15 year old poppy seller had face burnt in attack

[trev]

For me, there have been too many mistakes made to justify a return to the death penalty. The possibility of one miscarriage of justice makes it an unviable proposition, no doubt people will start to spout off about DNA evidence but to refute that I'm going to bring up a case from the US about 2 months ago, a guy had been convicted of murder on DNA evidence and had spent time on death row. Eventually new evidence came to light that exonerated him, had he been in the UK at the time of the death penalty he'd have been hanged within a month of the sentence being handed down.
We don't actually celebrate Guy Fawkes and his actions, we celebrate him being caught. God save the king and all that. Why do you think he is burnt in effigy every year? It's a re enactment (although a slightly sanitised version) of his death.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before Lee Rigby was brought up and I haven't seen any proof yet that the perpetrator of the act against the army cadet was on the same scale, the attacker was described as smelling of alcohol for starters but Lee Rigby's killers wanted martyrdom, that's why they hung around. They expected the police to kill them so they'd get their 72 virgins (imagine if it were 72 Susan Boyles lol).
I don't think it's the judiciary that needs to be overhauled mate, they act within the law and sentencing guidelines given to them by politicians however the system does appear to be completely unfit for purpose. Maybe we should take a good hard look at how things are done in certain Scandanavian countries where the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than punishment because they, statistically, have a far lesser rate of recidivism than we do. I have to say though that for some crimes I think a life sentence should mean exactly that.

 

[Slowhand]

The man was as they say " Going Prepared ". He had a lighter and aerosol and chose to spray a young man with fire.
Never mind what you say about being a vigilante, if you'd have seen it happen would you have walked away or visited violence upon him?

 

[Pete999]

For me, there have been too many mistakes made to justify a return to the death penalty. The possibility of one miscarriage of justice makes it an unviable proposition, no doubt people will start to spout off about DNA evidence but to refute that I'm going to bring up a case from the US about 2 months ago, a guy had been convicted of murder on DNA evidence and had spent time on death row. Eventually new evidence came to light that exonerated him, had he been in the UK at the time of the death penalty he'd have been hanged within a month of the sentence being handed down.
We don't actually celebrate Guy Fawkes and his actions, we celebrate him being caught. God save the king and all that. Why do you think he is burnt in effigy every year? It's a re enactment (although a slightly sanitised version) of his death.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before Lee Rigby was brought up and I haven't seen any proof yet that the perpetrator of the act against the army cadet was on the same scale, the attacker was described as smelling of alcohol for starters but Lee Rigby's killers wanted martyrdom, that's why they hung around. They expected the police to kill them so they'd get their 72 virgins (imagine if it were 72 Susan Boyles lol).
I don't think it's the judiciary that needs to be overhauled mate, they act within the law and sentencing guidelines given to them by politicians however the system does appear to be completely unfit for purpose. Maybe we should take a good hard look at how things are done in certain Scandanavian countries where the emphasis is on rehabilitation rather than punishment because they, statistically, have a far lesser rate of recidivism than we do. I have to say though that for some crimes I think a life sentence should mean exactly that.

Here Here Trev end of debate???

 

[trev]

The man was as they say " Going Prepared ". He had a lighter and aerosol and chose to spray a young man with fire.
Never mind what you say about being a vigilante, if you'd have seen it happen would you have walked away or visited violence upon him?

Would I have stopped the attack? Yes I'd have done everything in my power to. Would I have administered a retribution beating? No, I'd have used as much reasonable force as I needed to and as the law allows.

 

[Slowhand]

Would I have stopped the attack? Yes I'd have done everything in my power to. Would I have administered a retribution beating? No, I'd have used as much reasonable force as I needed to and as the law allows.

I admire you for that Trev, you have far more self restraint than I can rely on in myself.

 

[trev]

I admire you for that Trev, you have far more self restraint than I can rely on in myself.

The end result would have probably been the same in both cases mate but in law intent is the thing that matters. I'd have been using reasonable force to prevent an assault on a child. You'd have been beating the stuffing out of someone for it

 

[Slowhand]

You're right there Trev I agree entirely with what you've said.

Not wanting to start a debate here, this is just a thought....
I wonder what constitutes reasonable force when someone is attacking a child with an improvised flamethrower?

 

[trev]

I think it's two fold mate, 1 when the attack against the victim stops and 2 when the assailant has stopped resisting.
It's a potential minefield, that guy who stoved someone's head in with a cricket bat a couple of years back acted unlawfully because they were walking away from his property so there was no risk of an attack on it or any of his family. Had they been still on his property then he'd probably have gotten away with it.

 

[Silly Sausage]

I wonder what constitutes reasonable force when someone is attacking a child with an improvised flamethrower?

An aerosol shoved up their arse?

 

[gnuuser]

truly a tragic thing to happen to the cadets.
vigilante tacticts no but if duly convicted in a court of law then acts like that warrant severe punishment.
there is no rehabilitation strong enough for someone who would commit such a cruel act.

rehabilitation does work wonders for a lot of people but not everyone
having a compulsion to commit a crime rehabilitation can resolve issues such as this
but even under the influence of alcohol to lower inhibitions the intent there to commit a crime cannot be rehabilitated.
and acts of violence such as this shows pure un-reasoning hatred

 

[Besoeker]

Come off it guys, you can't seriously be advocating vigilante justice here can you?
The "PC judges" are bound to apply and uphold the law as it stands, not what anyone would like it to be, and there are good reasons for that.
Vigilante justice is no justice at all.

I've read through this thread a couple of times now and some quite polarised opinions are coming out.
What happened to the cadet is abhorrent and inexcusable.

A couple or three points.

I completely agree with you - retribution on the perpetrator by third parties would turn one crime into two - or more.
The case of Tony Martin, Norfolk farmer, comes to mind when he shot at the fleeing intruders. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no sympathy for what the intruders did, but Martin had already defended his property on that occasion. This pursuing further offensive action resulting in a fatality was inexcusable in my opinion.

I'm also with you on the capital punishment issue. I don't agree with it. We have had a number of convictions quashed of different grounds.
Guildford Four and Birmingham Six come to mind.
The finding of guilt comes from a jury - a group of individuals with no particular expertise on the matter in hand. They get information to assimilate from both sides. Making different cases for guilt or innocence of those standing trial.
They have to come to a verdict based on what information they are given.

How reliable is that? Not very in some cases. Miscarriages happen.
Should the life or death of an individual depend on the collective views and deliberations of a dozen laymen?
I don't think so.

Severity of sentencing - judges, as you say, have limited options. Whether they deploy those to best effect - possibly not

 

[rapparee]

I'm also with you on the capital punishment issue. I don't agree with it. We have had a number of convictions quashed of different grounds.
Guildford Four and Birmingham Six come to mind.
The finding of guilt comes from a jury - a group of individuals with no particular expertise on the matter in hand. They get information to assimilate from both sides. Making different cases for guilt or innocence of those standing trial.
They have to come to a verdict based on what information they are given.

How reliable is that? Not very in some cases. Miscarriages happen.
Should the life or death of an individual depend on the collective views and deliberations of a dozen laymen?
I don't think so.

Severity of sentencing - judges, as you say, have limited options. Whether they deploy those to best effect - possibly not

Id have to disagree with you a jury would be my prefered choice of trial. The use of diplock courts in my view shouldnt be encouraged. The judicary are mostly white, male, middle aged upper-class what chance has a young working class dark skinned defendant got. In the past diplock courts were used in northern Ireland against catholics suspected of being republicans, they would not have been regarded as fair or unbiased at least with a jury you should have a cross section of society to condemn you.

 

[trev]

I too would rather rely on a jury made up of a cross section of the public although I read it as a jury should not have to decide life or death.

 

[Besoeker]

I too would rather rely on a jury made up of a cross section of the public although I read it as a jury should not have to decide life or death.

I agree. They should not have to be arbiters on a decision of whether capital punishment is appropriate.

But, if capital punishment was an option and they returned a guilty verdict, they would be part of that decision. Knowing that they might be party to an execution might, just might, make them less objective.

And that leaves aside the possibility that their verdict might have been wrong anyway.

 

[Barry White]

You're right there Trev I agree entirely with what you've said.

Not wanting to start a debate here, this is just a thought....
I wonder what constitutes reasonable force when someone is attacking a child with an improvised flamethrower?

In my eyes anything that stops him the young boy could have been killed or blinded .