Tough love. - Page 2

jaysay · 14-06-2010, 09:50

I know this is a bit off thread, but I know what I'd do with that 28 year old scumbag who dragged a 10 year old girl off the streets of Fleetwood and raped her, sod his rights I'd make sure he didn't do it again, he'd have nothing to do it with

garinda · 14-06-2010, 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I know this is a bit off thread, but I know what I'd do with that 28 year old scumbag who dragged a 10 year old girl off the streets of Fleetwood and raped her, sod his rights I'd make sure he didn't do it again, he'd have nothing to do it with

Sadly there are cases in which paedophiles have gone on to abuse, and even rape further victims, after castration.

The only solution, whilst there is even the slightest risk of reoffending, is to be locked up securely, indefinitely, and away from society.

jaysay · 14-06-2010, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Sadly there are cases in which paedophiles have gone on to abuse, and even rape further victims, after castration.

The only solution, whilst there is even the slightest risk of reoffending, is to be locked up securely, indefinitely, and away from society.

Who said anything about castration, I'm thinking about George changing his name to Georgina, surgically

garinda · 14-06-2010, 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Who said anything about castration, I'm thinking about George changing his name to Georgina, surgically

Even sadder is that women have abused children, including legally defined acts of rape.

You don't need a male appendage to inflict terrible injuries.

DaveinGermany · 14-06-2010, 16:29

I've said it before & I don't care what people think, where these people are proved beyond doubt to have committed such offences as these, murder & continual abuse. No chance of rehabilitation, the only really effective answer is a good stout length of rope. The problem would be eradicated, they would never re-offend & the taxpayers money could be saved for something worthwhile & useful.

garinda · 14-06-2010, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

I've said it before & I don't care what people think, where these people are proved beyond doubt to have committed such offences as these, murder & continual abuse, a good stout length of rope would suffice. The problem would be eradicated, they would never re-offend & the taxpayers money could be saved for something worthwhile & useful.

There's only one problem with that, you can't release those who've been wrongly hanged.

INNOCENT - casse of Stefan Kiszcko

Stefan Kiszko was found guilty of a terrible child murder, and was totally innocent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

DaveinGermany · 14-06-2010, 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

There's only one problem with that, you can't release those who've been wrongly hanged.

INNOCENT - casse of Stefan Kiszcko

Stefan Kiszko was found guilty of a terrible child murder, and was totally innocent.

Murder of Lesley Molseed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know & understand this, that is why I quantified my point with :-

where these people are proved beyond doubt

garinda · 14-06-2010, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

I know & understand this, that is why I quantified my point with :-

where these people are proved beyond doubt

He was found guilty by twelve jurors, who arrived at their verdict, advised that they should only find him guilty, if they thought he did it, beyond all reasonable doubt.

cashman · 14-06-2010, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

He was found guilty by twelve jurors, who arrived at their verdict, advised that they should only find him guilty, if they thought he did it, beyond all reasonable doubt.

That was one of quite a few miscarriages of justice, but would say i think reasonable doubt is easier to determine these days, D.N.A. n such advancements, so am all in favour of topping em.

DaveinGermany · 14-06-2010, 17:18

Cashy has pretty much summed up my point. The case of Stefan Kiszcko as you pointed out was flawed, back in 1976 the Police & the Courts didn't have the wealth of Hi-Tec devices & gadgets available that we have today.

when admissible, the evidence gleaned from these methods is more than enough to prove the facts & that was the point I was making.

garinda · 14-06-2010, 23:02

Well, although I detest and abhor evil crimes against children, you have stronger self convictions than myself.

Very often in horrific cases of abuse there is no physical evidence. Just the testament of the victim, if they are old enough to be questioned.

One of the most troubling days of my life was when, as forman of a jury, I had to stand and give a majority verdict, when I was more than sure the woman was innocent, but the rest of my fellow jurors didn't. Mainly based on irrational prejudice against the accused, rather than any actual evidence we'd heard.

I could never convict someone to die, because only being human, mistakes will happe and buried.

garinda · 14-06-2010, 23:06

...and on a parting note, the horrific crimes committed by Hindley and Brady, were carried when there was still a death sentence, and was only abolished four weeks before their eventual arrests.

So how much of a deterrent it would be, on the pathologically evil, is open to question.

jaysay · 15-06-2010, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

That was one of quite a few miscarriages of justice, but would say i think reasonable doubt is easier to determine these days, D.N.A. n such advancements, so am all in favour of topping em.

I quite often watch a program on satellite called Cold Case where cases that are shelved are reopened and convictions are gained through up-to-date DNA technology, DNA doesn't lie so now there are far fewer cases of wrongful convictions

cashman · 15-06-2010, 09:44

i can quite understand a reluctance fer capital punishment, given the old days,was against meself, was miscarriges of justice, experts giving tainted evidence- re- the ira bombers on the mainland etc, but these days wi D.N.A. plus those who hold there hand up to horrendous crimes, can see no good reason, why it is not n option fer the judge.

garinda · 15-06-2010, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I quite often watch a program on satellite called Cold Case where cases that are shelved are reopened and convictions are gained through up-to-date DNA technology, DNA doesn't lie so now there are far fewer cases of wrongful convictions

There have been lots of convictions were the only evidence has been testament, including rape, and child abuse cases.

Some of those cases have been brought about because of Repressed Memory Syndrome, in which people didn't remember being abused until in therapy. Some of these convictions have since proved to be false.

However disgusting I find these crimes, I couldn't find someone guilty if they were to be executed.

As satisfying as it might be, and if it was children related to me I'd feel I wanted to hurt the evil gets myself, it would only be an act of revenge.

These crimes also occured when we had the death penalty, as seen by the Moors Murderers, but it didn't act as a deterrent.

The only answer is to lock them away forever, if there's the slightest chance they might harm anyone else.

There have been cases of teachers being accused and found guilty of abusing children, which were later found to be false.

Not much comfort to their families if when later proved innocent, if they're dead and buried.

Just my opinion, and it won't be swayed on this matter.