Triple child killer to be released

[Rlyeh]

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

I don’t disagree, if a crime warrants a life sentence, it should damned well mean life.

But, that is not the reality.  The reality is that prisons have to operate a revolving door, with someone overseeing the leaving of prisoners.

If we don’t have that then the amount of prisons would rise exponentially as would the cost to the tax payer.

If this were a perfect world, there’d be no need for prisons.

Only because you bleeding hearts want to grant them freedoms.

[Grey Area]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Only because you bleeding hearts want to grant them freedoms.

Spoken like someone who has just entirely missed the point.

[Rlyeh]

22 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Spoken like someone who has just entirely missed the point.

Ironic you speak of reality when the point seems to be you can't tell reality from your idealism. 

You live in imaginary land where everyone is equal.  Reality doesn't give a flying **** for your freedoms, they're worthless without recognition yet you'd sacrifice everyone to pursue them and give them to those who'd rather strangle you with them..

Edited December 7, 2018 by Rlyeh

[Grey Area]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Ironic you speak of reality when the point seems to be you can't tell reality from your idealism. 

You live in imaginary land where everyone is equal.  Reality doesn't give a flying **** for your freedoms, they're worthless without recognition yet you'd sacrifice everyone to pursue them and give them to those who'd rather strangle you with them..

What the hell are you going on about?  I think you have totally and utterly misread or circumvented my focus.

You are going on about reality, with your point about a totally fictional universe in which the innocent be held accountable for crimes they don’t commit.  I get the sentiment, but in the real world it wouldn’t work.

Im not sure why you seem to be so hostile toward my comments, I have simply pointed out that without parole boards, which there wouldn’t be if they are held accountable, who would do that job?  Prisons would be full to the brim and plentiful and people would live there for life at the tax payers expense.  That is the reality.

If you disagree with that assessment then by all means articulate an opposition, simply asserting that I am somehow being idealistic and unrealistic with that viewpoint does nothing to further debate.

As for the sacrificing everyone, exactly who am I sacrificing?  In fact I have made no personal comments about my views on freedoms, I have simply stated the reality that a parole board member, must by law, weigh up restricting liberty with the safety of the public and that’s a hard job, if you think it isn’t then please say why.

I don’t get why you are so angry with my posts, my challenges were reflecting on reality, respectful, and not personal.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Grey Area

[Rlyeh]

39 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

You are going on about reality, with your point about a totally fictional universe in which the innocent be held accountable for crimes they don’t commit.  I get the sentiment, but in the real world it wouldn’t work.

Wrong, my idea is making those who hide behind the law responsible for their stupid decisions.  When idiotic choices put others at risk you don't get that luxury of being innocent.

You want to talk about the real world? Your solution is toothless. You've sacrificed society for the few.

 

39 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Im not sure why you seem to be so hostile toward my comments, I have simply pointed out that without parole boards, which there wouldn’t be if they are held accountable, who would do that job?  Prisons would be full to the brim and plentiful and people would live there for life at the tax payers expense.  That is the reality.

And here we come to the major problem of your reasoning, you want to grant the prison population some imaginary rights while keeping them in prison.  And when they leave prison you expect them to act responsibly.  Quite the delusion.

Idealism has made you powerless to come up with the real solution, you're scared to infringe upon the "rights" of those who are cancer to society.

I disagree, prisons wouldn't be as full as you pretend, you don't put the dead in prison you put them in the ground.

 

39 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

As for the sacrificing everyone, exactly who am I sacrificing?  In fact I have made no personal comments about my views on freedoms, I have simply stated the reality that a parole board member, must by law, weigh up restricting liberty with the safety of the public and that’s a hard job, if you think it isn’t then please say why.

Who are you sacrificing by placing repeat offenders back in society?  The answer is part of the question.

[Dejarma]

9 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Idealism has made you powerless to come up with the real solution, you're scared to infringe upon the "rights" of those who are cancer to society.

yep, totally agree! the person in question should have been executed imho.. there wouldn't be a debate now............

[Rlyeh]

7 hours ago, Dejarma said:

yep, totally agree! the person in question should have been executed imho.. there wouldn't be a debate now.........…

Our self-righteousness has made us blind to what we're dealing with.  We like to pretend we're better than these "barbaric" practices, yet we are dealing with those who aren't. 

[Grey Area]

8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Wrong, my idea is making those who hide behind the law responsible for their stupid decisions.  When idiotic choices put others at risk you don't get that luxury of being innocent.

I know what your point is, it’s a simple, obvious solution that in today’s society would be problematic when you probe beyond the child like simplicity of your solution.

8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

You want to talk about the real world? Your solution is toothless. You've sacrificed society for the few.

See here is the source of my exasperation.  You think I have proposed a solution, all I have done is talked about the current model, I have made no attempt to offer a solution.  So yes I talk about the real world because what I am talking about is what happens right now.

8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

And here we come to the major problem of your reasoning, you want to grant the prison population some imaginary rights while keeping them in prison.  And when they leave prison you expect them to act responsibly.  Quite the delusion.

Again I have simply commented on what already happens in U.K. prisons, I have not made up rights, I have not even spoken about rights.  I haven’t spoken of my expectations on reoffending, no delusions involved, you are making up commentary for me.

 

8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I disagree, prisons wouldn't be as full as you pretend, you don't put the dead in prison you put them in the ground.

The first hint of real debate.  So you think the death rate of inmates would be higher than the current release rate?  Or are you talking about execution?

8 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Who are you sacrificing by placing repeat offenders back in society?  The answer is part of the question.

Yes but I asked the question because you fail to see I am only commenting on the current model, I’m not proposing anything.

[Grey Area]

8 hours ago, Dejarma said:

yep, totally agree! the person in question should have been executed imho.. there wouldn't be a debate now............

I certainly wouldn’t disagree with you there, he should have been hung drawn and quartered.

[Rlyeh]

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

See here is the source of my exasperation.  You think I have proposed a solution, all I have done is talked about the current model, I have made no attempt to offer a solution.  So yes I talk about the real world because what I am talking about is what happens right now.

You haven't proposed a solution, you're defending a broken solution that has it's priorities backwards.

 

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Again I have simply commented on what already happens in U.K. prisons, I have not made up rights, I have not even spoken about rights.  I haven’t spoken of my expectations on reoffending, no delusions involved, you are making up commentary for me.

I never said you literally made up rights, however the solution you are defending is all about the rights of the criminal.

 

3 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

The first hint of real debate.  So you think the death rate of inmates would be higher than the current release rate?  Or are you talking about execution?

Execution, and not the US version.

[Grey Area]

31 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

You haven't proposed a solution, you're defending a broken solution that has it's priorities backwards.

Where have I acted in defence of the current system?

[Grey Area]

32 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

I never said you literally made up rights, however the solution you are defending is all about the rights of the criminal.

Yes it is, but again I made no judgement on the validity of that, simply made a statement about how full and many prisons would be.

 

35 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Execution, and not the US version.

Right, so you propose just killing off all prisoners?

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Grey Area said:

Yes it is, but again I made no judgement on the validity of that, simply made a statement about how full and many prisons would be.

 

Right, so you propose just killing off all prisoners?

No.

What was achieved by keeping Charles Manson in prison?  Were you going to rehabilitate him to be a productive member of society? His parole hearings were a façade.  Is he contributing more or less now that he is dead?  He's certainly not wasting tax dollars.

[Grey Area]

Just now, Rlyeh said:

No.

Then what?

 

2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

What was achieved by keeping Charles Manson in prison?  Were you going to rehabilitate him to be a productive member of society? His parole hearings were a façade.  Is he contributing more or less now that he is dead?  He's certainly not wasting tax dollars.

I don’t disagree with that.  

