Jesus ephasised forgiveness quite a bit so a lot of theist dont ascribe to eye for an eye. So essentially even theist dont really argue for revenge.
0
reply
Gwil
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 days ago
#51
(Original post by QE2)
And most religionists, of course. All three Abrahamics prescribe an eye for an eye. (Of course, that then raises the issue of whether some religionists actually believe and accept what their god says, but that's a different subject)
I can't speak for Judaism and Islam but Christianity is explicitly against retaliation and revenge, so your statement that the Abrahamic religions prescribe an eye for an eye is wrong.
1
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 days ago
#52
(Original post by QE2)
For life, with no chance of parole? Including friends and family of active terrorists?




What about the person who has no history of violence but kills someone with one punch? Do they get life with no parole?


Of course we do.


You do realise that the Tories have been in power for 10 years? Any current problems with law and order are their responsibility. Crime has risen under this right-wing government. It is tehstories who are soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime.


Possibly. Depends. Life isn't either/or.
1. Yes, life, with no chance of parole. They have made that choice. Anyone who engages in any terrorist activity or plotting should be jailed for life. Will make this country a whole lot safer, rather than the suck and see approach you prefer, hoping they'll behave...

2. Perhaps not life with one punch and no history, but certainly a substantial sentence more than three and a half years. If more were made an example of, perhaps the one punch violence culture that is developing would retract.

3. No we don't. There are a ridiculous amount of repeat offenders who just spend their lives either in prison, or out for a few weeks before going back in. Where is that deterrent? Get some of these lifers just locked up, they've been given plenty of chances, if they can't do it and function in society, stop them from preventing mental and physical harm to innocent people.

4. Debatable, no government actually has the balls to do what is needed. If the tories won't, Labour certainly won't.

5. So a gentleman who was locked up for plotting a terror attack, gets out, kills two people and reverts back to his terrorist ways is allowed a further third chance? Ridiculous, left wing, snowflake bull****.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 days ago
#53
(Original post by Gwil)
I can't speak for Judaism and Islam but Christianity is explicitly against retaliation and revenge, so your statement that the Abrahamic religions prescribe an eye for an eye is wrong.
In practice, most Christian hardliners and fundamentalists do openly support the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
Of course there are plenty of New Testament quotes directly apportioned to Christ that can be used to emphasize love, forgiveness, turning the other cheeks and sinners not sitting in judgement of fellow sinners.
0
reply
Gwil
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 day ago
#54
(Original post by londonmyst)
In practice, most Christian hardliners and fundamentalists do openly support the death penalty for those convicted of murder.
Of course there are plenty of New Testament quotes directly apportioned to Christ that can be used to emphasize love, forgiveness, turning the other cheeks and sinners not sitting in judgement of fellow sinners.
That's true, but in Christianity the New Covenant, as expressed in Christ's teachings, is traditionally believed to fulfill and supersede the Law of Moses. This means that the most consistently Christian view is that of Matthew 5:38-39 and John 8, where Jesus explicitly replaces Old Testament laws of retributive justice and revenge with instructions of forgiveness.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 day ago
#55
(Original post by Gwil)
I can't speak for Judaism and Islam but Christianity is explicitly against retaliation and revenge, so your statement that the Abrahamic religions prescribe an eye for an eye is wrong.
From the Bible... "if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,...".
The definition of revenge.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 day ago
#56
(Original post by Gwil)
That's true, but in Christianity the New Covenant, as expressed in Christ's teachings, is traditionally believed to fulfill and supersede the Law of Moses. This means that the most consistently Christian view is that of Matthew 5:38-39 and John 8, where Jesus explicitly replaces Old Testament laws of retributive justice and revenge with instructions of forgiveness.
The NT does not erase Mosaic Law. That is nothing more that an attempt by modernist Christians to distance themselves from the more abhorrent Biblical passages.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 1 day ago
#57
(Original post by Gwil)
That's true, but in Christianity the New Covenant, as expressed in Christ's teachings, is traditionally believed to fulfill and supersede the Law of Moses. This means that the most consistently Christian view is that of Matthew 5:38-39 and John 8, where Jesus explicitly replaces Old Testament laws of retributive justice and revenge with instructions of forgiveness.
I think you'll find the law of man supersedes the so called teachings of Christ. If you punch most christians you can be fairly sure they'll hit you straight back.
0
reply
rcmotorboy
Badges: 12
#58
Report 1 day ago
#58
Usman Khan must have the worst luck in the world. I thought the news of being part of ISIS was bad enough! Usman Khan must have thought, the worst was over with ISIS and he got tackled by a convicted murderer. Something really going on there!
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 day ago
#59
(Original post by QE2)
The NT does not erase Mosaic Law. That is nothing more that an attempt by modernist Christians to distance themselves from the more abhorrent Biblical passages.
I am sorry, this is rubbish. This is completely at odds with the Pauline explanation of the New Covenant which has represented orthodox Christian belief for almost two millennia.

During most of that period the vast majority of Christians have seen no difficulty with the death penalty but they have not justified it in terms of the Mosaic law.

If you look at Aquinas as being reflective of mainstream Christian philosophy (which is a fair reflection of his influence across 600 years) there is no reference to the Mosaic law in his explanation of the validity of capital punishment.

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/cappunsh.html

For Luther and Calvin different rules applied to rulers and ruled. For rulers were (Romans 13) God’s Ministers and avengers to execute His wrath on evil doers.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 day ago
#60
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I am sorry, this is rubbish. This is completely at odds with the Pauline explanation of the New Covenant which has represented orthodox Christian belief for almost two millennia.

During most of that period the vast majority of Christians have seen no difficulty with the death penalty but they have not justified it in terms of the Mosaic law.

If you look at Aquinas as being reflective of mainstream Christian philosophy (which is a fair reflection of his influence across 600 years) there is no reference to the Mosaic law in his explanation of the validity of capital punishment.

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/cappunsh.html

For Luther and Calvin different rules applied to rulers and ruled. For rulers were (Romans 13) God’s Ministers and avengers to execute His wrath on evil doers.
Your post addresses a point I did not make. Gwil claimed that Christianity does not contain or support the concept of "an eye for an eye". I was merely pointing out their error.
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