Interesting one here. A white man is beaten to eath by 3 (Muslim) Asian men. As they walk away one of them is overheard to say "we killed the white man". They then go on to a curry house where they attack both Black and Asian men. The judge in court finds them guilty and they get sentences NLT 15 years a piece. If they had been charged under the new Racism laws, they would have been given sentences NLT 30 years. The judges reasoning is that they attacked other cultures and not just a white man. On the radio is a Muslim woman and a white man arguing about this case, one says it was wrong and they should have been done under the Racism laws, the other says no, because of the attacks on the other men. It isin't mentioned whether the other Asians are Hindu or Sikh, as this would make it a (potentially) Racist attack. However what makes it interesting is the person supporting the lesser sentence is the white man, the Muslim woman is appauled that these men were not tried under the new Racism laws. It seems to me to bode well for our multi cultural society that we are seeing the support of a Muslim woman against, what is simply, her own culture and yet a white, male, liberal, do-gooding apologist is not prepared to stand up and say "well actually yes, this was racist and these people should be sentenced accordingly". We see far to many cases wher some poor Black or Asian guy gets killed and it becomes a "racist" attack, even though the thugs that did it would probably do the smae to a white guy who didn't agree with their way of thinking. Without turning this into a BNP recruiting stand, any (sensible) comments out there?
-
Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Man murdered by 3 Asians
- Thread starter Stax
- Start date
T
Twonston Pickle
Guest
Stax,
Yet again, it has been highlighted that the liberal do-gooders have different standards and try to avoid being accused of being racist at all costs. I agree with the lady's point that racism is racism, no matter what colour or religion someone is. If the accused were heard to say
Racism issue aside, the penalty for murder should be terminally severe regardless of the motive for the attack (note that I said murder not manslaughter or crimes of passion etc). We are now just too soft due to do-gooding morons who have never been the victims of crime. There are 4 rationale behind any punishment awarded:
a. Retribution. This enables the court to reflect public disapproval of the crime.
b. Deterrence. The offender and other personnel should be deterred from committing a similar offence.
c. Prevention. Its aim is generally to protect society from the habitual offender. It should be borne in mind that exemplary punishments may be required for repeat offenders for whom deterrence or rehabilitation has not worked.
d. Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation prepares the individual to live within the norms of society.
I would suggest that capital punishment, in whatever form (hanging, lethal injection etc) would meet the requirements of the first 3, bearing in mind that the punishment does not have to meet all the criteria. Besides, the act of retribution allows us (the public) to take "revenge" on behalf of the victim.
A few severe sentences might lower the crime rate, or is that too popular with the Nu Liabour government?
(Apologies to the RAF Sentencing Guide for a bit of plagarism.)
Yet again, it has been highlighted that the liberal do-gooders have different standards and try to avoid being accused of being racist at all costs. I agree with the lady's point that racism is racism, no matter what colour or religion someone is. If the accused were heard to say
then that is a racist attack, just like the poor lad killed with an axe.
Racism issue aside, the penalty for murder should be terminally severe regardless of the motive for the attack (note that I said murder not manslaughter or crimes of passion etc). We are now just too soft due to do-gooding morons who have never been the victims of crime. There are 4 rationale behind any punishment awarded:
a. Retribution. This enables the court to reflect public disapproval of the crime.
b. Deterrence. The offender and other personnel should be deterred from committing a similar offence.
c. Prevention. Its aim is generally to protect society from the habitual offender. It should be borne in mind that exemplary punishments may be required for repeat offenders for whom deterrence or rehabilitation has not worked.
d. Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation prepares the individual to live within the norms of society.
I would suggest that capital punishment, in whatever form (hanging, lethal injection etc) would meet the requirements of the first 3, bearing in mind that the punishment does not have to meet all the criteria. Besides, the act of retribution allows us (the public) to take "revenge" on behalf of the victim.
A few severe sentences might lower the crime rate, or is that too popular with the Nu Liabour government?
(Apologies to the RAF Sentencing Guide for a bit of plagarism.)
Surely the legal system is there to give us justice not revenge. Capital is revenge pure and simple and should never ever be brought back under any circumstance. As for corporal punishment, bring it back at once. A few public floggings in place of ASBO's will soon have the little darlings behaving themselves.
- 3,475
- 15
- 38
Prevention
Prevention
Capital punishment is not purely vengeful, but preventative. What gives Johnny Murderer the right to divert resources away from constructive projects that will help society just to prevent him doing it again. In these days of best value for money surely a rope is cheaper than a multi million pound prison just to keep him in because obviously it'll be his right to have Sky TV etc...
