On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.

Why do they deserve that? Its not carved in stone, it was simply a decision
a bunch of do gooders took upon themselves to make. People convicted of
heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

the law. For example, this is why Ian Huntley is in jail and will
remain there forever, rather than being given a Kensington mansion at
the taxpayers' expense and his own playgroup.

If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

B2003

"Nicola Redwood" wrote in message
...

I both have got and would get involved - it is indeed disappointing when
people choose to look away, and somewhat galling when you dive in yet no
assistance from those around you is forthcoming - that said I've also seen
(and been on the edge of) situations where bystanders have got involved,
where it was made clear to the ne'er do weller(s) that bad things would
happen upon them unless they desisted and made themselves scarce.

I was assaulted (not badly thankfully) outside Maze Hill station just over
a year ago by 2 teenage girls and am very grateful to the people who
intervened to help, especially the woman who got on the train with me and
encouraged me to report the incident to BTP. Upon watching the CCTV, they
agreed that it was a nasty incident - sadly no result!

I have also intervened in the past, although would be reluctant probably
these days with the threat of being stabbed more in the mind

I am glad you were assisted on this occasion but whilst it is easy to
condemn those who apparently sit idly by, it is a problem for the average
citizen whose life is not filled with hate and violence, as it appears a
small minority's is. When you see violence suddenly burst out in front of
you, unless you are trained by the Army or in martial arts, you (i.e. me)
will probably be struck dumb and immobile because the situation is so alien
and unnatural. Years of watching actors thump each other on TV is no
training for reacting EFFECTIVELY in such a situation.

I hope, in such a case, I would know immediately who was right/wrong and
that I could physically assist, but I am not sure that would be the case.
Working out afterwards what I should have done is, of course, much easier.

MaxB

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:49:23 -0000
"MaxB" wrote:
small minority's is. When you see violence suddenly burst out in front of
you, unless you are trained by the Army or in martial arts, you (i.e. me)
will probably be struck dumb and immobile because the situation is so alien
and unnatural. Years of watching actors thump each other on TV is no
training for reacting EFFECTIVELY in such a situation.

If its a whole gang then theres not much anyone can do short of calling
the police. If you try anything you'll probably end up in hospital yourself.
But if its just one guy having a go at someone then if it looks like he's
unarmed then it shouldn't be too hard getting him in a neck lock if he's
distracted. And once in said lock its quite easy to control him. Avoid a fist
fight, even the worst fighter can get in a lucky punch and cost you a few
teeth.

B2003

On Feb 24, 8:59*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)

john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.

Why do they deserve that? Its not carved in stone, it was simply a decision
a bunch of do gooders took upon themselves to make. People convicted of
heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

I assume you mean the second line on acceptable punishments, in which
case let's agree to differ. I hope you agree with the first line (fair
trial and due process), though, which is the main point.

the law. For example, this is why Ian Huntley is in jail and will
remain there forever, rather than being given a Kensington mansion at
the taxpayers' expense and his own playgroup.

If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

Again, we differ on that, but let's be clear: he'll never see the
outside world again, and he'll never go anywhere in his life without
the fear that someone will throw acid in his face or gouge his eyes
out.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:07:06 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
Why do they deserve that? Its not carved in stone, it was simply a decisi=
on
a bunch of do gooders took upon themselves to make. People convicted of
heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

I assume you mean the second line on acceptable punishments, in which
case let's agree to differ. I hope you agree with the first line (fair
trial and due process), though, which is the main point.

Absolutely.

But once proven guilty, and not just on a balance of probabilities and
circumstantial but proven with solid evidence then I tend to vear towards the
style of punishment used in the USA.

If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

Again, we differ on that, but let's be clear: he'll never see the
outside world again, and he'll never go anywhere in his life without
the fear that someone will throw acid in his face or gouge his eyes
out.

Thats a fair point and I believe its already happened to him. But IMO he
doesn't deserve any sort of life. Still, swings and roundabouts, the death
penalty has only been gone 50 years out of the tens of thousands that humans
first walked on this island, I'm sure it'll be back again one day.

B2003

On 23 Feb, 10:24, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:02:49 -0800 (PST)

Paul wrote:
If they are caught and brought before the courts, I would like to see
them punished by being banned from ever travelling on a bus again.

A couple of years in prison first I would hope. Won't happen of course.

Presumably these days that would be against their "human rights". *But

No doubt. Though hopefully as the baby boomer generation of idiots currently
sitting at the top of the legal profession slowly retire and die off one can
only hope sanity will return.

in order to have human rights, you need to behave like a human being,
which doesn't apply in this case.

Sadly neither did anyone else in the bus while they just sat there and
did nothing.

B2003


You say that people sat there and did nothing but sometimes in that
situation it takes a few seconds for onlookers to realise what is
going on, there is a danger of somebody wading in and it turning out
to be just a bit of harmless fun.

Hopefully with the CCTV and possible witness accounts those
responsible will be bought to justice.

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:00AM +0000, d wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.
Why do they deserve that?

Because until they've had that we don't actually know that they are
scumbags. Until YOU'VE had that when accused of a crime we don't know
that YOU'RE not a scumbag.

People convicted of heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

But to be convicted with any degree of certainty that the conviction is
valid requires due process, absence of torture, and a fair trial. I
hope you remember that if you're unfortunate enough to be accused of a
crime. To be accused, charged and tried is bad enough, but to be
accused, tortured, and just locked up for ever would be infinitely
worse.

the law. For example, this is why Ian Huntley is in jail and will
remain there forever, rather than being given a Kensington mansion at
the taxpayers' expense and his own playgroup.
If there was proper justice he'd be dead already.

The law recognises that even the fairest of trials and duest or
processes can sometimes produce the wrong result. Several convictions
every year are overturned after the victim has spent years in prison.
If we were still the sort of barbarians who thought the state should
murder people, then those victims would be *dead* instead of being
released and helped to put their lives back together.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files.
I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have
a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby.
-- Fritz Anderson

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:26:10 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:00AM +0000, d wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.
Why do they deserve that?

Because until they've had that we don't actually know that they are
scumbags. Until YOU'VE had that when accused of a crime we don't know
that YOU'RE not a scumbag.

People convicted of heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

But to be convicted with any degree of certainty that the conviction is
valid requires due process, absence of torture, and a fair trial. I

I'm talking about unpleasentaries AFTER they're convicted , not before.

The law recognises that even the fairest of trials and duest or
processes can sometimes produce the wrong result. Several convictions
every year are overturned after the victim has spent years in prison.

Usually because the original conviction was on a balance of probabilities,
not on hard evidence.

If we were still the sort of barbarians who thought the state should
murder people, then those victims would be *dead* instead of being
released and helped to put their lives back together.

The state still does "murder" (a very emotive word , used in its wrong
context as usual) people - its called war. I see no moral difference
between a soldier executing someone or a hangman.

And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

B2003

On 25 Feb, 14:24, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:26:10 +0000





David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:59:00AM +0000, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:01:14 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
things they nonetheless deserve, such as a fair trial, due process,
and the absence of torture and deliberately degrading treatment.
Why do they deserve that?

Because until they've had that we don't actually know that they are
scumbags. *Until YOU'VE had that when accused of a crime we don't know
that YOU'RE not a scumbag.

People convicted of heinous crimes should suffer, badly.

But to be convicted with any degree of certainty that the conviction is
valid requires due process, absence of torture, and a fair trial. *I

I'm talking about unpleasentaries AFTER they're convicted , not before.

The law recognises that even the fairest of trials and duest or
processes can sometimes produce the wrong result. *Several convictions
every year are overturned after the victim has spent years in prison.

Usually because the original conviction was on a balance of probabilities,
not on hard evidence.

If we were still the sort of barbarians who thought the state should
murder people, then those victims would be *dead* instead of being
released and helped to put their lives back together.

The state still does "murder" (a very emotive word , used in its wrong
context as usual) people - its called war. I see no moral difference
between a soldier executing someone or a hangman.

And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

B2003- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Well seeing as you have bought Huntley into this debate could I just
point out that even his own mother said he deserves the death penalty
for what he has done.

Huntley apparently wanted to commit suicide anyway................just
let him get on with, that is the one 'human right' I wouldn't want to
deny him!

On Feb 25, 3:43 pm, George wrote:

On 25 Feb, 14:24, wrote:
[snip]
And state execution being barbaric is merely your opinion, not a fact.
If you would not wish someone like Huntley to be executed simply for
moral
reasons then your mind is almost as warped and debased as his is.

IMO of course.

The last sentence of that last para being a rather pathetic way of trying to
advance an argument.


Well seeing as you have bought Huntley into this debate could I just
point out that even his own mother said he deserves the death penalty
for what he has done.

Huntley apparently wanted to commit suicide anyway................just
let him get on with, that is the one 'human right' I wouldn't want to
deny him!

I'm of the 'make them live and suffer' school of thought - my take is that
death (whether execution or suicide) is just the easy way out, and the
torment of being made to live with it is real punishment.

Not quite sure how this thread has turned to discussion of capital
punishment though.