Huntley

[poacher3161 1,766]

Swampy -

 

What's there to fall out about? I agree with 90% of what you say and accept the other 10% as valid argument even if I differ in my views.

 

There are four linked strands making up the philosophy behind the British system of punishment.

 

First is just that - punishment. It is sometimes referred to as retribution, but that slides too easily into revenge. Then comes rehabilitation. Please folks, don't go off on one about that word. What it means in context is that the prisoner should be brought to a state of mind such that s/he will not want to reoffend after release. That makes sense. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in the nick, so if society can avoid the need to punish someone for a further offence that must be to the benefit of all. Next is deterrence. The idea there is to deter other possible offenders from committing the same crime.

 

The fourth strand is the one that bears directly on this issue of really serious offencers. It is "incapacitation". There are some crimes so terrible that society must make it impossible for the perpetrator to reoffend. The chosen way of achieving this aim is never to release the offender into society. Hindley and Bradley died in prison.

Huntley has another 25 years to serve before he can be considered for parole. If he is deemed by the parole board still to be a risk to others he may never be released.

 

There are at present some 25 prisoners on indefinite sentences with minimum terms of 30 years or more. Any of them may, after serving the term decided by the judge, be deemed still a risk. The only way Huntley should leave prison is feet first in a cheap pine box.

 

Ric

Thats small comfort to the parents of murderd children who are living a life sentance and is not made any better by media storys year in year out

Its bad enough loosing a child in other circumstances wich i can speak of by my own exspieriance but to have one murderd by scum like huntley hindley brady whiting the only outcome i would be happy with is if they no longer lived.

[artic 595]

There are 16 Human Right Acts, 6 of them apply to Huntley.

 

The 1ST on is the important one. The right to life.

 

Yes he took two away, so he should be punished? In what way? I can only imagine.

 

2nd Act, Freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

 

Lads this has been breached several times. and may this continue...

 

So, if any of these rights and freedoms are breached, *untley has a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority.

 

The right to a fair trial.

[Swampy 147]

There are 16 Human Right Acts, 6 of them apply to Huntley.

 

The 1ST on is the important one. The right to life.

 

Yes he took two away, so he should be punished? In what way? I can only imagine.

 

2nd Act, Freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

 

Lads this has been breached several times. and may this continue...

 

So, if any of these rights and freedoms are breached, *untley has a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority.

 

The right to a fair trial.

 

I don't have a problem with any of these..............however at what point does someone stop being "human"

If you commit an inhumane act or attack the principles of the act then surely you should be exempt from it?

 

rgds

 

swampy

 

Ninging in the dock

[RicW 67]

Poacher -

When my daughter was about 8 or 9 I got into a discussion about capital punishment, during which I made my opposition clear. One of the guys who was for the death penalty asked me how I would feel if my lass were raped and murdered. I said that if I got the chance I would make sure that by the time the killer died at my hands he would be begging me to kill him - and he would be begging for a very long time. When asked how I reconciled that with my opposition to what I had called judicial murder I said that personal revenge has an undeserved bad name. State sanctified killing is a different matter.

[Swampy 147]

Swampy -

 

What's there to fall out about? I agree with 90% of what you say and accept the other 10% as valid argument even if I differ in my views.

 

There are four linked strands making up the philosophy behind the British system of punishment.

 

First is just that - punishment. It is sometimes referred to as retribution, but that slides too easily into revenge. Then comes rehabilitation. Please folks, don't go off on one about that word. What it means in context is that the prisoner should be brought to a state of mind such that s/he will not want to reoffend after release. That makes sense. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in the nick, so if society can avoid the need to punish someone for a further offence that must be to the benefit of all. Next is deterrence. The idea there is to deter other possible offenders from committing the same crime.

 

The fourth strand is the one that bears directly on this issue of really serious offencers. It is "incapacitation". There are some crimes so terrible that society must make it impossible for the perpetrator to reoffend. The chosen way of achieving this aim is never to release the offender into society. Hindley and Bradley died in prison.

Huntley has another 25 years to serve before he can be considered for parole. If he is deemed by the parole board still to be a risk to others he may never be released.

 

There are at present some 25 prisoners on indefinite sentences with minimum terms of 30 years or more. Any of them may, after serving the term decided by the judge, be deemed still a risk. The only way Huntley should leave prison is feet first in a cheap pine box.

 

Ric

Thats small comfort to the parents of murderd children who are living a life sentance and is not made any better by media storys year in year out

Its bad enough loosing a child in other circumstances wich i can speak of by my own exspieriance but to have one murderd by scum like huntley hindley brady whiting the only outcome i would be happy with is if they no longer lived.

 

I understand the sentiment. But do you honestly think that by killing him it will lessen the grief of the affected parties?

Knowing that he is where he is and suffering for it, would , I'd have thought, be preferrable than his anonymous removal from theis world.

Personally I am quite comfortable with the idea that he has had his liberty removed and that every day he lives in fear of his life or severe physical harm. Not to mention the mental torture of knowing that you are hated by even the lowest of the low.

It is human nature to crave the comfort of other humans. It must be a living hell for *untley to be in the position of isolation from human kindness.

Is it any wonder he has attempted suicide? Why should he be given that escape? Did he give the girls the same opportunity? No. I strongly believe he should be kept alive for as long as his body allows it.

A difference of opinion is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

rgds

 

Swampy

 

ninging on both sides of the fence

[Swampy 147]

Poacher -

When my daughter was about 8 or 9 I got into a discussion about capital punishment, during which I made my opposition clear. One of the guys who was for the death penalty asked me how I would feel if my lass were raped and murdered. I said that if I got the chance I would make sure that by the time the killer died at my hands he would be begging me to kill him - and he would be begging for a very long time. When asked how I reconciled that with my opposition to what I had called judicial murder I said that personal revenge has an undeserved bad name. State sanctified killing is a different matter.

But surely Ric you have elected trhe state to represent you?

 

 

Swampy

 

Ninging for Demos

[poacher3161 1,766]

Swampy -

 

What's there to fall out about? I agree with 90% of what you say and accept the other 10% as valid argument even if I differ in my views.

 

There are four linked strands making up the philosophy behind the British system of punishment.

 

First is just that - punishment. It is sometimes referred to as retribution, but that slides too easily into revenge. Then comes rehabilitation. Please folks, don't go off on one about that word. What it means in context is that the prisoner should be brought to a state of mind such that s/he will not want to reoffend after release. That makes sense. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in the nick, so if society can avoid the need to punish someone for a further offence that must be to the benefit of all. Next is deterrence. The idea there is to deter other possible offenders from committing the same crime.

 

The fourth strand is the one that bears directly on this issue of really serious offencers. It is "incapacitation". There are some crimes so terrible that society must make it impossible for the perpetrator to reoffend. The chosen way of achieving this aim is never to release the offender into society. Hindley and Bradley died in prison.

Huntley has another 25 years to serve before he can be considered for parole. If he is deemed by the parole board still to be a risk to others he may never be released.

 

There are at present some 25 prisoners on indefinite sentences with minimum terms of 30 years or more. Any of them may, after serving the term decided by the judge, be deemed still a risk. The only way Huntley should leave prison is feet first in a cheap pine box.

 

Ric

Thats small comfort to the parents of murderd children who are living a life sentance and is not made any better by media storys year in year out

Its bad enough loosing a child in other circumstances wich i can speak of by my own exspieriance but to have one murderd by scum like huntley hindley brady whiting the only outcome i would be happy with is if they no longer lived.

 

I understand the sentiment. But do you honestly think that by killing him it will lessen the grief of the affected parties?

Knowing that he is where he is and suffering for it, would , I'd have thought, be preferrable than his anonymous removal from theis world.

Personally I am quite comfortable with the idea that he has had his liberty removed and that every day he lives in fear of his life or severe physical harm. Not to mention the mental torture of knowing that you are hated by even the lowest of the low.

It is human nature to crave the comfort of other humans. It must be a living hell for *untley to be in the position of isolation from human kindness.

Is it any wonder he has attempted suicide? Why should he be given that escape? Did he give the girls the same opportunity? No. I strongly believe he should be kept alive for as long as his body allows it.

A difference of opinion is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

rgds

 

Swampy

 

ninging on both sides of the fence

I am afraid only the affected partys ie parents grandparents brothers sisters can only answer that one.

[Malt 379]

I'm sorry lads, but I'm very much in favour of the death penalty for extreme cases such as this where there is no doubt as to who the perpetrator is. Keeping him alive in jail is a pointless exercise at a cost that will probably run into a few hundred thousand over the next 25 years or whatever. Someone of his nature could never hope to be rehabilitated, after what he did. A crime such as this is so abhorrent due to to it going against everything we as a civilisation cherish. Him and other offenders such as that baby P's mother and lodger should only end up in one place once found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of such an offence, at the end of a rope.

[artic 595]

There are 16 Human Right Acts, 6 of them apply to Huntley.

 

The 1ST on is the important one. The right to life.

 

Yes he took two away, so he should be punished? In what way? I can only imagine.

 

2nd Act, Freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

 

Lads this has been breached several times. and may this continue...

 

So, if any of these rights and freedoms are breached, *untley has a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority.

 

The right to a fair trial.

 

I don't have a problem with any of these..............however at what point does someone stop being "human"

If you commit an inhumane act or attack the principles of the act then surely you should be exempt from it?

 

rgds

 

swampy

 

Ninging in the dock

 

That seems the sensible option however we are in the UK, and we have the oldest law. Common and Statute Law.

 

Common being substantive law and procedural rules that have been created by the judges through decisions in cases in which they have heard.

 

Statute Law refers to law that has been created by Parliament in the form of legislation. Human Rights act.

 

Abolition of the death penalty. Meaning Life sentance only if proved guilty of murder. Its a statute Law, and the goverment run these acts.

 

Confusing.

 

Lets say Swamps that you get lifted for murder, suspicion only dont forget. Your shocked, eh me, what you on about? So down to the station. Any normal person will want his brief? Yes? Well your not having it, and there is no court. You will go to prison for life.

 

So no brief, no interview, nothing!

 

We all need our Human Rights. They are with us for life, and you can use them as many times as you like.

[Swampy 147]

I'm sorry lads, but I'm very much in favour of the death penalty for extreme cases such as this where there is no doubt as to who the perpetrator is. Keeping him alive in jail is a pointless exercise at a cost that will probably run into a few hundred thousand over the next 25 years or whatever. Someone of his nature could never hope to be rehabilitated, after what he did. A crime such as this is so abhorrent due to to it going against everything we as a civilisation cherish. Him and other offenders such as that baby P's mother and lodger should only end up in one place once found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of such an offence, at the end of a rope.

Don't apologise for your opinion Malt.

It is a topic that will always create emotional argument and rarely a topic that is resolved.

If the powers that be decided to reinstate the death penalty (with the appropriate safeguards) then as a law abiding ( ) citizen I would have to conceed to the majority for the benefit of democracy. I will always believe though that it is not our place to take anothers life and I for one would struggle with my concience if I was ever asked to do the deed of killing someone in cold blood.

 

One thing is for certain. Mr *untley will continue to suffer for quite soem time to come.

 

Rgds

 

 

Unsympathetic ning

[poacher3161 1,766]

Educate the population enough to read the propaganda.Dont educate the population enough to understand the propaganda.Wat happens to murderd childrens human rights FFS.

[Swampy 147]

There are 16 Human Right Acts, 6 of them apply to Huntley.

 

The 1ST on is the important one. The right to life.

 

Yes he took two away, so he should be punished? In what way? I can only imagine.

 

2nd Act, Freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

 

Lads this has been breached several times. and may this continue...

 

So, if any of these rights and freedoms are breached, *untley has a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority.

 

The right to a fair trial.

 

I don't have a problem with any of these..............however at what point does someone stop being "human"

If you commit an inhumane act or attack the principles of the act then surely you should be exempt from it?

 

rgds

 

swampy

 

Ninging in the dock

 

That seems the sensible option however we are in the UK, and we have the oldest law. Common and Statute Law.

 

Common being substantive law and procedural rules that have been created by the judges through decisions in cases in which they have heard.

 

Statute Law refers to law that has been created by Parliament in the form of legislation. Human Rights act.

 

Abolition of the death penalty. Meaning Life sentance only if proved guilty of murder. Its a statute Law, and the goverment run these acts.

 

Confusing.

 

Lets say Swamps that you get lifted for murder, suspicion only dont forget. Your shocked, eh me, what you on about? So down to the station. Any normal person will want his brief? Yes? Well your not having it, and there is no court. You will go to prison for life.

 

So no brief, no interview, nothing!

 

We all need our Human Rights. They are with us for life, and you can use them as many times as you like.

Not quite.

As, by law every one is entitled to a fair trial. In front of a jury. Nothing to do with the HRA.

 

Anyway, who told you I did it? It wasn't me! I was at home watching TV with the missus and anyone who tells you different is a liar.

I don't want this subject to be ever brought up again alright?!

 

swampy

 

Innocent until found guilty ning

[artic 595]

There are 16 Human Right Acts, 6 of them apply to Huntley.

 

The 1ST on is the important one. The right to life.

 

Yes he took two away, so he should be punished? In what way? I can only imagine.

 

2nd Act, Freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

 

Lads this has been breached several times. and may this continue...

 

So, if any of these rights and freedoms are breached, *untley has a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority.

 

The right to a fair trial.

 

I don't have a problem with any of these..............however at what point does someone stop being "human"

If you commit an inhumane act or attack the principles of the act then surely you should be exempt from it?

 

rgds

 

swampy

 

Ninging in the dock

 

That seems the sensible option however we are in the UK, and we have the oldest law. Common and Statute Law.

 

Common being substantive law and procedural rules that have been created by the judges through decisions in cases in which they have heard.

 

Statute Law refers to law that has been created by Parliament in the form of legislation. Human Rights act.

 

Abolition of the death penalty. Meaning Life sentance only if proved guilty of murder. Its a statute Law, and the goverment run these acts.

 

Confusing.

 

Lets say Swamps that you get lifted for murder, suspicion only dont forget. Your shocked, eh me, what you on about? So down to the station. Any normal person will want his brief? Yes? Well your not having it, and there is no court. You will go to prison for life.

 

So no brief, no interview, nothing!

 

We all need our Human Rights. They are with us for life, and you can use them as many times as you like.

Not quite.

As, by law every one is entitled to a fair trial. In front of a jury. Nothing to do with the HRA.

 

Anyway, who told you I did it? It wasn't me! I was at home watching TV with the missus and anyone who tells you different is a liar.

I don't want this subject to be ever brought up again alright?!

 

swampy

 

Innocent until found guilty ning

 

Swampy, if there was no HRA then you would not have a fair trial or a Jury.

 

It's here to stay with us, we all need them, the UK needs them.

[Malt 379]

Swampy, if there was no HRA then you would not have a fair trial or a Jury.

 

It's here to stay with us, we all need them, the UK needs them.

 

I could be wrong but I think the right to a fair trial has been around for far longer than the human rights act, since magna carta if I'm not mistaken?

Edited March 23, 2010 by maltenby

[Swampy 147]

Swampy, if there was no HRA then you would not have a fair trial or a Jury.

 

It's here to stay with us, we all need them, the UK needs them.

 

I could be wrong but I think the right to a fair trial has been around for far longer than the human rights act, since magna carta if I'm not mistaken?

CORRECTAMUNDO MY WELSH BARRISTER TYPE PERSON YOU!

 

swampy

 

frightened for agreeing with a welsh man..........Is it treason ning