Prevention
Capital punishment is not purely vengeful, but preventative. What gives Johnny Murderer the right to divert resources away from constructive projects that will help society just to prevent him doing it again. In these days of best value for money surely a rope is cheaper than a multi million pound prison just to keep him in because obviously it'll be his right to have Sky TV etc...
B
Bluntend
Guest
If you cut of a man's hands, heel never be able to steal again. Cut off his head and he'll never be able to even think about stealing again...
T
Twonston Pickle
Guest
That might be going a bit far, Bluntend, just for theft but the point is well made.
Plumber, I know you might not agree with capital punishment but re-read my post and you might consider revenge to be part of the justice system rather than seperate. You must agree that banging someone up for theft/arson etc is also a form of revenge?
rest have risen above me has a good point that in this cost-effective, efficiency driven UK, surely capital punishment is an efficient use of taxpayers money?
Plumber, I know you might not agree with capital punishment but re-read my post and you might consider revenge to be part of the justice system rather than seperate. You must agree that banging someone up for theft/arson etc is also a form of revenge?
rest have risen above me has a good point that in this cost-effective, efficiency driven UK, surely capital punishment is an efficient use of taxpayers money?
A
A CLING NERD SHRON
Guest
This wasn't a racist murder it was an equal opportunities murder.
No capital punishment is just revenge and nothing else.
It doesn't act as a deterrent or as a preventative measure, or did we not have murders before we stopped legally murdering people through the justice system?
Then, how do you Rehabilitate someone who's dead?
How do miscarriages of justice get corrected? A posthumous pardon to dead person is about as much use as t1ts on a fish to them or their family. Or can you guarantee the wrong person will never be blamed for the crime.
Altough like everyone else there are certain people I would be more than happy to have killed and be happy to do it myself i.e. Ian Huntley (skinning, rolling around in salt and then hanging, would be to good for him), the thought that an innocent man may go to his death due to a mistake leads me to the conclusion that its worth the money we spend detainning all these people to prevent such a travesty ever happening, whatever the cost.
That and history proves, the death penalty does not work in preventing crime, and only serves as one of the rationales of the justice system, and that would be revenge.
It doesn't act as a deterrent or as a preventative measure, or did we not have murders before we stopped legally murdering people through the justice system?
Then, how do you Rehabilitate someone who's dead?
How do miscarriages of justice get corrected? A posthumous pardon to dead person is about as much use as t1ts on a fish to them or their family. Or can you guarantee the wrong person will never be blamed for the crime.
Altough like everyone else there are certain people I would be more than happy to have killed and be happy to do it myself i.e. Ian Huntley (skinning, rolling around in salt and then hanging, would be to good for him), the thought that an innocent man may go to his death due to a mistake leads me to the conclusion that its worth the money we spend detainning all these people to prevent such a travesty ever happening, whatever the cost.
That and history proves, the death penalty does not work in preventing crime, and only serves as one of the rationales of the justice system, and that would be revenge.
- 3,475
- 15
- 38
Guaranteed Rehabilitation?
Guaranteed Rehabilitation?
If its guaranteed justice (no mistakes in convictions) you want can I have guaranteed rehabilitation? Since the abolition of the death penalty there have been over 70 murders that have been committed by ex lifers.( Home office figures apparently http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/thought2.html) Surely these people had rights, the posthumous "Sorry we didn't get the rehabilitation right this time" is about as much use as T1ts on a fish to them and their families.
Guaranteed Rehabilitation?
If its guaranteed justice (no mistakes in convictions) you want can I have guaranteed rehabilitation? Since the abolition of the death penalty there have been over 70 murders that have been committed by ex lifers.( Home office figures apparently http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/thought2.html) Surely these people had rights, the posthumous "Sorry we didn't get the rehabilitation right this time" is about as much use as T1ts on a fish to them and their families.
A
A CLING NERD SHRON
Guest
Surely in this day age of DNA you can probably guarantee that you will have the right person for a murder. Murders many years old are now being solved by the use of advanced DNA techniques.
Why should we waste many hundreds of thousands of pounds pandering to a Murderer, supplying them with all the mod cons (excuse the pun) to make their miserable lives comfortable. A life for a life. After all if a dog bit your child it would be put down. So whats the difference?
Why should we waste many hundreds of thousands of pounds pandering to a Murderer, supplying them with all the mod cons (excuse the pun) to make their miserable lives comfortable. A life for a life. After all if a dog bit your child it would be put down. So whats the difference?
T
Twonston Pickle
Guest
Plumber,
I think you'll find that the justice system describes the Death Penalty as retribution and not revenge, i.e. it reflects the public outrage and disgust at the crime (think Ian Huntley). I was not entirely convinced of the need for the death penalty some years ago but with the increase in serious crime since the death penalty was abolished and the clear lack of deterrent today then I think we may actually have an opportunity to restore law and order.
I think you'll find that the justice system describes the Death Penalty as retribution and not revenge, i.e. it reflects the public outrage and disgust at the crime (think Ian Huntley). I was not entirely convinced of the need for the death penalty some years ago but with the increase in serious crime since the death penalty was abolished and the clear lack of deterrent today then I think we may actually have an opportunity to restore law and order.
O
oldhamboy1967
Guest
Capital Punishment
Capital Punishment
If you look at several high profile cases in the US where the defendant was acquitted, were they actually proven innocent or was it more a case that they had a good set of lawyers who created sufficient reasonable doubt? You have a higher chance of ending up on Death Row if you're poor, not because people in that position commit murder but because they don't get good legal representation.
It's understandable that we look at restoring Capital Punishment when heinous crimes are committed, but with the standard of criminal prosecutions in the country at the moment I have no faith that the right person is going to be on the gallows.
If we look at the detrrence value, you only have to look at the case of the Australian who was convicted of drug smuggling and is due to meet the hangman this week. It must be common knowledge that Singapore hangs drug smugglers yet he still did it.
And as for the case that started this thread, the judge did say that in order to increase the sentence that a racist element to the murder had to be proven. In his opinion it wasn't, I don't think anyone would disagree that the crime was horrific but surely it was better that the judge made his decision based on the facts presented in the case rather than leave his judgement vulnerable to appeal.
Capital Punishment
If you look at several high profile cases in the US where the defendant was acquitted, were they actually proven innocent or was it more a case that they had a good set of lawyers who created sufficient reasonable doubt? You have a higher chance of ending up on Death Row if you're poor, not because people in that position commit murder but because they don't get good legal representation.
It's understandable that we look at restoring Capital Punishment when heinous crimes are committed, but with the standard of criminal prosecutions in the country at the moment I have no faith that the right person is going to be on the gallows.
If we look at the detrrence value, you only have to look at the case of the Australian who was convicted of drug smuggling and is due to meet the hangman this week. It must be common knowledge that Singapore hangs drug smugglers yet he still did it.
And as for the case that started this thread, the judge did say that in order to increase the sentence that a racist element to the murder had to be proven. In his opinion it wasn't, I don't think anyone would disagree that the crime was horrific but surely it was better that the judge made his decision based on the facts presented in the case rather than leave his judgement vulnerable to appeal.
A
A CLING NERD SHRON
Guest
so if we said "we killed the Black man" that wouldn't be racist then?
T
Twonston Pickle
Guest
One thing that has always puzzled me is that when a rational debate on the death penalty arises, the usual cries of "but hanging is barbaric" are usually heard. This is not aimed at anyone here, by the way, but I just wish that this could be debated properly and without the sensationalism prevalent in the media.
When I talk about the death penalty, I also would like to see the method of execution to be painless and professionally administered. Hanging was never an exact science and invovled a lot of expertise to get things right. My preferred method of execution would be by lethal injection; the convicted individual is first put to sleep and then their heart is stopped by means of a second injection (as used in other countires already). This avoids the "barbaric" calls and limits the punishment to retribution and not revenge (I consider cutting a mudering perverts balls off to be a form of revenge but lethal injection would be retribution, for example).
Question is, who agrees or disagrees with the death penalty and, if it was in use, their preferred method of execution?
When I talk about the death penalty, I also would like to see the method of execution to be painless and professionally administered. Hanging was never an exact science and invovled a lot of expertise to get things right. My preferred method of execution would be by lethal injection; the convicted individual is first put to sleep and then their heart is stopped by means of a second injection (as used in other countires already). This avoids the "barbaric" calls and limits the punishment to retribution and not revenge (I consider cutting a mudering perverts balls off to be a form of revenge but lethal injection would be retribution, for example).
Question is, who agrees or disagrees with the death penalty and, if it was in use, their preferred method of execution?
Twonston Pickle said:
What increase in serious crime since the abolition of the death penalty? You'll find it hard to prove any serious increase, unless you use papers like the Mail, Express and Sun. I think you'll find it has been steady, neither up nor down. Where there has been an increase is low level nuisance crimes.
Now I'm all for bringing back flogging and public humiliation (can't think of a better detterent) and when a judge says life when sentencing that is what it should be.
Now as for the 70 people who were murdered by ex lifers after the abolition (I have every sympathy for their families, as much use that is to them), How many of these crimes were committed by people with severe mental illnesses and should never have been released onto the public by a responsible government/justice system.
I may not agree with the re-introduction of the death penalty most of the time, however I admit there are times when I find it hard to justify this position and could be swayed the other way in certain cases. Which I suppose is why I never make a good judge.
As an aside what do the judiciary have to say on the subject, they are the subject matter experts.