Jon Venables back in prison

[Glen Quagmire]

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

 

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

[Astro Hollywood]

We all watched Newswipe, right? The bit about "sources"? Okay, good.

[Glen Quagmire]

We all watched Newswipe, right? The bit about "sources"? Okay, good.

 

Irrelevant at this point because of the legal restrictions on the current reporting of this case.

 

Otherwise a shitload of newspaper editors would be up for contempt of court. No one in that position is too stupid to risk it (unless their Piers Morgan) and they will only try and get out as much as they legally can right now like The King Of Swing says and even here they're skating on thin ice. "Sources" is all we have to go on right now. Simples.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Glen Quagmire

[Glen Quagmire]

Strawman.

 

Not in the slightest. Its a simple question based on your previous answer that a person who puts a noose around anothers neck and hangs them is ok because

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

From that i inferred that you are ok with that case of the pre-meditated taking of a life because it was legal, feel free to correct me if i have it wrong.

 

Again based on that my hypothetical question stands : if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

I'd like to know how you would go from being against the pre-meditated taking of a life(Venables and Thompson) to against a pre-meditated taking of a life (hangman) to my hypothetical question. Which would apply then?

 

Or would there just be more hypocrisy you fail to admit?

 

If you cannot tell the difference between what Venables and Thompson did and a hangman, then I'd get the idea that your sister is your mother.

[JNLister]

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

 

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

 

That is true. It's also true that no criminal would ever commit a second offense if they were executed or given a whole life tariff for any crime, regardless of its magnitude.

[Glen Quagmire]

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

 

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

 

That is true. It's also true that no criminal would ever commit a second offense if they were executed or given a whole life tariff for any crime, regardless of its magnitude.

Believe it or not, it is still possible to commit an offence outside the prison walls, and inside them too, while in prison itself unless you are in lone confinement 24/7 & watched on CCTV every second.

 

Also, some perspective is needed. I don't advocate the death penalty to apply to someone who refuses to pay a car parking fine.

[Mandingo's Donger]

Strawman.

 

Not in the slightest. Its a simple question based on your previous answer that a person who puts a noose around anothers neck and hangs them is ok because

 

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

 

From that i inferred that you are ok with that case of the pre-meditated taking of a life because it was legal, feel free to correct me if i have it wrong.

 

Again based on that my hypothetical question stands : if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

 

I'd like to know how you would go from being against the pre-meditated taking of a life(Venables and Thompson) to against a pre-meditated taking of a life (hangman) to my hypothetical question. Which would apply then?

 

Or would there just be more hypocrisy you fail to admit?

 

If you cannot tell the difference between what Venables and Thompson did and a hangman, then I'd get the idea that your sister is your mother.

 

I'd like you to tell me why one is pre-meditated murder of another human being and one isn't. And how you can justify the taking of a life on one hand yet say its wrong on another.

 

And as you have just admitted in the "should life mean life thread", why its perfectly acceptable to hang two 10 year old boys, yet completly abhorrent for anyone else to commit murder.

 

I want you to explain and answer the questions rather than make reference to inbreds.

[Glen Quagmire]

I'd like you to tell me why one is pre-meditated murder of another human being and one isn't. And how you can justify the taking of a life on one hand yet say its wrong on another.

Perhaps then you could tell me the difference between Josef Fritzl locking up his daughter in a cellar for 24 years (forgetting the rape cases involved in that) and the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. By your logic, because the imprisonment of Elizabeth Fritzl by her father was wrong, so to has been the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. This is clearly nonsense.

 

And as you have just admitted in the "should life mean life thread", why its perfectly acceptable to hang two 10 year old boys, yet completly abhorrent for anyone else to commit murder.

I do find committing pre-meditated murder abhorrent and I am sure that is the point of view of law-abiding citizens of Britain.

 

I want you to explain and answer the questions rather than make reference to inbreds.

Well when you start asking stupid questions, stupid answers are a reasoned response.

[JNLister]

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

 

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

 

That is true. It's also true that no criminal would ever commit a second offense if they were executed or given a whole life tariff for any crime, regardless of its magnitude.

Believe it or not, it is still possible to commit an offence outside the prison walls, and inside them too, while in prison itself unless you are in lone confinement 24/7 & watched on CCTV every second.

 

Also, some perspective is needed. I don't advocate the death penalty to apply to someone who refuses to pay a car parking fine.

 

Well that's a ridiculously liberal attitude. I'm sure there are murderers who have previously had car parking fines. If they'd been hung then, they wouldn't have been able to kill.

[Kiffy]

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

Only if you believe sexual assault or downloading child porn is serious enough that the perpetrators should be executed.

 

And even then it'd be bollocks, one can make a decent argument that murder should mean life inside, or that people who commit such crimes as venables should be yonked back to prison at the first sign of imbalance on the basis they just won't be safe for other people to be around. You can ask questions as to why he was allowed out.

 

There are quite a few options other than "He done something bad? Well we should have handed a death sentence to a child then, that'd be a fine idea."

[Glen Quagmire]

Child Porn? Sexual Assault?

 

If either of these turn out to be true then I will be vindicated by what I said earlier about Venables and Thompson being executed.

 

No you wont.

 

Were both murderers now to be rotting six feet under, Venables wouldn't be in a position to possibly commit sexual assault or download child porn.

 

That is true. It's also true that no criminal would ever commit a second offense if they were executed or given a whole life tariff for any crime, regardless of its magnitude.

Believe it or not, it is still possible to commit an offence outside the prison walls, and inside them too, while in prison itself unless you are in lone confinement 24/7 & watched on CCTV every second.

 

Also, some perspective is needed. I don't advocate the death penalty to apply to someone who refuses to pay a car parking fine.

 

Well that's a ridiculously liberal attitude. I'm sure there are murderers who have previously had car parking fines. If they'd been hung then, they wouldn't have been able to kill.

 

How many people who have received fixed fines for not wearing their seat belt in a car or for doing 37mph in a 30 zone have went on to commit a cold-blooded murder of a toddler for kicks?

 

On the other hand, how many people who have committed serious offences like murder, rape, paedophilia and I suppose spouse abuse reoffend with another serious offence if not the same offence once out of prison? From the statement Jack Straw made, it seems quite clear that Venables has committed at least one serious offence since being let out of prison on licence. "Reformed" my arse.

[Glen Quagmire]

Only if you believe sexual assault or downloading child porn is serious enough that the perpetrators should be executed.

I didn't say that.

 

And even then it'd be bollocks, one can make a decent argument that murder should mean life inside, or that people who commit such crimes as venables should be yonked back to prison at the first sign of imbalance on the basis they just won't be safe for other people to be around.

And why is the death penalty not a decent argument? The justice system in this country right now is mostly concerned about the "rights" of criminals rather than ensuring that victims and other law-abiding citizens are safe. A country which has a half-decent stance on law & order would have at least ensured that Venables and Thompson would never have been allowed outside prison walls for the rest of their lives along with every other person convicted of murder.

 

You can ask questions as to why he was allowed out.

You might have seen from over the last few days, if not years that I am not the only one asking questions. The ECHR should have been told to fuck off and mind its own business.

 

There are quite a few options other than "He done something bad? Well we should have handed a death sentence to a child then, that'd be a fine idea."

I stand by what I said earlier. Anyone who commits premeditated murder should expect to pay for it with their own life, regardless of age. It then is clear that you can't scream about how "harsh" your punishment is when you knew what it would be. You don't whinge about being put on death row in SE Asia when you were a willing drug mule.

[Mandingo's Donger]

I'd like you to tell me why one is pre-meditated murder of another human being and one isn't. And how you can justify the taking of a life on one hand yet say its wrong on another.

Perhaps then you could tell me the difference between Josef Fritzl locking up his daughter in a cellar for 24 years (forgetting the rape cases involved in that) and the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. By your logic, because the imprisonment of Elizabeth Fritzl by her father was wrong, so to has been the imprisonment of Peter Sutcliffe. This is clearly nonsense.

 

Apply your logic to it. That the latter is fine because its legal and for the benefit of society as a whole. I'm fine with that because thats how it has to be.

But its not like Sutliffe is walking the streets and i'm claiming he should be punished by suffering the same "crime" of which he is being punished for. You're saying you want someone to be murdered, i'm not.

 

And as you have just admitted in the "should life mean life thread", why its perfectly acceptable to hang two 10 year old boys, yet completly abhorrent for anyone else to commit murder.

I do find committing pre-meditated murder abhorrent and I am sure that is the point of view of law-abiding citizens of Britain.

 

Again you haven't answered the question, why is it accpetable for two 10 year old boys to be killed when that very society is claiming that killing people is wrong. Especially killing children.

 

I find pre-meditated murder wrong yet i'm not the one saying two 10 year olds boys should be killed, you are yet you claim to be against it. And you still can't see or wont admit the hypocrisy in that.

 

I want you to explain and answer the questions rather than make reference to inbreds.

Well when you start asking stupid questions, stupid answers are a reasoned response.

 

What was that about strawman arguments you mentioned earlier.

[JNLister]

I'd bet that if you took every one who commits a murder, a higher proportion of them would have previously committed a minor offence than the proportion which would have committed murder. So executing/locking up for life anyone who commits a minor offence is a much more effective way to cut the number of murders.

[Glen Quagmire]

Apply your logic to it. That the latter is fine because its legal and for the benefit of society as a whole. I'm fine with that because thats how it has to be.

But its not like Sutliffe is walking the streets and i'm claiming he should be punished by suffering the same "crime" of which he is being punished for. You're saying you want someone to be murdered, i'm not.

 

Load of waffle. The simple truth is that imprisonment and the death penalty are linked in that they are both punishments given by courts where they have the power to do so. Your Sutcliffe example is stupid, how about a man accused & convicted of rape being punished by being sodomised? For me the death penalty needs to be reintroduced into the UK as murder rates have shot up since its abolishment and that's how it needs to be.

 

Again you haven't answered the question, why is it accpetable for two 10 year old boys to be killed when that very society is claiming that killing people is wrong. Especially killing children.

 

I find pre-meditated murder wrong yet i'm not the one saying two 10 year olds boys should be killed, you are yet you claim to be against it. And you still can't see or wont admit the hypocrisy in that.

 

There is no hypocrisy to my stance on law & order in this country. The execution of Venables and Thompson would not be regarded as murder. Was Guy Fawkes "murdered"? Was Timothy McVeigh "murdered"?

 

What was that about strawman arguments you mentioned earlier.

 

And now you're back the whole 360 degrees... Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. Simples.