onomatopoeia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,430
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Victims of murders generally have a family, smarty bum!
Yes, but the family may not share the views of the victim. Certainly applies in my family.
Victims of murders generally have a family, smarty bum!
Who said it doesn't feel great?
joescrivens said:Lots of people say it.
I love revenge, it's one of the purest feelings out there, the feeling of karma coming round to bite whoever it is on the ass who did you wrong.
joescrivens said:oh dear, gang name massive fail!![]()
Really? How so, Joe?

joescrivens said:well because you got their name wrong. :shrug:
unless you meant the gang of toddlers who go around throwing toys at people but I don't think their rivals are the bloods I think they are called the bibs![]()
Are you having an early gin? The Bloods and the Crips are both huge LA gangs, since the 80's. A quick google will show you that.![]()

Ah yes I see my "massive fail".
What's a "tagline", joe?
I's like to see the death penalty re-introduced for any wilful pre-meditated murder and in particular....
The murder of an on duty police officer or anyone going to his assistance.
Murder in the furtherance of crime, e.g. robbery.
Any sexually motivated murder.
And how to you cope with miscarraiges of justice. Many of which have been mentioned in this thread? Or are you happy knowing there there may be the possibility of condemning an innocent person to death?
I can accept that possibility because I think it will be much less than the damage done by the individuals still living on this earth.
Collateral damage. It's not pefect but it's better than our current system.
And how to you cope with miscarraiges of justice. Many of which have been mentioned in this thread? Or are you happy knowing there there may be the possibility of condemning an innocent person to death?
Do you think you'll still say that though when its one of your children who is collateral damage? Or still think 'Well its not ideal, but that just the price you pay'
I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know which cases have been mentioned, but the two which regularly get quoted as miscarriages are Timothy Evans and James Hanratty.
Timothy Evans remains the only genuine case of a miscarriage of justice fairly conclusively proven, although Christie never admitted to the murders of Evans wife and child so there remains a small element of doubt.
Hanratty maintained his innocence all along and his family have fought to clear his name for years. Conclusive DNA evidence recently showed that his sperm was in the surviving rape victim, Valerie Storey. Her boyfriend was shot dead in a particularly nasty crime.
Hanratty's family still won't accept his guilt, and are alleging cross contamination of the police samples, which has been proven to be not the case by careful independent testing. He was as guilty as hell and there's no miscarriage there.
Evans remains the only real innocent victim. Of course it's unfortunate , but I can accept such a small percentage of error overall, if you're looking for infallibility it doesn't exist in any system and anyway, in many cases the guilt of the offender isn't in doubt with loads of conclusive evidence, and confessions to boot.
Let's turn the boot on the other foot.
If you had the chance to execute a murderer and chose not to, then they walked the street and killed your child would you think it was a good idea not to kill them because after all -they may have been innocent?
The argument cuts both ways hugh.
Keeping them in jail "forever" still runs the risk of them killing someone in jail or escaping and killing your child. Terminate them and that risk will never be there
That's not completely true, just in the UK in the last half century Bentley was overturned (though I do realise he would of been retried), Mattan was exonerated completely.
I think its reasonable to speculate the Birmingham six, Guildford four, macguire six and Judith ward would all of been sentenced to death had that been available to the court at the time.
I'm still genuinely interested if it was your wife, or child would you be as quick to say 'oh thats unfortunate'.
Being honest, why do you care if they kill someone in jail.
I've already said that the small percentage of risk is acceptable to me so I have to take the whole nine yards.
The B'ham Six were freed on the strength of no new evidence whatsoever, and despite the fact that several appeals had upheld their original convictions. They were released in response to a public clamour which was ridiculous with people
screaming for their release with little or no knowledge of the case or the evidence. In the end it was a political decision to release them - nothing else.
A subsequent huge re-enquiry into the bombings concluded that they'd have charged the same people all over again. The results of that enquiry were never made public and hardly surprising really considering that the six had been compensated by then in an undisclosed sum but it would certainly have been millions.
I'm still subject to The Official Secrets Act unfortunately, but the less you know about some of this stuff the better.
so if your son/daughter grows up to be a prison guard and gets killed you would be ok with that?
I never said anything like that, but it is getting a little far fetched now.
right but you are claiming if they kill someone in jail it's ok. People in jail aren't all murderers, theres staff too and unless they are kept in solitary confinement with no human contact there is a risk to everyone who comes in contact with them.
The fact is nowadays the risk to killing an innocent person is no higher than a murderer in jail escaping and killing someone or killing a member of staff, so thats just as far fethced in my opinion.
I didn't say it was OK, mearly that I wasn't worried and was surprised you were
I didn't say it was OK, mearly that I wasn't worried and was surprised you were
I think it quite interesting to say that, 30 years ago before we'd ever heard of DNA I'm prepared to bet we would of wagered all convictions were safe. What new evidence will come along 30 years from now that may clear people who we are so sure were guilty? I dunno, and I'm prepared to bet non of you do (else will you help with my lottery ticket?)
Laudrup said:You didn't need DNA 30 years ago, just a mentally ill person and an interrogation room.
We can argue about it forever and we'll never agree. If you ever have the misfortune to hear the tape of Leslie Anne Downey pleading for her life while being raped and tortured by Bradey and Hindley, you might think differently. It made me and many others weep uncontrollably
With scrotes like that (and Huntley and such) if we arent able to execute them because of EU law (odd how many other EU laws we don't observe when it suite - but i digress), at the least IMO they shouldnt get protective custody in prison
then they can get what they've got coming from the general populace - I wouldnt shed too many tears if an armed robber called vinnie stabbed Ian Brady to death with a sharpened toothbrush
CT said:We can argue about it forever and we'll never agree. If you ever have the misfortune to hear the tape of Leslie Anne Downey pleading for her life while being raped and tortured by Bradey and Hindley, you might think differently. It made me and many others weep uncontrollably
.
Vinnie would be locked up until the end of his days, which isn't good for Vinnie or his family. It also isn't good for the ordinary prison guard who has to break up the fight and risk being hurt or the counselling they'll need after seeing someone shanked to death. Nobody wins.
only if he gets caught - if he has any sense he'll shank the scrote at the far end of the showers and then wash himself clean before the steam clears.
however my feeling is that you are being deliberately obtuse - the point was that if people like huntley, brady etc are sent to prison then vinnie and his mates are bound to do them propper , therefore prison isnt the answer and we clearly can't release them so lets just electrocute, hang, shoot or whatever the nasty little scrotes and have done with it
I'm shocked and astonished at the number on here who think it's OK for the state to kill innocent people as long as they get some guilty ones along the way.