Kirkatronics Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 A while ago a young chinese (21) lad got beat almost to death. They found that it was 15-20 youths with weapons, he was put in a coma. Because they were youths, they all have bail, and they all have restricted sentences. Do you think they should be tried as adults, or tried as juveniles? Personally, i think if you do the crime, you should do the crime. His beating was so bad, it caused him to slip into a coma. Whilst in hospital he kept slipping in and out of consciousness due to the pain so the hospital put him into a drug induced coma. Now he must have re-constructive surgery and a lot of therapy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Yes, when I got assulted back in may the guy that did it (he also assulted 2 other people that same morning) was only sentenced to 8 months because he was 17 and then he got that cut in half and he was out in 4. The law is utterly ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted February 16, 2008 Author Share Posted February 16, 2008 Yes, when I got assulted back in may the guy that did it (he also assulted 2 other people that same morning) was only sentenced to 8 months because he was 17 and then he got that cut in half and he was out in 4. The law is utterly ridiculous. Ive, luckily, never been assaulted but if someone feels the need to assault someone without provacation they deserve to go straight to prison for a long time. I dont know if im lucky ive not been beat up, because i find it hard not to be sarcastic and i live a kind of rough area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Maybe it's just media spin that I'm falling into too, but it seems all the major shootings/stabbings etc are all involving people under 18, and they get off because of it. For those of you who remember who Ernest Norton is, apparently the kids who threw stones at him are all out already or so says my news shopper, and I believe that not a single one of them had the balls to admit it all shifting blame to someone else. I think if you're over 14, you know what's right and wrong, and you should face justice and trial just the same as an adult. I swear the country is going to shit at the moment, and more kids do it because they know the law won't touch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I think the death penalty should be reinstated for "youths" only. Teach the little bastards some respect. I don't really think that..........kind of.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I think the death penalty should be reinstated for "youths" only. Teach the little bastards some respect. I don't really think that..........kind of.... hahaha so true. These kids can think like adults and brutally beat another human being to a bloody pulp. They should be treated like adults in the court of law. Not like children, being protected from the "scary world" and being allowed to run riot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Under 10 years old the parents should have to pay a fine and the Kids should be forced to take special classes to stop them from committing crimes. At 10 the kids should be put in a youth center. At 13 they should face full adult sentencing. The last line is based on the fact that kids of 13 and sometimes under are committing crimes the same as adults. They don't think of it any differently. Yesterday a kid in my class was caught selling drugs at school. They're probably just going to make him do some sort of community service and then he'll go and do it again and again until he's 18 and they treat him like a full adult. In my opinion criminals who are proved guilty of crimes that victimize other people should all be shot in the gut. People like that almost never change. They just learn how to lie to a parole board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 0-17 - Current laws, maybe with flexible laws based on the individual situation. (i.e Theft is a lot less punishment than murder) 18+ - Adult, and should be treated as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimz Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Personally, i think if you do the crime, you should do the crime. Well isn't that a shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Yeh, i think they should bring back the death penalty! Get 'em while they're young i say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Old enough to die a crime, old enough to serve the time. Does anybody remember when those two boys killed a child and yet they get protected identies for the rest of their lives? RIDICULOUS, this country needs to get a god damn backbone and realise that if a person is sententced to a certain amount of time, they fill that time without benefits (why should we have to pay so they can have a cushy time in prison when they have done a crime pssh). Nor should it be halved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted February 16, 2008 Author Share Posted February 16, 2008 Old enough to die a crime, old enough to serve the time. Does anybody remember when those two boys killed a child and yet they get protected identies for the rest of their lives? RIDICULOUS, this country needs to get a god damn backbone and realise that if a person is sententced to a certain amount of time, they fill that time without benefits (why should we have to pay so they can have a cushy time in prison when they have done a crime pssh). Nor should it be halved. I can remember that, they should still be rotting in prison for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 The Jamie Bulger case, I take it? I heard alot about it, though I don't really know alot about it, weren't they both under 14 though? I think the argument presented was diminished responsiblity of not knowing what they were doing/realising the full consequences of their actions. That's the same sort of argument presented for people under 18 at the moment I believe, which is why they get lighter sentences. I think it should only apply to those under 14, and even so, crimes should be punished for people over 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 The Jamie Bulger case, I take it? I heard alot about it, though I don't really know alot about it, weren't they both under 14 though? I think the argument presented was diminished responsiblity of not knowing what they were doing/realising the full consequences of their actions. That's the same sort of argument presented for people under 18 at the moment I believe, which is why they get lighter sentences. I think it should only apply to those under 14, and even so, crimes should be punished for people over 10. At 14 I would have bloody known what I had done to someone. People seem