[hayley0614]

He took 3 young innocent lives how dare they give him his back!!! Nobody that could do that could possibly be capable of living in a community especially after being secluded from it for so long. If that was my family he killed I would hunt him down now 

[Rlyeh]

42 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Then what?

Execute prisoners who will never contribute back to society more than they have damaged it.  They are a waste of space and resources.

[Grey Area]

4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Execute prisoners who will never contribute back to society more than they have damaged it.  They are a waste of space and resources.

Right so originally you were talking about holding parole boards responsible for the actions of released prisoners, now it’s just bringing back capital punishment?

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Right so originally you were talking about holding parole boards responsible for the actions of released prisoners

Yes, that's what I did say or at the least society hunts them down and deliver their own form of "justice".  The parole board may just pull their heads out of their asses when it's their life in jeopardy.

 

2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

now it’s just bringing back capital punishment?

No, capital punishment in the US is a joke that pretends to deliver justice but only succeeds in pussyfooting around.

My concern is keeping society safe and resources. If it's more efficient to execute the prisoner, do it. None of this humane bull**** with last meals and rights.

[Grey Area]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Yes, that's what I did say or at the least society hunts them down and deliver their own form of "justice".  The parole board may just pull their heads out of their asses when it's their life in jeopardy.

So if that is allowed, no one would sit on a parole board, no prisoners would be released, back to my original point, prisons expanding and filling up.  Further to that the people that hunt down and kill parole board members would surely be guilty of murder themselves, unless you propose some sort Purge type scenario.

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

No, capital punishment in the US is a joke that pretends to deliver justice but only succeeds in pussyfooting around.

If the prisoner is killed as a result of state sponsored justice that’s capital punishment, doesn’t matter what process takes place.

 

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

My concern is keeping society safe and resources. If it's more efficient to execute the prisoner, do it. None of this humane bull**** with last meals and rights.

What safeties are compromised in a society that is given free reign to deliver absolute justice?  How many rifts would appear in communities.  Would the families of slain criminals sit back and allow their relations to be killed?  What about the potential for abuse in such a system?  Frame someone you want to kill, then legally kill them when they are sentenced to death by public.  Not to mention miscarriages if justice.

Anarchy would rule as the state sits back and lets society do as it pleases in the name of justice.

I’m not for one moment suggesting the current system is perfect, but it is the way it is for a reason, and there’s a reason we have a trained professional Justice system.

[Stiff]

[Rlyeh]

8 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

So if that is allowed, no one would sit on a parole board, no prisoners would be released, back to my original point, prisons expanding and filling up.

Or you get an overhaul of the parole board where they virtually have the offenders on a collar and leash.

I have no sympathy if no prisoner gets released.

 

8 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Further to that the people that hunt down and kill parole board members would surely be guilty of murder themselves, unless you propose some sort Purge type scenario.

Sure they'd be guilty but good luck progressing further if society refuses to cooperate though.

This has happened before where those in legal positions have either committed crimes themselves or been bribed to cover them up. Society takes the law into their own hands, and when the justice system decides to step down from their ivory tower and society more or less tells them to f- off.  What are they going to do, arrest everyone?  They've turned the people into their enemy.

 

8 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

If the prisoner is killed as a result of state sponsored justice that’s capital punishment, doesn’t matter what process takes place.

Punishment is about correcting behavior, it's hard to call capital punishment, punishment.

 

8 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

What safeties are compromised in a society that is given free reign to deliver absolute justice?  How many rifts would appear in communities.  Would the families of slain criminals sit back and allow their relations to be killed?  What about the potential for abuse in such a system?  Frame someone you want to kill, then legally kill them when they are sentenced to death by public.  Not to mention miscarriages if justice.

It's removing the unwanted.  But if you're concerned about the offenders families, let the rest of society decide what happens to them, if they are deemed a threat they can follow the way of their departed family member.  The lives of the many will always outweigh the lives of the few, this is more or less universal to survival.

Of course it can be abused just as everything else can.

[Grey Area]

45 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Or you get an overhaul of the parole board where they virtually have the offenders on a collar and leash.

Sounds suspiciously like being in prison.

47 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Sure they'd be guilty but good luck progressing further if society refuses to cooperate though.

This has happened before where those in legal positions have either committed crimes themselves or been bribed to cover them up. Society takes the law into their own hands, and when the justice system decides to step down from their ivory tower and society more or less tells them to f- off.  What are they going to do, arrest everyone?  They've turned the people into their enemy.

The state would be legally obliged to prosecute, the only role society would play would be on the jury, and sure they might refuse to cooperate, but those that did would be replaced, and it would be at the risk of criminalising themselves.

53 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

It's removing the unwanted.  But if you're concerned about the offenders families, let the rest of society decide what happens to them, if they are deemed a threat they can follow the way of their departed family member.  The lives of the many will always outweigh the lives of the few, this is more or less universal to survival.

Sorry, did you just say that, not only can the public kill the offenders, but also the families of offenders if they believe they may be a threat?

What would be the threshold, how would Johnny Public make the judgement that a family member might be a problem?

I mean, this system you have constructed is spiralling into a free for all, killing innocent people for their unwitting familial attachments to an offender.  You would create an endless cycle of revenge killings, all perfectly legal.

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

Sounds suspiciously like being in prison.

No way!

 

Quote

The state would be legally obliged to prosecute, the only role society would play would be on the jury, and sure they might refuse to cooperate, but those that did would be replaced, and it would be at the risk of criminalising themselves.

How would that realistically work out?  I need to know how in your ideal world you'd criminalise a population of people who are targeting law officials in retaliation.

Depending how much of society is involved, push too hard and you'll get something like the IRA or a civil war.

 

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

Sorry, did you just say that, not only can the public kill the offenders, but also the families of offenders if they believe they may be a threat?

What would be the threshold, how would Johnny Public make the judgement that a family member might be a problem?

I mean, this system you have constructed is spiralling into a free for all, killing innocent people for their unwitting familial attachments to an offender.  You would create an endless cycle of revenge killings, all perfectly legal.

Public safety is in jeopardy should the offenders family decide to retaliate, just as it was when the offender was committing crimes.  I gather you don't believe society should decide what's best for it, the job being delegated to those who cover their own assess.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Rlyeh

[Grey Area]

19 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No way!

So what would be the point of a parole system if the end result was that ex-cons were essentially still imprisoned?

22 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

How would that realistically work out?  I need to know how in your ideal world you'd criminalise a population of people who are targeting law officials in retaliation.

I’m simply responding to the expanding anarchy of your judicial overhauls, based on inflicting your regime into today’s society.

In my ideal world I share a small island with a few beautiful women, where I am catered for by a team of non sentient, highly efficient robot assistants.

In the real world the police are duty bound to investigate crimes and the CPS to prosecute without prejudice.

But hey, you are the one making things up here, so I guess you could change the above statement to fit.

32 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Depending how much of society is involved, push too hard and you'll get something like the IRA or a civil war.

Well the IRA is political, this would be mass rioting I guess at first potentially leading to civil unrest and civil war, but I would hazard a guess there wouldn’t be a huge appetite within society to overthrow a government to introduce some sort of public lynching system.

 

37 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Public safety is in jeopardy should the offenders family decide to retaliate, just as it was when the offender was committing crimes.

Yes, but where does that end, six degrees of separation?  Maybe your room mates cousin commits a crime and the family of the victim then decide you are a threat.  Guilty by association.

41 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

I gather you don't believe society should decide what's best for it, the job being delegated to those who cover their own assess.

It does through the democratic process.

[Amanda Evans]

We do not have the death penalty in the UK, and for that I am glad.

 But there are some crimes so heinous that the perpetrators should never see the light of day.

This is one of them. I hope this is overturned