dosxuk Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Nietzsche had the perfect phrase for the likes of halibut: "the vulgar ambition of generous feeling". What the whole liberal intelligentsia are doing is saying "look at me! Look how generous spirited I am! I even understand and thus forgive brady,a child torturer". Either some posts have been deleted or you're reading a different thread to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 The more I read about brady, the more I'm convinced liberalism is a fetish - a condition whereby people admire, certain killers, religious extremists and others of their choosing. brady and Hindleyl should have been executed Those two were sadistic evil people.And the nonsense that people like halbut spout it is just some weird kind of fetish .. didn't Saville use to visit Hindley in jail? JC, (1)I'm not sure about Sav-Vile visiting Brady, but Lord Longford was certainly notorious for having (misguidedly) befriended Hindley. I think he was someone who genuinely wanted to see her redemption, and as such was suckered in, "good-style", by (what I believe were) her lies of penitence and having turned to religion. (2) I do not believe that Halibut has any kind of fetish towards the evil Brady. I think you are doing him a disservice in saying so. From what I know of Halibut, he, like me, sees that (i) The use of the death penalty is not a deterrent, (After all, if it were a deterrent, why did it not stop Hindley and Brady's evil acts? It was on the statute books at the time of them committing the murders they carried out) and (ii) using the DP simply lowers us to the level of the murderers whom we are executing. ---------- Post added 26-06-2013 at 17:02 ---------- I would also say that whilst Brady doesn't have the life of Riley, in Ashworth, I would say that I agree his standard is rather better than his crimes warrant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Cost shouldn't be the primary consideration when deciding on a just and fitting punishment. If it was then we would scrap gaols to just have physical punishments and fines. What is the punishment for chewing gum? Or swearing in public? There's a few other advantages the Singaporean authorities have, like a very strict ID system, so they know who everyone in the country is. Or like it being tiny, so there's very few places people can go and hide, plus it's difficult to be alone and unseen when committing a crime. I agree, when I've been there I've always felt safe, but I've also never felt alone there. most prisons should be closed down make people work off their crimes ,pay back their victims for life if need be. about 60% of inmates are mugs like you or me first or second time offenders 20 or 30% professional crims...whats left the hard core nutters should be put down or locked up for the rest of their life. While the importation of gum has been banned for many years, it can now be bought with a pharmaceutical script, hefty penalties for everything from urinating in lifts to not flushing a public toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 what about some evidence to prove my claims are wrong. That's not how it works as you well know. They are wrong unless you offer credible evidence to support them. Nietzsche had the perfect phrase for the likes of halibut: "the vulgar ambition of generous feeling". What the whole liberal intelligentsia are doing is saying "look at me! Look how generous spirited I am! I even understand and thus forgive brady,a child torturer". most normal people understand, that evil exists and cannot be allowed to go unpunished in a civilised society. It's really poor form to be claiming a viewpoint for me that I don't hold. Nowhere have I said anything about understanding or forgiving Brady - and you make yourself look rather foolish by suggesting otherwise. Point to the evidence, or apologise - either is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Surely that depends on whether you believe an immediate termination of a life is a harder punishment than being forced to live without freedom to do as you wish until the day you die of natural causes, even to the point of being prevented from ending your own life. Many other people are denied that freedom due to committing the 'crime' of becoming terminally ill and suchlike. They'll be pleased to hear that they are classed in the same bracket as sadistic serial killers - NOT! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_die ---------- Post added 26-06-2013 at 17:41 ---------- That's not how it works as you well know. They are wrong unless you offer credible evidence to support them. (My bold.) Not entirely correct. Although the burden of proof lies with one making a positive claim, lack of supporting evidence can only render the claim unsupported, and not necessarily wrong. Stating that the claim is wrong is a positive claim and confers the burden of proof on to you to support that claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londomollari Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 We have a public sector that costs £32,000 per household, there’s a shortfall in government expenditure of £10,000 per household, the government is cutting just about everything to lower the deficit, there are people living on next to nothing, people struggling to get NHS treatment, people losing their jobs up and down the country, there are starving people around the globe, but we still have millions of pounds available to force one murderer to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 We have a public sector that costs £32,000 per household, there’s a shortfall in government expenditure of £10,000 per household, the government is cutting just about everything to lower the deficit, there are people living on next to nothing, people struggling to get NHS treatment, people losing their jobs up and down the country, there are starving people around the globe, but we still have millions of pounds available to force one murderer to live. I'm actually far more concerned about the billions that are being spent on armaments and continuing an unjust war in the Middle East... There are billions starving to death in the third world, and first-world governments have more than enough to feed clothe, and shelter them, but would rather wage a war. They live a subsistence life. The billions who are starving to death aren't some waste-of-space, attention-whore psychopath, who thinks that restricting himself to a diet of toast and cup a soup, and giving a passing nod to a nasogastric tube is a hunger strike. These people are facing the stark reality of "there is no food, or water. " they don't deliberately pretend to starve themselves to seek attention. My peronal opinion is that THEY should get the help (food, water, medical help, Shelter.) that they need, rather than the west wasting money on an attention-whore or on a war. ---------- Post added 26-06-2013 at 18:39 ---------- just my two penn'orth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 ..... maybe you could enlighten me about an institution that panders to the sadistic nature of a perverted killer, who would rather spend the rest of his life laughing with contempt at various professionals over the years....... You really have missed the point. The current publicity is about Brady asking to be allowed to die and Ashworth refusing to allow him to die. about 60% of inmates are mugs like you or me Speak for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 ... Part of me does think that it is a pity that they didn't swing for what they did, and that part of me thinks "Well they committed their crimes at a time when the DP was in place, so surely they should have gone to the Gallows, ..." But at the time the Death Penalty was in force, they were still innocent. 'Innocent until proven guilty'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 26, 2013 Author Share Posted June 26, 2013 But at the time the Death Penalty was in force, they were still innocent. 'Innocent until proven guilty'. They were guilty as hell at the time the death penalty was in force. Legally they were not yet found guilty but they were actually guilty as they committed the offences. A major principle of law is that you can't convict people of offences which were not an offence at the time, even if they have been subsequently made crimes. It would seem just that punishments were also accorded the same status and those who committed horrendous murders when the DP was available as a punishment should have the DP available as a sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.