to think that even at the ages of 10 you still don't realise, maybe I was just a smart child, but I know for a fact I would have known, heck it was only 3 years ago that I was 14. It's still irratating, and I believe what I said before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stefkov Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 They know the difference between right and wrong. They should be tried as adults. Then their parents be targeted. Parent's are meant to teach their kids right and wrong, not just schools. It's not hard to realise when you repeatedly kick a person until they die that is a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 They should be killed. Fucking waste of spaces. I could quite happily murder them and many other people in this shitty country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 The law definatly needs to be more strict on youths. Through my job the biggest problem we have is youths. One recent example, young lad think he is about 16 now was just a tit, always taking the piss out of P.C.S.O's (police community support officers), calling them all kinds off names, drinking and getting pissed on the town centre causing trouble, constantly shoplifting and causing criminal damage and every time he got arrested he just got let off. They eventually gave him a cerfu order off 7am till 7pm and tagged him, made no difference and now he ran over a police officer while illegaly driving a car in north wales! 2 days later i see him back on our town centre on bail! He then later that day got arrested again as he was seen on C.C.T.V with class A drugs. What a glorious life that lad will now lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intensity Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I voted yes and I dont feel my vote requires any explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Old enough to die a crime, old enough to serve the time. Does anybody remember when those two boys killed a child and yet they get protected identies for the rest of their lives? I'm not making excuses (well I guess I kind of am, but a fair trial involves arguments for and against) but just because you had a relatively stable upbringing doesn't mean everyone else did. Instead of reacting like that, which is a fair enough reaction in many respects, you have to ask why it happened. The reason they got protective custody is because it would defeat any point of giving them a fair trial since there are people sill now actively looking for them, prepared to deal their own form of justice. They were actually tried in an adult court and only in 1999 did the European Court of Human Rights find the trial not to be impartial since they were probably too young to know what was going on in court. There is a system in place for a reason and their protected identities are apart of that system. It was only until a couple years ago they were in prison "at her majesty's pleasure" which is a breach of fundamental human rights. What I'm trying to say is, nothing is black and white like that and that everyone has a right justice, whatever side of the law they were/are on. There are always circumstances that need to be taken into account. Sorry...I like criminal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Old enough to die a crime, old enough to serve the time. Does anybody remember when those two boys killed a child and yet they get protected identies for the rest of their lives? RIDICULOUS, this country needs to get a god damn backbone and realise that if a person is sententced to a certain amount of time, they fill that time without benefits (why should we have to pay so they can have a cushy time in prison when they have done a crime pssh). Nor should it be halved. They're identities are/were changed to stop people from killing them. The main purpose when it comes to murder in the British legal system is to prevent more blood being spilt, unlike our "friends" across the pond... Also, people need to remember there is a possibility that the accused is actually innocent, or that they are truly sorry for what they have done and changed their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Mcoy Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Mcoy will say one thing. Mcoy can understand a child getting off for a small time robbery etc. Mcoy knows people can make mistakes Mcoy however also knows that most people know that attacking and killing another human being is not a good thing at all, Mcoy thinks anyone who has the common sense to know the consequences of assaulting or killing a human should be tried as an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 They should be killed. Fucking waste of spaces. I could quite happily murder them and many other people in this shitty country. That's a shit idea - they killed someone, so lets demonstrate how civilised, grown-up, and fair we can be by setting the example of killing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Sorry for killing a child? Sorry doesn't and never changes what a person has done, nor the effect it has on the family/friends around the person who was killed. I know it means no blood is spilt, but it still irratates me to high hell, they should be in prison just like everybody else who commits a crime, not let off because they are younger. As it is I don't agree with a life for a life, I dislike the idea of hanging people nor the electric chair, because that then makes us hypocritical, but I don't believe in letting them go scot free. Fair? That shouldn't come into it, considering they weren't exactly fair when they killed that child.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 They're identities are/were changed to stop people from killing them. The main purpose when it comes to murder in the British legal system is to prevent more blood being spilt, unlike our "friends" across the pond... Also, people need to remember there is a possibility that the accused is actually innocent, or that they are truly sorry for what they have done and changed their ways. If they are innocent, then its all fine and dandy. But if they are sorry, they still deserve to be locked away with other scum like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Mcoy however also knows that most people know that attacking and killing another human being is not a good thing at all, Mcoy thinks anyone who has the common sense to know the consequences of assaulting or killing a human should be tried as an adult. How many of these people do you actually think have common sense, eh? That's what stops most people from committing crimes, and yet they still do. Therefore, they probably have none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts