Daft Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I'm going from my point of view that I knew that kicking a child wasnt a good idea. I was ten when the war with iraq started and by god I knew what was going on then too! Unfortunetly are legal systemis abit pants, basically. Likewise I didn't go round killing people either but it is never a good thing to make generalisations. Saying the legal system is a bit pants is a bit of an absurd statement. Its been developed over a couple hundred years and any system that applies to millions of people is going to have exceptions and problems. Nothing is going to be perfect but for what it is, its better than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 haha, that is based on the knowledge that right now that law that apprently is so good now has to be change to accomdate for people who aren't english. As it is, that is a different debate and for a different thread I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Thats more of a cultural debate than one to do with the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Exactly which is why I said it was for another time ^.^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Exactly which is why I said it was for another time ^.^ lol, sorry, I'm just confusing myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rummy Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I feel this has turned more into a discussion of the Bulger case, than what it was originally intended for, however, it's quite important and relevant to things. Firstly, nightwolf and others arguing for the harsh justice of the boys, before you'd heard about the case(or even now) to what extent would you have believed a 10 year old of killing or mistreating another human being in such a terrible way? Honestly, would you have? Secondly, I don't know what sort of scentence they served, if they did or not, and why not? Because they had to have their lives taken away and replaced in order to protect them from people who felt they went unpunished, or inaqequately so. What they did was unbelieveable, and so much so I think it was an exceptional case, I hope to god they were punished and served time for their crime. Thirdly, I forgot what I wanted to say here. What about all the witnesses maybe? There was 38 of them, 38 people saw the boys and Jamie, and not one of them intervened enough to stop them killing him, can any responsibility be put on their shoulders? The biggest issue with this case, is that it lends credance to the idea of diminished responsibility and leniency to people under a certain age, while I agree with some aspects of the outcome in this particular case, I think cases these days should be treated more harshly. Maybe I'm just being a hypocrite. EDIT: According to Wiki, they were given an 8 year sentence, then raised to 10, then raised to 15, then disputed and then the judge took two years off for good behaviour and signs of remorse, taking it back down to the original 8 year sentence. EDITEDIT: They're apparently now on life license. In June 2001, after a six-month review of the case, the parole board ruled the boys were no longer a threat to public safety and could now be released as their minimum tariff had expired in the February of that year. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, approved the decision, and they were released within weeks. They were given new identities and moved to secret residence locations under a "witness protection"-style action. They will live out their lives on a 'life licence', which allows for their immediate re-incarceration (for an unlimited period of time) if they break the terms of their release: that is, if they are seen to be a danger to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 If there's one thing we should take from the bible it's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (the wording probably isn't perfect but the meaning is the same.) If you take someone's life in cold blood, then yours should be taken from you. Not long ago there was a 10 year old that was friends with my foster brother. A 17 year old from the same street as hime beat and tortured him to within an inch of his life. This went on for quite a few hours. The 17 year old then went and told the child's mother that there was something wrong with him. He nearly killed him and then had the nerve to act the good samaritan. Because he wa sunder 18 the police wouldn't reveal his identity for his own safety. I don't know what happened to him in the end but I think that he got some protection and a short sentence. Personally I think he should be shot. Anybody that would do that to an innocent little boy doesn't deserve to live. Bollocks to his human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Personally I think he should be shot. Anybody that would do that to an innocent little boy doesn't deserve to live. Bollocks to his human rights. Exactly. People are always saying that the people change, no, they just learn to lie to a parole board. In Canada we got rid of the death penalty because our courts used to suck and people were wrongly convicted and hung too many times. A few months after we abolished it, apparently the states brought it back. I think criminals who are proved to have committed a serious crime should be killed. And what about all these comforts of home that are being put in jails. In Canada, inmates have internet access now. I'm also curious about what everyone here thinks about the latimer case (google it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 In some low security prisons criminals have satelite TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 In some low security prisons criminals have satelite TV.They have to pay for it them selves, my cousin whos in prison has sky and a PS3.I dont think it should be aloud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 They have to pay for it them selves, my cousin whos in prison has sky and a PS3.I dont think it should be aloud... Even if they do have to pay it is still an outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I'm also curious about what everyone here thinks about the latimer case (google it). Hmm, that link could also be put in the euthanasia thread... In my mind that's a simple one - he acted out of mercy, for both her and himself, as her quality of life, and his, must have been terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Anyone who beats up another human and leaves them in a coma, then they should be treated as an adult no matter what the age of the person who committed the crime is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts