Fierce_LiNk

Ian Watkins Given 35 Years

Recommended Posts

...Ian Watkins is evil, 35 is enough, in 35 years he'll be very old and hopefully no danger to anyone...

 

Except for babies, they can't exactly defend themselves if their parents don't.

 

The guy needs to be put down. I couldn't care less if some hippy says I'm degenerate for saying so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he should have been dragged out of the courtroom to the nearest bit of scrub land and had two 9mm shots put in the back of his head.

 

Anyone that commits such serious crimes should share the same fate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he did was disgusting, sick and turned my stomach and he definitely should be punished for it. But we have to remember that he didn't act alone.

 

All five band members were equally responsible for their shit songs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm guessing this wasn't 100% serious, but it does make me wonder that when a case of this nature comes around the amount of people who go from rational to "kill the bastard", "bring back capital punishment", "cut off his nob", "I hope he gets killed in prison", is a tad worrying. Like we've created a system that for the most part society agrees with but as soon as it's a paedo then people lose it. And we should just scrap it all.

 

Now don't get me wrong, he's a disgusting cunt and he should be locked away for a very long time. But at no point has it crossed my mind that killing him, would be justice.

 

I dunno it's late, and I'm rambling a bit.

 

I wish I could thank this post more.

 

He shouldn't get the death penalty because that isn't in accordance with the law. This is what happens when you bring children into cases such as this, people get very emotional and essentially "lose it", like you said. The law is there for a reason and this is his way of being brought to justice. It's not exactly a lenient sentence, I do think the punishment fits the crime.

 

The only thing I will contest is the amount of time given to both of the mothers. In my opinion, they should have got an even harsher sentence for not only allowing Ian Watkins to do this stuff, but also encouraging it. It's almost worse what they did as they were the parents of the children and were in a position of responsibility, which they abused dramatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there's my point proven.

 

For the record I'm not a hippy.

 

It's not proven in the slightest. The number of times he did what he did. Those poor children are scarred for life, they have to live with what happened to them, it's no justice that he's locked up having "mega lolz".

 

Attempted rape of a baby. Of a baby?!!

 

The guy needs to be erased from existence. You may see me as degenerate for thinking so, I'll see you as a hippy for thinking otherwise. Opinions and all that jazz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He shouldn't get the death penalty because that isn't in accordance with the law. This is what happens when you bring children into cases such as this, people get very emotional and essentially "lose it", like you said. The law is there for a reason and this is his way of being brought to justice. It's not exactly a lenient sentence, I do think the punishment fits the crime.

 

No one has 'lost it'. He deserves a bullet in the head. He attempted to rape babies after he sexually assaulted them. He showed no remorse for his crimes and believed it all to be 'MEGA LOLZ'. There is no need to keep him alive, it's just simple logic. I'm not emotional, I'm totally calm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bullet to the head is an instant release and not what he deserves; imprisonment and loss of liberties for many years is a far worse punishment.

 

I also agree that the desire for pain/blood from people is pretty disturbing/primal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not proven in the slightest. The number of times he did what he did. Those poor children are scarred for life, they have to live with what happened to them, it's no justice that he's locked up having "mega lolz".

 

Attempted rape of a baby. Of a baby?!!

 

The guy needs to be erased from existence. You may see me as degenerate for thinking so, I'll see you as a hippy for thinking otherwise. Opinions and all that jazz.

 

No one has 'lost it'. He deserves a bullet in the head. He attempted to rape babies after he sexually assaulted them. He showed no remorse for his crimes and believed it all to be 'MEGA LOLZ'. There is no need to keep him alive, it's just simple logic. I'm not emotional, I'm totally calm.

 

He hasn't shown remorse, I agree with that. He is a disgusting human being, I agree with that, too. He probably would have continued to do this if he had not been caught.

 

Therefore, he should be given the maximum punishment for this sort of crime which our legal system permits. If the law was changed and we introduced the death penalty, we could then discuss whether or not it should be a done thing. But, right now, it's completely out of the question. We don't do that in this country, neither do I believe we should do it. Either way, the "logical thing" and the done thing here is that we/he follows through with the legal process and he reaches an already predetermined outcome if guilty: Imprisonment. For what would almost be the rest of his life. He's not going to be a danger to the public, nor to children any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the law must be adhered to, but I can express my opinion that I believe he should be killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may see me as degenerate for thinking so, I'll see you as a hippy for thinking otherwise. Opinions and all that jazz.

 

I don't see you as a degenerate. I don't know you, therefore I don't have an opinion of you. I'm not so quick to draw conclusions. I think differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the law must be adhered to, but I can express my opinion that I believe he should be killed.

 

Of course. Like I said, that's also potentially another huge debate in itself: Should we have the ability to carry out the death sentence in this country?

 

In my opinion, currently, I would say no. I also don't think it would act as a deterrent for people like Watkins to not commit these crimes in the first place. Judging from what has been reported so far, he had a number of other twisted fantasies. It doesn't give you the impression that he gave a shit about the outcome of it all, or how he was ruining people's lives. Partly surprised that he didn't play the insanity or "mentally ill" card to go for a lighter sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see you as a degenerate. I don't know you, therefore I don't have an opinion of you. I'm not so quick to draw conclusions. I think differently.

 

I'm not suggesting you see me as a degenerate, just that my view on him should be killed as a degenerate view. I don't feel it is, I feel it is just.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, rape is one of the worst types of crime, and paedophilia is the worst variation of it.

 

It's my general opinion that rapists should be castrated (chemically or otherwise), but within the confines of the legal system, going to a prison where the inmates (probably) look down on paedophiles works as well. Hopefully they make his life there hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except countries with the death penalty have a far higher rate of recidivism than those without.

 

You say, "those who are killers and its plain to see they are a danger to others if ever released", but how do you know that they will always be a danger to people? You're judging that based on them now, but a lot can change in 35 years. Of course they're a danger now. If they weren't then we wouldn't need to imprison them. You're just dismissing the whole argument of rehabilitation.

 

 

There's a part of me that agree (quite a large part) that there are some people who should be killed. But actually having a system of the death penalty, is just completely open to abuse, misuse and mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases I don't believe we should try to rehabilitate and we should just rid the world of the offender. This, to me, is one of those cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To counter the "he should just be killed" argument - prison can be a very punishing place. Spending 35 years (or there about due to the nature of his sentence) could prove to be a much more gruelling punishment for him than simply being taken out back and shot. He's not showing signs of any remorse now, and he very well may never, but given the lifestyle he lived before I can't imagine he'll just settle into prison life too easily. His luxuries, his wealth and his freedom have all been taken from him and it may not have sunk in yet (he appears to have not mentally accepted what is happening, but that's a passing observation from me rather than anything too...something), but I'm sure it will be tough for him soon. As well it should. Prison can be a very difficult place, much more so than simply being dead. Daft posted this essay a while ago and while it may be more extreme (he was in solitary), it's still something that should be read as it argues that solitary is a worse punishment than death.

 

We consider the death penalty a fitting punishment for a crime because we think that we don't wish to die, but there are people out there that are less scared of this.

 

Plus, once you set a yard stick you then get into the ethically gray area whereby you're always questioning if it should be moved. Yes we can all agree that paedophilia is terrible, but if you start issuing the death sentence for that then what about ephebophilia? Then what about rape? What about forced slavery? GBH? Things get murky and it quite often becomes personal. Obviously people that are/know victims of these crimes feel more strongly about them, as to be expected, and one person might say x crime should be punishable by the death penalty while another may say that just deserves a prison sentence.

 

tl;dr I don't think the death penalty is the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that thread @Ashley and in his case I was glad he felt it was worse than death... yet I'd have still killed him as I didn't buy into his thinking it was worse than death. The article he wrote was well thought out and well written, he was of sound mind and it didn't appear to have too much of a detrimental effect on him in mind. Or at least not enough of one.

Edited by Kav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you expect him to become a raving loony incapable of articulating thought? Mental suffering is not necessarily something you can "spot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the absolute barbaric comments in this forum post. It sounds all so sadist ! This is the first time I have heard about this guy so I did a little bit of research about his crimes / who he is and I don't understand why everyone is being so cruel ? It's pretty obvious that this guy's mind is seriously messed up and is certainly not sane.

 

I believe he was born that way. People don't actively choose to be sexually attracted to what they like, it's automatic. I find it unlikely that a paedophile would choose to be attracted to children. I feel pity for them, rather than hate.

 

This guy certainly deserves serious punishment but it's not our position to stand behind our computers and type furiously that he deserves a painful and tortuous death. It's just barbaric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My views may be considered extreme by some and people have every right to think so, but on that note, I've every right to think that some people's views are far too lenient. I'm shocked myself at some views of, in my mind, leniency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My views may be considered extreme by some and people have every right to think so, but on that note, I've every right to think that some people's views are far too lenient. I'm shocked myself at some views of, in my mind, leniency.

 

A lifetime in prison is not leniency. Nowhere near.

 

If he were to be given probation and tagged, that would be lunacy and leniency.

If he were given a 10 year sentence, which is less than both of the mothers, then that would be lenient and very wrong.

If he were given a suspended sentence or placed under house arrest, that would also be wrong.

 

Given a 35 year sentence is not leniency in the slightest and I can't argue against it. He got what he deserved in accordance with the laws he broke. He won't be given an easy time in prison because it's very, very well documented that child molesters, child rapists and child killer are amongst the lowest of the low in prison. They are the ones most looked down upon and he will have to watch his back for every single second that he spends in there. He won't be given easy treatment. The fact that this trial was very high profile, as well as his status, means that he has nowhere to hide.

 

He got what he deserved. Giving him death would be an easy way out and would give him no time to dwell on the atrocities that he has committed. In prison, he will have nothing to do but think on this. He may be "joking" about this right now, but in the long-run it is the harshest thing he'll have to endure, especially given the lifestyle he was leading before this. It'll break him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the thing, for me, 35 years in prison is lenient.

 

Why, brah?

35 years is loooong. That's longer than my entire life and then some. To me, that's mind boogling. He's only 36, so that's near enough his entire life, too. Locked up. I can't agree that it's lenient. It terrifies the shit out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites