Shocking

[Nebbiolo]

You pay to keep the likes of brady, hindley, the yorkshire ripper, venables and thompson then.

Because I dont want too, i'd rather monies went towards the victoria climbies and baby P's of this world and ensuring their safety and the safety and care of thousands of others instead of one bunk hiltons, legal aid that could raise the bismark, and new lives and protection when released.

No sorry, not for me. Rabid dogs are put down.

I would pay, yes. The alternative is to bring back the death penalty which is something that I believe is wrong. So I've no alternative but to pay for their upkeep. But don't mistake that for me being of the opinion that these are cuddly characters that just need a bit a love and attention.

And regarding your first point, I don't see why money cannot be spent on ensuring the baby Ps of this world are offered protection. There is enough money in the pot regardless of whether these other rabid dogs are put down or not. But that takes political will and a re-examination of social services, its policies and the calibre of the people employed in the sector.

But to begin with I would question the policy of assuming that it is usually best to keep a child with its natural parents.

 

[Slight_Return]

And of the deterrent to those guilty of such crimes already?

Would you be prepared to wash your hands of the bradys and such like by paying the chinese to 'look after' them? - what im specifically asking is, if there is no blood on your hands or the hands of system you support, would you be happy for them to be punished elsewhere? out of sight out of mind.

 

[Cal]

but if the road users around them are competent and on their game, they should be able to account for Sid and Doris on their Sunday constitutional.

Besides, even if they caused the lion's share of accidents, they'd all be impacts at 13.6mph or below and so would do a lot less harm than some pillock doing 120 while whacking off in his SUV on the motorway

I'm not really talking about them going slow.

It's more when they brake for absolutely no reason, or when at roundabouts, cutting lanes because they dont have a [Poor language removed] clue.

 

[Nebbiolo]

And of the deterrent to those guilty of such crimes already?

Would you be prepared to wash your hands of the bradys and such like by paying the chinese to 'look after' them? - what im specifically asking is, if there is no blood on your hands or the hands of system you support, would you be happy for them to be punished elsewhere? out of sight out of mind.

No, because we should do our own dirty work. The system would have blood on its hands if it sent someone to a place where it knew that that person would be punished in a way that was not permissible here.

I think you're referring to the Doctrine of Double Effect. We specifically seek an aim, which is removing X from society, by paying Y to look after him. That Y punishes X in a manner that we are repelled by is simply an effect that we did not seek, so we are not morally responsible. I disagree with such thinking.

 

[Slight_Return]

I was just wondering if you could get onside with that, im well up for properly punishing the worst of the worst here. It was simply a hypothetical for you a.k.a execution by proxy.

Hopefully we agree that the current watered down version of justice is too weak to properly serve as a deterrent to criminals. That we differ on the way forward from here is natural, hopefully we do agree that a much tougher stance needs to be adopted and that we save the hugs and flowers and sympathy for the actual victims of crime and not for the perpetrators.

 

[TX Bill]

I think every area should have vigulanti groups. there is no better justice than a good old angry mob.

View attachment 1422

I quite agree.

 

[Nebbiolo]

I was just wondering if you could get onside with that, im well up for properly punishing the worst of the worst here. It was simply a hypothetical for you a.k.a execution by proxy.

Hopefully we agree that the current watered down version of justice is too weak to properly serve as a deterrent to criminals. That we differ on the way forward from here is natural, hopefully we do agree that a much tougher stance needs to be adopted and that we save the hugs and flowers and sympathy for the actual victims of crime and not for the perpetrators.

We can agree that the victims of crime should be our number one priority.

For the record, I'm a retributivist. Although I don't believe in killing and certainly not taking the law into our own hands, I do expect society, via the state, to take its pound of flesh from wrongdoers. So I'm not down with the view that we treat criminals as though suffering from a sickness that can be cured by love and kisses. Far from it.

 

[Slight_Return]

Well, as and when the revolution happens, I suspect a lot of criminals hope you have extremely deep pockets, because if money was no factor - I still wont be onside with throwing tons of it at murderers, paedophiles, rapists and the other varying types of scum.

c'est la vie. for now.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Well, as and when the revolution happens, I suspect a lot of criminals hope you have extremely deep pockets, because if money was no factor - I still wont be onside with throwing tons of it at murderers, paedophiles, rapists and the other varying types of scum.

c'est la vie. for now.

Farvel

 

[bluebloodinmyveins]

Crime is in no way decreasing. The government has just got better at manipulating the figures.