The police have done top work & they got him.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8539830/man-charged-with-meaghers-murder


Quote:

It is believed Bayley helped officers locate Ms Meagher's body, which was found in Gisborne South about 1.45am on Friday. Officers are continuing to conduct a forensic analysis at the scene.

Hang em and hang em high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsMQABEiRMc

A bit harsh there Bobby, after all, he may have had  a difficult childhood...

Sorry...I forgot to say "poor diddums".

This is a terrible tragedy and shows us that we should never accept sexaul and physical violence of any kind.

Ditto.

10/10...

The police have done top work & they got him.
We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(    

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(

We can only hope they got the right person, but apparently there is a few witnesses to testify that this man has tried to abduct women before.

Women must be ever vigilant when alone at night, in a perfect world there would be no men lurking in the streets after dark, but the world is far from perfect, unfortunately.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

We can only hope they got the right person, but apparently there is a few witnesses to testify that this man has tried to abduct women before. Women must be ever vigilant when alone at night, in a perfect world there would be no men lurking in the streets after dark, but the world is far from perfect, unfortunately.

It's a terrible tragedy. Young women are very vulnerable, but by 30 - they are usually becoming more cautious. It's hard to imagine her even wanting to walk that short distance home through a dark, empty alley, but she had her guard down.

wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(

That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal
& then hang em.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 8:59am:

wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     We can only hope they got the right person, but apparently there is a few witnesses to testify that this man has tried to abduct women before. Women must be ever vigilant when alone at night, in a perfect world there would be no men lurking in the streets after dark, but the world is far from perfect, unfortunately.

He lead them to the body.

Safe to say this guy wont want a trial.  Im putting my money on a plea bargain.

This will be one of the few cases where people will be putting their hands up to do jury duty.

Verge,

Quote:

I'm putting my money on a plea bargain.

What plea could he make?

the rapid growth in surveillance cameras will probably lead to more and more of these sort of criminals being caught.

is heavy video and camera surveillance a deterant to these sort of crimes.  my small understanding was that whilst they are useful tools to solve crimes and for court evidence, criminals tend to be impulsive and stupid and are not as put off by cameras as one would intuitively think??

Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'(i


*I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

Verge, Quote: I'm putting my money on a plea bargain. What plea could he make?

Plead out to avoid a trial, take 20 years for an early guilty plea.

aquascoot wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

the rapid growth in surveillance cameras will probably lead to more and more of these sort of criminals being caught. is heavy video and camera surveillance a deterant to these sort of crimes.  my small understanding was that whilst they are useful tools to solve crimes and for court evidence, criminals tend to be impulsive and stupid and are not as put off by cameras as one would intuitively think??

I think surveillance cameras are good after the the fact, but they do little to deter criminals. Maybe the shifty serial killer would be on the lookout for cameras but they wouldn't enter into the mind of the impulsive first timer.

mantra wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:59am: We can only hope they got the right person, but apparently there is a few witnesses to testify that this man has tried to abduct women before. Women must be ever vigilant when alone at night, in a perfect world there would be no men lurking in the streets after dark, but the world is far from perfect, unfortunately. It's a terrible tragedy. Young women are very vulnerable, but by 30 - they are usually becoming more cautious. It's hard to imagine her even wanting to walk that short distance home through a dark, empty alley, but she had her guard down.

She may not have had the taxi fare on her. No choice - gotta get home.

SOB

Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

mantra wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:15am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:59am: We can only hope they got the right person, but apparently there is a few witnesses to testify that this man has tried to abduct women before. Women must be ever vigilant when alone at night, in a perfect world there would be no men lurking in the streets after dark, but the world is far from perfect, unfortunately. It's a terrible tragedy. Young women are very vulnerable, but by 30 - they are usually becoming more cautious. It's hard to imagine her even wanting to walk that short distance home through a dark, empty alley, but she had her guard down. She may not have had the taxi fare on her. No choice - gotta get home. SOB

She only lived 700m away.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB

As dumb as it gets. :( :( :(

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal & then hang em.

sending him to jail is a waste of tax payers money.

take him to the zoo and throw him in the lions cage. then he can experience fear before he gets chopped up into little pieces ;)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB

How do you know?

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:15am: Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB As dumb as it gets. :( :( :(

borg, for someone who seems down on trolls that is a fairly troll like statement

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB

You really are pathetic excuse for a person.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:35am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal & then hang em. sending him to jail is a waste of tax payers money. take him to the zoo and throw him in the lions cage. then he can experience fear before he gets chopped up into little pieces ;)

Comments like this are a poor reflection on society.

No wonder we have animals like the Jill Meagher rapist/murderer walking around if this is the attitude of our law abiding citizens.

Anyway, the cops have done a good job on this one.  I just hope they've got the right guy (no reason to think they haven't at this stage) and that he's locked away for a very long time.

I've got a couple of daughters in Melbourne, so I certainly don't want this guy back on the streets.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:29am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:35am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal & then hang em. sending him to jail is a waste of tax payers money. take him to the zoo and throw him in the lions cage. then he can experience fear before he gets chopped up into little pieces ;) Comments like this are a poor reflection on society. No wonder we have animals like the Jill Meagher rapist/murderer walking around if this is the attitude of our law abiding citizens. Anyway, the cops have done a good job on this one.  I just hope they've got the right guy (no reason to think they haven't at this stage) and that he's locked away for a very long time. I've got a couple of daughters in Melbourne, so I certainly don't want this guy back on the streets.

It's a reflection of a scared and fearful society that there is still people out there that will do this.

Retrabution is a natural instinct.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB

Couldn't help yourself. A tragedy happened. You needed to do some point scoring.

Quantum wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:15am: Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB Couldn't help yourself. A tragedy happened. You needed to do some point scoring.

What an appalling comment about a tragedy.
That fking sad old loser.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 10:23am:

Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good.

You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'.

My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation.

'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.   

I am, and remain, a staunch believer in the death penalty.

Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth.

Dead people do not re-offend, 100% of the time.

Grey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:52am:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:23am: Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good. You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'. My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation. 'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.

So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment? 

Verge wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

Retrabution is a natural instinct.

And he fully deserves to be punished for his crimes.

However, talk of hangings and throwing people to the lions contributes absolutely nothing worthwhile to the debate.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

Verge wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: Retrabution is a natural instinct. And he fully deserves to be punished for his crimes. However, talk of hangings and throwing people to the lions contributes absolutely nothing worthwhile to the debate.

I agree with the last paragraph in essence of throwing people to animals etc but my support is quite different.

I support a death penalty - backed up by due process and avenues of appeal and final appeal - before a systematic removal of people by way of lethal injection.

Nobody would be removed without a trial, an appeal and a 2nd appeal.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:54am:

Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth.

Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him.

However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:01pm: Verge wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:45am: Retrabution is a natural instinct. And he fully deserves to be punished for his crimes. However, talk of hangings and throwing people to the lions contributes absolutely nothing worthwhile to the debate. I agree with the last paragraph in essence of throwing people to animals etc but my support is quite different. I support a death penalty - backed up by due process and avenues of appeal and final appeal - before a systematic removal of people by way of lethal injection. Nobody would be removed without a trial, an appeal and a 2nd appeal.

Yep, I understand where you're coming from.

However, I just can't support the notion of premeditated killings carried out by the state.  It just lowers us all to the killers' level.

Hang the bastard.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:14am: mantra wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:15am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:59am: We can only hope they got the right person, but apparently there is a few witnesses to testify that this man has tried to abduct women before. Women must be ever vigilant when alone at night, in a perfect world there would be no men lurking in the streets after dark, but the world is far from perfect, unfortunately. It's a terrible tragedy. Young women are very vulnerable, but by 30 - they are usually becoming more cautious. It's hard to imagine her even wanting to walk that short distance home through a dark, empty alley, but she had her guard down. She may not have had the taxi fare on her. No choice - gotta get home. SOB She only lived 700m away.

Yeah so not really far enough to get a taxi for . . .

SOB

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:07pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill.

Sure, we don't - but her family does. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:07pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill.

No at this moment, and the way Australia is that will probably remain.

However should this terrible tragedy have taken place here in the United States, the state most certainly does have the right and legal clout to remove said individual.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:15am: Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB How do you know?

Because of he was the media would be all over it

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:35am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal & then hang em. sending him to jail is a waste of tax payers money. take him to the zoo and throw him in the lions cage. then he can experience fear before he gets chopped up into little pieces ;)

Good idea Nail,
free food for the lions.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. No at this moment, and the way Australia is that will probably remain. However should this terrible tragedy have taken place here in the United States, the state most certainly does have the right and legal clout to remove said individual.

The legal right, sure, but they certainly don't have the moral right.

And thankfully, Australia will never have the legal right again.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

Hang the bastard.

Bobby, your view doesn't remotely help supporters of the death penalty.

The preferred method I support tries to move us as far away from the notion of the baying mob in front of the gallows as much as we can.

Mine is a support of due process, the rights of an individual to have a fair trial, to have a hearing of a panel of judges of the case and of a supreme court deciding before the execution is carried out.

As clean and as far from a baying mob mentality as you can get.
There is none further from an uninformed baying mob than a panel of Judges reviewing both side of the case and of a Supreme Court deciding this individual should die.

The "hang 'em" and "feed them to the lions" shouts actually hinders those of us that support execution than helps us.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:29am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:35am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal & then hang em. sending him to jail is a waste of tax payers money. take him to the zoo and throw him in the lions cage. then he can experience fear before he gets chopped up into little pieces ;) Comments like this are a poor reflection on society. No wonder we have animals like the Jill Meagher rapist/murderer walking around if this is the attitude of our law abiding citizens. Anyway, the cops have done a good job on this one.  I just hope they've got the right guy (no reason to think they haven't at this stage) and that he's locked away for a very long time. I've got a couple of daughters in Melbourne, so I certainly don't want this guy back on the streets.

what nonsense !!

The trouble with do-gooders is that unless something happens that directly effects them or their family then they always prescribe the softly-softly approach to dealing with crime :(

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. No at this moment, and the way Australia is that will probably remain. However should this terrible tragedy have taken place here in the United States, the state most certainly does have the right and legal clout to remove said individual. The legal right, sure, but they certainly don't have the moral right. And thankfully, Australia will never have the legal right again.

Morality is subjective.
I argue that the state does have the moral right to remove the individual should they take the life of another innocent member of society.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:52am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:23am: Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good. You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'. My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation. 'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.    So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment?

Not entirely no. In fact there is no debate about 'Nature V Nurture', good science recognises that both are in play all the time. A thing will only grow that way if it has the genetic means and the environment which makes it possible. But I never heard of Man or dog behaving so monstrously badly without having been treated appallingly when young.

Grey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:56am: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:52am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:23am: Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good. You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'. My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation. 'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.    So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment?  Not entirely no. In fact there is no debate about 'Nature V Nurture', good science recognises that both are in play all the time. A thing will only grow that way if it has the genetic means and the environment which makes it possible. But I never heard of Man or dog behaving so monstrously badly without having been treated appallingly when young.

Grey, there are numerous examples of serial killers who have come from a perfectly normal childhood and environment.

... wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. Sure, we don't - but her family does.

I don't believe so.

If it were my daughter would I feel like killing him with my own hands?  Yep, you betchya I would! However, my anger and desire for vengeance wouldn't give me the right to take another person's life.  Even if I did it, I'd be wrong in doing so.

On the other hand, if I caught him in the act I'd feel justified in using as much physical force as necessary to prevent the murder.  Even if that did result in his death.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: Hang the bastard. Bobby, your view doesn't remotely help supporters of the death penalty. The preferred method I support tries to move us as far away from the notion of the baying mob in front of the gallows as much as we can. Mine is a support of due process, the rights of an individual to have a fair trial, to have a hearing of a panel of judges of the case and of a supreme court deciding before the execution is carried out. As clean and as far from a baying mob mentality as you can get. There is none further from an uninformed baying mob than a panel of Judges reviewing both side of the case and of a Supreme Court deciding this individual should die. The "hang 'em" and "feed them to the lions" shouts actually hinders those of us that support execution than helps us.

OK then what about sending him across a crocodile infested swamp and if he makes it out to the other side in one piece then he gets to live in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. That's fair don't you think ?

I've got no time for these misfits. To me I value the life of the victim a squillion times that of the perpetrators. I certainly don't like the idea of wasting a single dollar feeding this rubbish in a holiday resort style prison just so they can boast about it to their mates :(

One fact that always supports the death penalty is re-offending.

It's an easy oft-repeated slogan here but: Dead people don't re-offend, 100% of the time.

Two families are already ruined from this tragedy - the girl's and the husbands.
An execution of the responsible of individual prevents any chance of more families needlessly suffering the same.

How many times have child molestors in Australia either escaped or been let out, only to ruin more lives?

There's your moral card.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. Sure, we don't - but her family does.  I don't believe so. If it were my daughter would I feel like killing him with my own hands?  Yep, you betchya I would! However, my anger and desire for vengeance wouldn't give me the right to take another person's life.  Even if I did it, I'd be wrong in doing so. On the other hand, if I caught him in the act I'd feel justified in using as much physical force as necessary to prevent the murder.  Even if that did result in his death.

but people are being killed in other countries all of the time for committing heinous crimes. Do you feel for these people or is it a case of out of sight out of mind ??

The problem with capital punishment is making sure you have got the right guy and there in lies the rub !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: Hang the bastard. Bobby, your view doesn't remotely help supporters of the death penalty. The preferred method I support tries to move us as far away from the notion of the baying mob in front of the gallows as much as we can. Mine is a support of due process, the rights of an individual to have a fair trial, to have a hearing of a panel of judges of the case and of a supreme court deciding before the execution is carried out. As clean and as far from a baying mob mentality as you can get. There is none further from an uninformed baying mob than a panel of Judges reviewing both side of the case and of a Supreme Court deciding this individual should die. The "hang 'em" and "feed them to the lions" shouts actually hinders those of us that support execution than helps us. OK then what about sending him across a crocodile infested swamp and if he makes it out to the other side in one piece then he gets to live in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. That's fair don't you think ? I've got no time for these misfits. To me I value the life of the victim a squillion times that of the perpetrators. I certainly don't like the idea of wasting a single dollar feeding this rubbish in a holiday resort style prison just so they can boast about it to their mates :(

The expense I am talking about is for the person to be held in prison whilst they are afforded the opportunity to argue their innocence.
You need to reduce down the potential for an innocent person going to the chair.
A jury of their peers, followed by 2 appeals gets you there.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. Sure, we don't - but her family does.  I don't believe so. If it were my daughter would I feel like killing him with my own hands?  Yep, you betchya I would! However, my anger and desire for vengeance wouldn't give me the right to take another person's life.  Even if I did it, I'd be wrong in doing so. On the other hand, if I caught him in the act I'd feel justified in using as much physical force as necessary to prevent the murder.  Even if that did result in his death.

I'm glad that someone is keeping the conversation within the realms of reality.

To the eye for an eye brigade. Murder is such a horrible thing, how can you condemn murder by condoning it?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:12pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. No at this moment, and the way Australia is that will probably remain. However should this terrible tragedy have taken place here in the United States, the state most certainly does have the right and legal clout to remove said individual. The legal right, sure, but they certainly don't have the moral right. And thankfully, Australia will never have the legal right again. Morality is subjective. I argue that the state does have the moral right to remove the individual should they take the life of another innocent member of society.

Does the state have the right to put young cannabis offenders into a cage that contains such monsters? It does so quite matter of factly. It also releases monsters into the community knowing they have experienced no remorse and have a high likelyhood of doing it again. This guy has a very good chance of being put back on the street within 10 years. He will have had no 'corrective treatment' at all. In fact his predatory instincts towards the rest of society will have been enforced. 

I don't disagree on that point.
I have long argued that crime and punishment in today's modern age is far too weak.

Under the system I would have in place, this gentleman would certainly not be going back out onto the street again.

In fact, guilty of 1st degree murder and rape would earn him a place on the bus out of here.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:38am: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:29am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:35am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal & then hang em. sending him to jail is a waste of tax payers money. take him to the zoo and throw him in the lions cage. then he can experience fear before he gets chopped up into little pieces ;) Comments like this are a poor reflection on society. No wonder we have animals like the Jill Meagher rapist/murderer walking around if this is the attitude of our law abiding citizens. Anyway, the cops have done a good job on this one.  I just hope they've got the right guy (no reason to think they haven't at this stage) and that he's locked away for a very long time. I've got a couple of daughters in Melbourne, so I certainly don't want this guy back on the streets. what nonsense !! The trouble with do-gooders is that unless something happens that directly effects them or their family then they always prescribe the softly-softly approach to dealing with crime :(

If convicted, I've stated that I want this guy locked away "for a very long time".  In fact, I said that "I certainly don't want this guy back on the streets".

To you, that makes me a "do-gooder".

I'm sorry, but I just can't take comments like yours seriously.

While I don't support Andrei's view on capital punishment, I certainly understand his argument and the logic behind it.

Even though I can never envisage my views on capital punishment changing, I will at least still listen to people like Andrei when they voice their opinions.

However, "throw them to the lions" and "do-gooder" talk will receive very little respect from me.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:15pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:14pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:56am: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:52am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:23am: Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good. You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'. My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation. 'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.    So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment?  Not entirely no. In fact there is no debate about 'Nature V Nurture', good science recognises that both are in play all the time. A thing will only grow that way if it has the genetic means and the environment which makes it possible. But I never heard of Man or dog behaving so monstrously badly without having been treated appallingly when young. Grey, there are numerous examples of serial killers who have come from a perfectly normal childhood and environment.

Name one.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

but people are being killed in other countries all of the time for committing heinous crimes. Do you feel for these people ...

Nope.  Not in the slightest.

I object to premeditated state-sanctioned killings.  That's what I'm talking about here.

I have no sympathy at all for people who commit "heinous crimes".

Grey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:15pm: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:14pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:56am: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:52am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:23am: Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good. You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'. My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation. 'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.    So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment?  Not entirely no. In fact there is no debate about 'Nature V Nurture', good science recognises that both are in play all the time. A thing will only grow that way if it has the genetic means and the environment which makes it possible. But I never heard of Man or dog behaving so monstrously badly without having been treated appallingly when young. Grey, there are numerous examples of serial killers who have come from a perfectly normal childhood and environment. Name one.

Dennis Rader

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Oh what a surprise he isnt muslim. SOB

how do you know?

if he is found guiilty they should execute him ... for far to often the softly softly approach hasn't worked and lots of innocents have become victims because we thought some scum was rehabilitated .... I say we bypass the stick and go straight for the gun in cases of pre meditated murder where guilt is beyond question, a life for a life

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:15pm: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:14pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:56am: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:52am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:23am: Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good. You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'. My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation. 'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.    So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment?  Not entirely no. In fact there is no debate about 'Nature V Nurture', good science recognises that both are in play all the time. A thing will only grow that way if it has the genetic means and the environment which makes it possible. But I never heard of Man or dog behaving so monstrously badly without having been treated appallingly when young. Grey, there are numerous examples of serial killers who have come from a perfectly normal childhood and environment. Name one. Dennis Rader

I assume there are some - but what is more telling is that not everyone who was treated appallingly goes bad.
Traits are not set in stone - they are triggered by circumstance.  With a different upbringing Charles Manson might have been a saint, and Mother Theresea might have been a serial killer. 
But, I don't think you can blame "society" - you blame those who made the monster with their actions, and the monster itself.

Quote:

So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment?

The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is worth debate.
Personally, I think that monsters of this type usually contain ingredients of both inherent and societal problems.

Without question, these types of heinous crimes are most often committed by males, and no amount of help from society will ever eradicate the inherent risks that some pose to others.

I think that it's unlikely that Installing more CCTV's would achieve anything other than pushing the risk of violent crime to different areas.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:13pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: Hang the bastard. Bobby, your view doesn't remotely help supporters of the death penalty. The preferred method I support tries to move us as far away from the notion of the baying mob in front of the gallows as much as we can. Mine is a support of due process, the rights of an individual to have a fair trial, to have a hearing of a panel of judges of the case and of a supreme court deciding before the execution is carried out. As clean and as far from a baying mob mentality as you can get. There is none further from an uninformed baying mob than a panel of Judges reviewing both side of the case and of a Supreme Court deciding this individual should die. The "hang 'em" and "feed them to the lions" shouts actually hinders those of us that support execution than helps us. OK then what about sending him across a crocodile infested swamp and if he makes it out to the other side in one piece then he gets to live in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. That's fair don't you think ? I've got no time for these misfits. To me I value the life of the victim a squillion times that of the perpetrators. I certainly don't like the idea of wasting a single dollar feeding this rubbish in a holiday resort style prison just so they can boast about it to their mates :(

Hear hear Nail,
I still say:


Hang the bastard.

John Smith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:41pm:

if he is found guiilty they should execute him ... for far to often the softly softly approach hasn't worked and lots of innocents have become victims because we thought some scum was rehabilitated .... I say we bypass the stick and go straight for the gun in cases of pre meditated murder where guilt is beyond question, a life for a life

I understand what you're saying here, however, you don't really mean it.

If we stick to your "life for a life" argument, who will then take the life of the executioner?

I'm with you all the way: there is just no place in the world for premeditated killing.

However, calling one "murder" and the other "capital punishment" is little more than semantics.

Ultimately someone dies as a result of the plans made by another.

Of course it's all subjective, as Andrei pointed out, but I just can't support premeditated killing for any reason, by any person (or authority).

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:17pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. Sure, we don't - but her family does.  I don't believe so. If it were my daughter would I feel like killing him with my own hands?  Yep, you betchya I would! However, my anger and desire for vengeance wouldn't give me the right to take another person's life.  Even if I did it, I'd be wrong in doing so. On the other hand, if I caught him in the act I'd feel justified in using as much physical force as necessary to prevent the murder.  Even if that did result in his death. I'm glad that someone is keeping the conversation within the realms of reality. To the eye for an eye brigade. Murder is such a horrible thing, how can you condemn murder by condoning it?

You're not. You are stopping it from happening again by getting rid of the source of the problem.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:35pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:15pm: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:14pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:56am: Grey wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:52am: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:23am: Society has failed this man.  We all must share the blame for creating a society that allowed this to happen*    :'( *I know I know, this sentiment only excuses minorities.  Flog him good. You're nearly quoting me accurately. But quite out of context. I have said that more than once - while advocating FOR the death penalty; and nothing to do with 'minorities'. My argument is that all such monsters are babies that we as a society failed. Sometimes people grow so horribly bad that 'putting them down', as we would a mad dog, is probably valid. But spare me the self righteous indignation. 'Minorities' is in anycase a word I don't use. I don't like it because I am a minority of one as far as I'm concerned, and have no problem with that. What are termed minority groups are in fact more like majority groups.    So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment?  Not entirely no. In fact there is no debate about 'Nature V Nurture', good science recognises that both are in play all the time. A thing will only grow that way if it has the genetic means and the environment which makes it possible. But I never heard of Man or dog behaving so monstrously badly without having been treated appallingly when young. Grey, there are numerous examples of serial killers who have come from a perfectly normal childhood and environment. Name one. Dennis Rader

Quote:

"There are millions of sociopaths, most of whom never become serial killers," Levin says. "They may lie when they sell you a used car, but killing is not their cup of tea." Exactly how someone like Rader becomes a psychopath and a serial killer has been hotly debated for decades. "Some people believe there is a biological predisposition or faulty [brain] wiring, and others suggest that serial killers fail to bond during early childhood," Levin explains. Levin says that most of them have suffered as children. "They are often physically or verbally abused, abandoned, adopted under terrible circumstances or violated by a parent and grow up with profound feelings of powerlessness," he says. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=50579

We cannot arrive at a definitive conclusion Andrei. Sometimes childhood trauma can be a secret that is never revealed. I simply refuse the notion of 'evil babies'.

Amadd wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Quote: So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment? The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is worth debate. Personally, I think that monsters of this type usually contain ingredients of both inherent and societal problems. Without question, these types of heinous crimes are most often committed by males, and no amount of help from society will ever eradicate the inherent risks that some pose to others. I think that it's unlikely that Installing more CCTV's would achieve anything other than pushing the risk of violent crime to different areas.

That's not a good comment given it seems a CCTV camera caught the offender and recorded the incident which led the police to this guy's door.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:41pm: if he is found guiilty they should execute him ... for far to often the softly softly approach hasn't worked and lots of innocents have become victims because we thought some scum was rehabilitated .... I say we bypass the stick and go straight for the gun in cases of pre meditated murder where guilt is beyond question, a life for a life I understand what you're saying here, however, you don't really mean it. If we stick to your "life for a life" argument, who will then take the life of the executioner? I'm with you all the way: there is just no place in the world for premeditated killing. However, calling one "murder" and the other "capital punishment" is little more than semantics. Ultimately someone dies as a result of the plans made by another. Of course it's all subjective, as Andrei pointed out, but I just can't support premeditated killing for any reason, by any person (or authority).

You would support it if it was someone in your family who was a victim !!

However I should add CCTV is purely a means of capturing the incident.

It will not be able to do anything other than be reactive and it regards to prevention it merely kicks the can down the road and pushes the incident to an un-camera'd place.

Amadd wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Quote: So you believe our behaviour is entirely the product of our environment? The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is worth debate. Personally, I think that monsters of this type usually contain ingredients of both inherent and societal problems. Without question, these types of heinous crimes are most often committed by males, and no amount of help from society will ever eradicate the inherent risks that some pose to others. I think that it's unlikely that Installing more CCTV's would achieve anything other than pushing the risk of violent crime to different areas.

Are you kidding !!

It's that CCTV footage from that shop that gave the cops their biggest lead otherwise it would still be a mystery. We need more cameras and if you don't like it then learn to behave yourself in public places because the cops will have a record of it ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:41pm: if he is found guiilty they should execute him ... for far to often the softly softly approach hasn't worked and lots of innocents have become victims because we thought some scum was rehabilitated .... I say we bypass the stick and go straight for the gun in cases of pre meditated murder where guilt is beyond question, a life for a life I understand what you're saying here, however, you don't really mean it. If we stick to your "life for a life" argument, who will then take the life of the executioner? I'm with you all the way: there is just no place in the world for premeditated killing. However, calling one "murder" and the other "capital punishment" is little more than semantics. Ultimately someone dies as a result of the plans made by another. Of course it's all subjective, as Andrei pointed out, but I just can't support premeditated killing for any reason, by any person (or authority).

why would you take the life of the executioner? the executioner hasn't broken any laws, in fact he enforces the laws ...

you're just taking the argument to extremes because you have nothing else to offer ....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

However I should add CCTV is purely a means of capturing the incident. It will not be able to do anything other than be reactive and it regards to prevention it merely kicks the can down the road and pushes the incident to an un-camera'd place.

everything helps ;)

Grey, you asked the question though.

Rader is a prime example of a guy who comes from a completely normal background.
He went to university, he is one of 4 children, they attended the local church, he had a stable family, he wasn't a loner etc.

There is nothing out of the ordinary about Dennis Rader's life other than the fact at some point or another he decided to murder 10 people over 3 decades.

I can give you other examples but there is no point because Rader shows that you don't have to have been treated badly as a kid to become a nutcase.

You stated no human would behave so appallingly without having it done to them.
Rader did.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

Grey, you asked the question though. Rader is a prime example of a guy who comes from a completely normal background. He went to university, he is one of 4 children, they attended the local church, he had a stable family, he wasn't a loner etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about Dennis Rader's life other than the fact at some point or another he decided to murder 10 people over 3 decades. I can give you other examples but there is no point because Rader shows that you don't have to have been treated badly as a kid to become a nutcase. You stated no human would behave so appallingly without having it done to them. Rader did.

Well if he believed in fairies there was something wrong with him.

SOB

Seriously spot, you are an idiot, you add nothing.
So unless you have something of value to add, just maybe read and don't post.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:08pm: Grey, you asked the question though. Rader is a prime example of a guy who comes from a completely normal background. He went to university, he is one of 4 children, they attended the local church, he had a stable family, he wasn't a loner etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about Dennis Rader's life other than the fact at some point or another he decided to murder 10 people over 3 decades. I can give you other examples but there is no point because Rader shows that you don't have to have been treated badly as a kid to become a nutcase. You stated no human would behave so appallingly without having it done to them. Rader did. Well if he believed in fairies there was something wrong with him. SOB

LOL, the trolling troll hater.

You're gold Private.

Caught any mortar rounds to day.
>>>>

PS Drag him out the back and shot the ****.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:08pm: Grey, you asked the question though. Rader is a prime example of a guy who comes from a completely normal background. He went to university, he is one of 4 children, they attended the local church, he had a stable family, he wasn't a loner etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about Dennis Rader's life other than the fact at some point or another he decided to murder 10 people over 3 decades. I can give you other examples but there is no point because Rader shows that you don't have to have been treated badly as a kid to become a nutcase. You stated no human would behave so appallingly without having it done to them. Rader did. Well if he believed in fairies there was something wrong with him. SOB LOL, the trolling troll hater. You're gold Private. Caught any mortar rounds to day. >>>> PS Drag him out the back and shot the ****.

The only person i have actually called a troll that i remember is andrei. You are confusing me with someone else.

Meanwhile got anything to say on topic?

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:16pm:

Seriously spot, you are an idiot, you add nothing. So unless you have something of value to add, just maybe read and don't post.

Just because you dont think it is of value doesnt mean its not. Being a religious nut is reason enough for a lot of murderers all over the world. The voices in their heads tell them to do it or that its okay to do it or in the case of some xtian religions they figger they will be forgiven.

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:17pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. Sure, we don't - but her family does.  I don't believe so. If it were my daughter would I feel like killing him with my own hands?  Yep, you betchya I would! However, my anger and desire for vengeance wouldn't give me the right to take another person's life.  Even if I did it, I'd be wrong in doing so. On the other hand, if I caught him in the act I'd feel justified in using as much physical force as necessary to prevent the murder.  Even if that did result in his death. I'm glad that someone is keeping the conversation within the realms of reality. To the eye for an eye brigade. Murder is such a horrible thing, how can you condemn murder by condoning it? You're not. You are stopping it from happening again by getting rid of the source of the problem.

Yep, you're dead right there: an executed murderer certainly will not murder again. 

However, it doesn't deter other people from committing murder.

"The death penalty fails to deter crime or lower murder rates, according to an overwhelming majority of top criminologists questioned for a U.S. university study published this week."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/death-penalty-study/2009/06/18/id/330990

" Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology ... "

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

The death penalty not only fails to stop other criminals from murdering, it also turns the state into a premeditated killer. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:39pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:17pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. Sure, we don't - but her family does.  I don't believe so. If it were my daughter would I feel like killing him with my own hands?  Yep, you betchya I would! However, my anger and desire for vengeance wouldn't give me the right to take another person's life.  Even if I did it, I'd be wrong in doing so. On the other hand, if I caught him in the act I'd feel justified in using as much physical force as necessary to prevent the murder.  Even if that did result in his death. I'm glad that someone is keeping the conversation within the realms of reality. To the eye for an eye brigade. Murder is such a horrible thing, how can you condemn murder by condoning it? You're not. You are stopping it from happening again by getting rid of the source of the problem. Yep, you're dead right there: an executed murderer certainly will not murder again.  However, it doesn't deter other people from committing murder. "The death penalty fails to deter crime or lower murder rates, according to an overwhelming majority of top criminologists questioned for a U.S. university study published this week." http://www.newsmax.com/US/death-penalty-study/2009/06/18/id/330990 " Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology ... " http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty The death penalty not only fails to stop other criminals from murdering, it also turns the state into a premeditated killer.

if you care to look at the number of people in jails, it would seem incarcerating people does not deter them .. I know, lets reward criminals instead of punishing them ...

Quote:

That's not a good comment given it seems a CCTV camera caught the offender and recorded the incident which led the police to this guy's door.

If the road happened to be lined with CCTVs, then the offender may have waited for a quiet area where there were no cameras at all, and may still be on the loose today.
Is that what you're saying?

I think it's possible that CCTVs may prevent the odd clown from setting fire to a garbage bin on that particular road, or maybe even (or not) the odd scuffle, however, it won't prevent a madman from planning to carry out some insane desire.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:16pm: Seriously spot, you are an idiot, you add nothing. So unless you have something of value to add, just maybe read and don't post. Just because you dont think it is of value doesnt mean its not. Being a religious nut is reason enough for a lot of murderers all over the world. The voices in their heads tell them to do it or that its okay to do it or in the case of some xtian religions they figger they will be forgiven. SOB

"A religious nut".
The guy Grey and I referred to - attended a small church in Kansas with his family.

Like I said, just maybe slow down the postings and stick to areas where you can add value.
At this rate by Feb you will have 16,000 posts you know.

John Smith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:39pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:59pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:17pm: ... wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:54am: Should this gentleman be found guilty of the opportune rape and murder of an innocent young lady - ruining a set of families for life - he has, in my mind, given up his right to exist on this earth. Yep, he probably has.  I certainly wouldn't miss him. However, we don't actually have the right to kill people.  We all may wish him dead, but we have no right to actually carry out the killing.  Just as he had no right to kill Jill. Sure, we don't - but her family does.  I don't believe so. If it were my daughter would I feel like killing him with my own hands?  Yep, you betchya I would! However, my anger and desire for vengeance wouldn't give me the right to take another person's life.  Even if I did it, I'd be wrong in doing so. On the other hand, if I caught him in the act I'd feel justified in using as much physical force as necessary to prevent the murder.  Even if that did result in his death. I'm glad that someone is keeping the conversation within the realms of reality. To the eye for an eye brigade. Murder is such a horrible thing, how can you condemn murder by condoning it? You're not. You are stopping it from happening again by getting rid of the source of the problem. Yep, you're dead right there: an executed murderer certainly will not murder again.  However, it doesn't deter other people from committing murder. "The death penalty fails to deter crime or lower murder rates, according to an overwhelming majority of top criminologists questioned for a U.S. university study published this week." http://www.newsmax.com/US/death-penalty-study/2009/06/18/id/330990 " Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology ... " http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty The death penalty not only fails to stop other criminals from murdering, it also turns the state into a premeditated killer.  if you care to look at the number of people in jails, it would seem incarcerating people does not deter them ..

Yep, it seems that way.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:39pm:

The death penalty not only fails to stop other criminals from murdering, it also turns the state into a premeditated killer.

But you can turn your argument on its head and say who is the state to deprive someone of their liberty and there are plenty of human rights groups who have stated they believe the mass crowding in prisons to be inhumane as well.

Do they get listened to? No of course not, Governments know there are no votes in pandering to this and the general public often is pretty boisterous on this area.
Nobody wins elections declaring it is soft on crime and punishment.

However if you declare the state to be a killer for holding capital punishment, you should also say it is a hostage-taker by jailing people.
Absurd stance I know but you see how ridiculous that argument can get?

An execution carried out following a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, following an appeal heard by 3 Judges who declare the conviction to be sound, followed again if requested by a review of a Supreme Court of Judges that the verdict is sound.
That's not murder at all.

Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge.
I have no answers to why these sorts of crimes happen but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge. I have no answers to why these sorts of crimes happen but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system.

Agree 110%.

Well said!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:43pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:16pm: Seriously spot, you are an idiot, you add nothing. So unless you have something of value to add, just maybe read and don't post. Just because you dont think it is of value doesnt mean its not. Being a religious nut is reason enough for a lot of murderers all over the world. The voices in their heads tell them to do it or that its okay to do it or in the case of some xtian religions they figger they will be forgiven. SOB "A religious nut". The guy Grey and I referred to - attended a small church in Kansas with his family. Like I said, just maybe slow down the postings and stick to areas where you can add value. At this rate by Feb you will have 16,000 posts you know.

Well if the only thing in my argument that you disagree with is my usage of the words "religious nut" then why did you even reply? You obviously dont have anything on topic to say.

SOB

whilst not really liking to add fear and not wanting to live in fear myself. there is probably a place (maybe in the future) for a small gps transmitter linked to a panic button that calls the authorities if triggered.

the epirb on my boat will have rescue services at my site within 20 minutes.

small personal emergency positioning radar indicating beacons would be something perhaps someone will invent

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:08pm: Grey, you asked the question though. Rader is a prime example of a guy who comes from a completely normal background. He went to university, he is one of 4 children, they attended the local church, he had a stable family, he wasn't a loner etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about Dennis Rader's life other than the fact at some point or another he decided to murder 10 people over 3 decades. I can give you other examples but there is no point because Rader shows that you don't have to have been treated badly as a kid to become a nutcase. You stated no human would behave so appallingly without having it done to them. Rader did. Well if he believed in fairies there was something wrong with him. SOB

Why are you trying to turn this into a debate about religion.

Try and put a bit more thought and effort into your posts, this nonsensical ranting just makes peoples heads hurt after a while trying to figure out whether you are playing the fool, or whether you suffer a form of mental retardation at which we will cut you slack.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:39pm: The death penalty not only fails to stop other criminals from murdering, it also turns the state into a premeditated killer.  But you can turn your argument on its head and say who is the state to deprive someone of their liberty and there are plenty of human rights groups who have stated they believe the mass crowding in prisons to be inhumane as well. Do they get listened to? No of course not, Governments know there are no votes in pandering to this and the general public often is pretty boisterous on this area. Nobody wins elections declaring it is soft on crime and punishment. However if you declare the state to be a killer for holding capital punishment, you should also say it is a hostage-taker by jailing people. Absurd stance I know but you see how ridiculous that argument can get?

I don't think that stance is absurd at all.  I perfectly understand the arguments put forward by human rights groups.

I'm not 100% comfortable with prisons either.

However, criminals like this do need to be removed from society (in my opinion) and I'm more comfortable with imprisonment than I am with state-sanctioned killing.  Mind you, I'm not 100% comfortable with it but at least it doesn't involve killing. 

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

An execution carried out following a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, following an appeal heard by 3 Judges who declare the conviction to be sound, followed again if requested by a review of a Supreme Court of Judges that the verdict is sound. That's not murder at all.

It's premeditated killing.

Call it what you will - murder or execution - but it's ultimately the same thing: premeditated killing.

It's my subjective view that nation states should not be in the business of premeditated killing.

Hang em and hang em high.

aquascoot wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

whilst not really liking to add fear and not wanting to live in fear myself. there is probably a place (maybe in the future) for a small gps transmitter linked to a panic button that calls the authorities if triggered. the epirb on my boat will have rescue services at my site within 20 minutes. small personal emergency positioning radar indicating beacons would be something perhaps someone will invent

They are available now - PLBs. Just like the EPIRB on your boat only small and intended to be carried around on your life jacket/pocket/etc. Not really that useful in cases like this though.

A better solution would be a simple app for your iPhone, Android, etc. Many have inbuilt GPS so it'd be just a matter of hitting the panic button and the phone could forward your position to 000

Gist wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

aquascoot wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:15pm: whilst not really liking to add fear and not wanting to live in fear myself. there is probably a place (maybe in the future) for a small gps transmitter linked to a panic button that calls the authorities if triggered. the epirb on my boat will have rescue services at my site within 20 minutes. small personal emergency positioning radar indicating beacons would be something perhaps someone will invent They are available now - PLBs. Just like the EPIRB on your boat only small and intended to be carried around on your life jacket/pocket/etc. Not really that useful in cases like this though. A better solution would be a simple app for your iPhone, Android, etc. Many have inbuilt GPS so it'd be just a matter of hitting the panic button and the phone could forward your position to 000

This is a great idea Gist.  It is sad, but many of societys best ideas have been born out of tragety.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:08pm:

Grey, you asked the question though. Rader is a prime example of a guy who comes from a completely normal background. He went to university, he is one of 4 children, they attended the local church, he had a stable family, he wasn't a loner etc. There is nothing out of the ordinary about Dennis Rader's life other than the fact at some point or another he decided to murder 10 people over 3 decades. I can give you other examples but there is no point because Rader shows that you don't have to have been treated badly as a kid to become a nutcase. You stated no human would behave so appallingly without having it done to them. Rader did.

I asked the question, no argument there. And when you supplied a name I googled and looked at a few links. None of them substantiate these rather wild assertions you're making.

The best you can say is that childhood trauma has not been conclusively identified in his case. As a matter of fact you could, so far as i'm aware, say the same about Ivan Milat. Some of these families are so close knit and secretive that their dark corners are never identified.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty ...

Yep, mine too.  I'm forced to seriously question my views.


adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

... but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge.

Absolutely.  The killing has to stop at some point.


adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

...  but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system.

100% agreed.  Thankfully Australia has maintained a civilised system for the last 45 years.

It still surprises me how an "advanced" country like the USA can still have states participating in such a barbarous practice.

aquascoot wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

whilst not really liking to add fear and not wanting to live in fear myself. there is probably a place (maybe in the future) for a small gps transmitter linked to a panic button that calls the authorities if triggered. the epirb on my boat will have rescue services at my site within 20 minutes. small personal emergency positioning radar indicating beacons would be something perhaps someone will invent

I don't think this will work .. I think if some system like this is introduced they will be so over used that police won't have the numbers to respond effectively. People will panick just because someone looks at them wrong or they overhear a part of a conversation and get the wrong end of the stick .... just look at how many 'emergency' calls 000 gets ...

I heard a recording on radio once where the emergency operator told the woman who called that it was an offense to call 000 unless it was an emergency to which the woman replied 'it is an emergency, if I don't know how long to cook the cake it will burn'.... she called them to ask how long to cook a sponge cake at 180 degrees .....

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty ... Yep, mine too.  I'm forced to seriously question my views. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ... but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge. Absolutely.  The killing has to stop at some point. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ...  but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system. 100% agreed.  Thankfully Australia has maintained a civilised system for the last 45 years. It still surprises me how an "advanced" country like the USA can still have states participating in such a barbarous practice.

Gun toting rednecks and religious zealots run the political agenda in the USA so its no surprise they support state sponsored murder. Most of these people are morally no better than the criminals they demand be put to death.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:48pm: An execution carried out following a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, following an appeal heard by 3 Judges who declare the conviction to be sound, followed again if requested by a review of a Supreme Court of Judges that the verdict is sound. That's not murder at all. It's premeditated killing. Call it what you will - murder or execution - but it's ultimately the same thing: premeditated killing. It's my subjective view that nation states should not be in the business of premeditated killing.

why not? the state has a duty to the greater good .. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it .. the criminal has made the decision to commit the crime, and suffer the consequences  .... the innocent did nothing and suffers the consequences of inaction  ... how is that fair?

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:37pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty ... Yep, mine too.  I'm forced to seriously question my views. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ... but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge. Absolutely.  The killing has to stop at some point. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ...  but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system. 100% agreed.  Thankfully Australia has maintained a civilised system for the last 45 years. It still surprises me how an "advanced" country like the USA can still have states participating in such a barbarous practice. Gun toting rednecks and religious zealots run the political agenda in the USA so its no surprise they support state sponsored murder. Most of these people are morally no better than the criminals they demand be put to death.

the fact that you have to resort to justifying your stance by discrediting those who disagree is a sign of no real defence from you .. I personnaly think there is a role for the death penalty , I have never murdered or raped anyone or ever thought of doing so, in fact I have never hit out at anyone in anger ... who are you to judge me  .. I'd put my morals up over yours on any day of the week and I doubt I would loose.

John Smith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:37pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty ... Yep, mine too.  I'm forced to seriously question my views. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ... but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge. Absolutely.  The killing has to stop at some point. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ...  but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system. 100% agreed.  Thankfully Australia has maintained a civilised system for the last 45 years. It still surprises me how an "advanced" country like the USA can still have states participating in such a barbarous practice. Gun toting rednecks and religious zealots run the political agenda in the USA so its no surprise they support state sponsored murder. Most of these people are morally no better than the criminals they demand be put to death. the fact that you have to resort to justifying your stance by discrediting those who disagree is a sign of no real defence from you .. I personnaly think there is a role for the death penalty , I have never murdered or raped anyone or ever thought of doing so, in fact I have never hit out at anyone in anger ... who are you to judge me  .. I'd put my morals up over yours on any day of the week and I doubt I would loose.

Since when were those comments directed at you?
They are directed at the weirdos and zealots that influence the US political system so take a valium

John Smith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:

.. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it ..

They shouldn't, and nobody is suggesting that they should.

Capital punishment doesn't deter crime.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:51pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:37pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty ... Yep, mine too.  I'm forced to seriously question my views. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ... but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge. Absolutely.  The killing has to stop at some point. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ...  but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system. 100% agreed.  Thankfully Australia has maintained a civilised system for the last 45 years. It still surprises me how an "advanced" country like the USA can still have states participating in such a barbarous practice. Gun toting rednecks and religious zealots run the political agenda in the USA so its no surprise they support state sponsored murder. Most of these people are morally no better than the criminals they demand be put to death. the fact that you have to resort to justifying your stance by discrediting those who disagree is a sign of no real defence from you .. I personnaly think there is a role for the death penalty , I have never murdered or raped anyone or ever thought of doing so, in fact I have never hit out at anyone in anger ... who are you to judge me  .. I'd put my morals up over yours on any day of the week and I doubt I would loose. Since when were those comments directed at you? They are directed at the weirdos and zealots that influence the US political system so take a valium

I support 'state santioned killings' .... one can only assume that your opinion of one is the same regardless of what country they live in

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:47pm: .. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it .. They shouldn't, and nobody is suggesting that they should. Capital punishment doesn't deter crime.

I disagree ... look at crime rates in countries where they chop of the hands of theifs or execute murderers and you'll find many have rates below ours ....

John Smith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:59pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:55pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:51pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:46pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:37pm: adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty ... Yep, mine too.  I'm forced to seriously question my views. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ... but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge. Absolutely.  The killing has to stop at some point. adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:54pm: ...  but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system. 100% agreed.  Thankfully Australia has maintained a civilised system for the last 45 years. It still surprises me how an "advanced" country like the USA can still have states participating in such a barbarous practice. Gun toting rednecks and religious zealots run the political agenda in the USA so its no surprise they support state sponsored murder. Most of these people are morally no better than the criminals they demand be put to death. the fact that you have to resort to justifying your stance by discrediting those who disagree is a sign of no real defence from you .. I personnaly think there is a role for the death penalty , I have never murdered or raped anyone or ever thought of doing so, in fact I have never hit out at anyone in anger ... who are you to judge me  .. I'd put my morals up over yours on any day of the week and I doubt I would loose. Since when were those comments directed at you? They are directed at the weirdos and zealots that influence the US political system so take a valium I support 'state santioned killings' .... one can only assume that your opinion of one is the same regardless of what country they live in

It was not directed at anyone commenting here it was simply a comment on how the US can still have the death penalty while most other civilised countries ditched it a long time ago.

John Smith wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:57pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:47pm: .. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it .. They shouldn't, and nobody is suggesting that they should. Capital punishment doesn't deter crime. I disagree ... look at crime rates in countries where they chop of the hands of theifs or execute murderers and you'll find many have rates below ours ....

I have looked at the crime rates, and the studies.

"The death penalty fails to deter crime or lower murder rates, according to an overwhelming majority of top criminologists questioned for a U.S. university study published this week."

' "Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world's top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed (the) deterrence hypothesis as a myth," the researchers said. '

http://www.newsmax.com/US/death-penalty-study/2009/06/18/id/330990

"Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology ... "

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

"A New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in death penalty states was 48% to 100% higher than in non-death penalty states.  A recent poll showed police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime – behind curbing drug abuse, hiring more police officers, and reducing guns on the street.  Eighty seven percent of criminology experts agree that the death penalty fails to deter crime."

http://www.acadp.org/contents/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=100041

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:47pm: .. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it .. They shouldn't, and nobody is suggesting that they should. Capital punishment doesn't deter crime.

Correct, capital punishment is a punishment.

All this state sanctioned murder, permeditated murder, is too emotive.

The state does not go out and stalk the streets for people to kill.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:57pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:47pm: .. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it .. They shouldn't, and nobody is suggesting that they should. Capital punishment doesn't deter crime. I disagree ... look at crime rates in countries where they chop of the hands of theifs or execute murderers and you'll find many have rates below ours .... I have looked at the crime rates, and the studies. "The death penalty fails to deter crime or lower murder rates, according to an overwhelming majority of top criminologists questioned for a U.S. university study published this week." ' "Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world's top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed (the) deterrence hypothesis as a myth," the researchers said. ' http://www.newsmax.com/US/death-penalty-study/2009/06/18/id/330990 "Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology ... " http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty "A New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in death penalty states was 48% to 100% higher than in non-death penalty states.  A recent poll showed police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime – behind curbing drug abuse, hiring more police officers, and reducing guns on the street.  Eighty seven percent of criminology experts agree that the death penalty fails to deter crime." http://www.acadp.org/contents/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=100041

The death penalty should be seen as a punishment, not a deterrent, IMO.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:57pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:47pm: .. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it .. They shouldn't, and nobody is suggesting that they should. Capital punishment doesn't deter crime. Correct, capital punishment is a punishment. All this state sanctioned murder, permeditated murder, is too emotive. The state does not go out and stalk the streets for people to kill

State-sanctioned killing, is what I said.  And that is exactly what it is.  Care to argue otherwise?

Premeditated killing, is what I said and that is exactly what it is.  Care to argue otherwise?

Capital punishment is state-sanctioned, premeditated killing.  Nothing "too emotive" about it: it's just the facts.

Nobody said anything about the state going out on the street stalking people.

You're becoming too emotive.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

The death penalty should be seen as a punishment, not a deterrent, IMO.

Don't you want to deter crime?  I sure do.

Did you read this bit? ...

"A New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in death penalty states was 48% to 100% [i]higher than in non-death penalty states."[/i]

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:11pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:57pm: John Smith wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 2:47pm: .. why must innocents be subjected to the actions of known criminals when they've done nothing to deserve it .. They shouldn't, and nobody is suggesting that they should. Capital punishment doesn't deter crime. Correct, capital punishment is a punishment. All this state sanctioned murder, permeditated murder, is too emotive. The state does not go out and stalk the streets for people to kill State-sanctioned killing, is what I said.  And that is exactly what it is.  Care to argue otherwise? Premeditated killing, is what I said and that is exactly what it is.  Care to argue otherwise? Nobody said anything about the state going out on the street stalking people. You're becoming too emotive.

I don't have to argue Uncle.

You say it's killing.

I say it's punishment.

You say it is not a deterrent.

I say it is a punishment.

You say it is premeditated.

I say, don’t murder innocent people and won’t get punished.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

You say it's killing.

Yes: capital punishment is killing.

I'm curious to hear your argument to the contrary.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

You say it is premeditated.

Yes: capital punishment is premeditated.

I'm curious to hear your argument to the contrary.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

I say it's punishment.

So do I.  In fact, I don't think anybody would disagree with you.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

I say, don’t murder innocent people and won’t get punished.

So, do I.

In fact, I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: You say it is premeditated. Yes: capital punishment is premeditated. I'm curious to hear your argument to the contrary.

All punishments from traffic fines to jail time are premeditated.

Unlike killers, the state to not seek out people to kill.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:22pm:

You say it is not a deterrent.

According to the experts, yes.

However, if you've done some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in reading those results.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:25pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: You say it's killing. Yes: capital punishment is killing. I'm curious to hear your argument to the contrary.

Semantics are still high in your list of arguements i see.

You call it killing, i call it punishment.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:28pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: I say it's punishment. So do I.  In fact, I don't think anybody would disagree with you.

Cool

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:29pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: I say, don’t murder innocent people and won’t get punished. So, do I. In fact, I don't think anyone would disagree with you.

Cool

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: You say it is not a deterrent. According to the experts, yes. However, if you've done some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in reading those results.

Semantics, i don't care if it deters.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

All punishments from traffic fines to jail time are premeditated.

Yes, and capital punishment is premeditated killing.


FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

Unlike killers, the state do not seek out people to kill.

A state that carries out capital punishment is a killer.

Furthermore, their killing is premeditated.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:33pm: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: You say it is not a deterrent. According to the experts, yes. However, if you've done some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in reading those results. Semantics, i don't care if it deters.

Well, I certainly do.

I want to reduce the number of murderers on the street.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:32pm: All punishments from traffic fines to jail time are premeditated. Yes, and capital punishment is premeditated killing. FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:32pm: Unlike killers, the state do not seek out people to kill. A state that carries out capital punishment is a killer. Furthermore, their killing is premeditated.

No, premeditated punishment.

The state does not seek out people to kill, criminals commit crime and a level of puishment is applied.

For some I believe that punishment should be their lives.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:37pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:33pm: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: You say it is not a deterrent. According to the experts, yes. However, if you've done some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in reading those results. Semantics, i don't care if it deters. Well, I certainly do. I want to reduce the number of murderers on the street.

So do you have any statistics on prison time deterring crime in the US?

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

You call it killing, i call it punishment.

I call it both actually.

The second word is a dead give away: "capital punishment".

Capital punishment is a punishment that involves killing.

Are you suggesting that it's not?

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:37pm: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:33pm: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: You say it is not a deterrent. According to the experts, yes. However, if you've done some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in reading those results. Semantics, i don't care if it deters. Well, I certainly do. I want to reduce the number of murderers on the street. So do you have any statistics on prison time deterring crime in the US?

Nope, because I'm not arguing that prison time deters crime.

I'm arguing that capital punishment does not deter crime.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:41pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:33pm: You call it killing, i call it punishment. I call it both actually. The second word is a dead give away: "capital punishment". Capital punishment is a punishment that involves killing. Are you suggesting that it's not?

No, never have.

I just don't care if some murdering scumbag gets the punishment they deserve.

If it is death, that's their fault.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:37pm: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:35pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:33pm: FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:22pm: You say it is not a deterrent. According to the experts, yes. However, if you've done some research that suggests otherwise I'd be interested in reading those results. Semantics, i don't care if it deters. Well, I certainly do. I want to reduce the number of murderers on the street. So do you have any statistics on prison time deterring crime in the US? Nope, because I'm not arguing that prison time deters crime. I'm arguing that capital punishment does not deter crime.

Oh, I thought you were arguing that punishments that don’t work as deterrents are no good.

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:39pm:

No, premeditated punishment.

Correct.

And that punishment results in death.

That's commonly known as killing someone.

Just because you refuse to say the word, it doesn't mean that your preferred means of punishment isn't killing.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:43pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 1:16pm: Seriously spot, you are an idiot, you add nothing. So unless you have something of value to add, just maybe read and don't post. Just because you dont think it is of value doesnt mean its not. Being a religious nut is reason enough for a lot of murderers all over the world. The voices in their heads tell them to do it or that its okay to do it or in the case of some xtian religions they figger they will be forgiven. SOB "A religious nut". The guy Grey and I referred to - attended a small church in Kansas with his family. Like I said, just maybe slow down the postings and stick to areas where you can add value. At this rate by Feb you will have 16,000 posts you know. Well if the only thing in my argument that you disagree with is my usage of the words "religious nut" then why did you even reply? You obviously dont have anything on topic to say. SOB

If you discount the 15-20 posts I have made in this topic about my views and thoughts on crime and punishment, then yeah I guess I don't.

Seriously, I just can't fathom out if you are really this thick.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Cases like this one test my stance against the death penalty but in the end killing people does nothing to stop appalling crimes like this one from happening and the state should never be used to seek revenge. I have no answers to why these sorts of crimes happen but I do know state sponsored revenge killings cannot be a part of a civilised legal system.

when a dog attacks and injures a person or kills another dog then it is caught and put down.

A dog doesn't know better but what is a human's excuse ?

We keep them alive in prisons and waste millions on them :(

Anyone remember Anita Cobby ?? Her family has a life sentence whilst we waste millions feeding and housing the culprits :(

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

Oh, I thought you were arguing that punishments that don’t work as deterrents are no good.

Well, now you know better.

I was arguing that capital punishment does not deter crime.

I thought that was crystal clear, seeing as I kept mentioning capital punishment and I provided links to studies on capital punishment.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:47pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:39pm: No, premeditated punishment. Correct. And that punishment results in death. That's commonly known as killing someone. Just because you refuse to say the word, it doesn't mean that your preferred means of punishment isn't killing.

Do the crime, do the time.

If the “time” is death, boo dam hoo.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

FriYAY wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 3:13pm: The death penalty should be seen as a punishment, not a deterrent, IMO. Don't you want to deter crime?  I sure do. Did you read this bit? ... "A New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in death penalty states was 48% to 100% [i]higher than in non-death penalty states."[/i]

That would also be predominantly that homicide death is still for the most part the realm of gangland and drug-related environments.

These guys live and breath under the threat of death anyway, the fact the state would do it in a much more pleasant fashion than they would expect from their opponents is hardly going to stop them.

The figures from areas where they would have a deterrent effect (for example murder during robbery, rape etc) are unfortunately going to be hidden by the areas of gang crime that I mention.

There was a time when you could leave your door open in Australia and know your neighbor had your back...one day we will realize that globalization has been the great tragedy of our times as utopianism is behind all human suffering... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

There was a time when you could leave your door open in Australia and know your neighbor had your back...one day we will realize that globalization has been the great tragedy of our times as utopianism is behind all human suffering... :) :)

Given the simple fact that crime rates have steadily fallen over time when was that?

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 3:53pm:

We keep them alive in prisons and waste millions on them :(

The economic argument for capital punishment is just as weak as all the others.

"Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/

"Maintaining the death penalty in California costs at least $184 million more a year than it would simply to leave killers in prison for life ... "

"Several other reports in recent years, including one in 2009 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, have also concluded that executing prisoners is far more expensive than incarcerating them for life."

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Study-Death-penalty-costlier-than-life-sentences-2367327.php

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

Prevailing wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 4:35pm: There was a time when you could leave your door open in Australia and know your neighbor had your back...one day we will realize that globalization has been the great tragedy of our times as utopianism is behind all human suffering... :) :) Given the simple fact that crime rates have steadily fallen over time when was that?

Violent crime has increased.
Lengths of sentences for Category A offenses have shortened.

another degenerated post


Just because he walked pasted a security camera dosn' mean he murder her.

too much assuming here

Prevailing wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

There was a time when you could leave your door open in Australia and know your neighbor had your back...

As long as your neighbour wasn't Eric Cooke.

During the early 1960s, people in Perth frequently left cars unlocked and/or with the keys in the ignition, which enabled Cooke to steal a car almost every night. He sometimes returned stolen vehicles without the owners becoming aware of the theft, including several cars involved in hit and runs.

Cooke's strange killing spree involved a series of seemingly unrelated hit and runs, stabbings, stranglings and shootings that terrorised Perth. He was a serial killer whose behaviour and methods varied greatly. Victims were shot with several different rifles, stabbed with knives and scissors, and hit with an axe. Several were killed after waking as Cooke was robbing their homes; two were shot while sleeping without their homes being disturbed; and one was shot dead after answering a knock on the door. After stabbing one victim, Cooke got lemonade from the refrigerator and sat on the verandah drinking it. One victim was strangled to death with the cord from a bedside lamp, after which Cooke raped the corpse, dragged it to a neighbour’s lawn and sexually penetrated it with an empty whisky bottle, which he left cradled in her arms. Cooke later explained such actions by saying that he wanted to hurt people.

Ah, those were the days.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 4:39pm: Prevailing wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 4:35pm: There was a time when you could leave your door open in Australia and know your neighbor had your back...one day we will realize that globalization has been the great tragedy of our times as utopianism is behind all human suffering... :) :) Given the simple fact that crime rates have steadily fallen over time when was that? Violent crime has increased. Lengths of sentences for Category A offenses have shortened.

where has it increased?

warrigal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

another degenerated post Just because he walked pasted a security camera dosn' mean he murder her. too much assuming here

I think the fact he was able to then lead the police to her shallow grave 50 kms outside the city is probably not suggesting he is totally innocent.

reporting may have increased as we are less inclined to sweep sexual assault and violent crime under the carpet but I bet Sydney was way more dangerous in the early 1900's than it is now.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 11:29am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 9:35am: wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 8:52am: The police have done top work & they got him. We don't know if they got him Bobby.  Is he not innocent until proven guilty?.  The man must have his day in court.     :(     That's right Crook - a fair trial - a fair appeal & then hang em. sending him to jail is a waste of tax payers money. take him to the zoo and throw him in the lions cage. then he can experience fear before he gets chopped up into little pieces ;) Comments like this are a poor reflection on society. No wonder we have animals like the Jill Meagher rapist/murderer walking around if this is the attitude of our law abiding citizens. Anyway, the cops have done a good job on this one.  I just hope they've got the right guy (no reason to think they haven't at this stage) and that he's locked away for a very long time. I've got a couple of daughters in Melbourne, so I certainly don't want this guy back on the streets.

Publicity like we have had for the past week will hardly create a fare trial, they may as well have picked Joe blow living on the street.

In Afghanistan the Taliban behead people for dancing. It appears to have a deterrent effect. When you compare US states that do and do not have the death penalty, you're not comparing apples with apples; Alabama is not like New York.

At the end of the day it's an economic argument. With enough love, care and attention even the most savage of dogs can be reprogrammed to stop biting. But how is it worth a human life to spend it reprogramming a dog? As a society we have a cake to cut up. Every thousand a day spent on housing Ivan Milat is a thousand that could be spent on the very young preventing them developing psychopathic tendencies.

Grey wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

In Afghanistan the Taliban behead people for dancing. It appears to have a deterrent effect. When you compare US states that do and do not have the death penalty, you're not comparing apples with apples; Alabama is not like New York. At the end of the day it's an economic argument. With enough love, care and attention even the most savage of dogs can be reprogrammed to stop biting. But how is it worth a human life to spend it reprogramming a dog? As a society we have a cake to cut up. Every thousand a day spent on housing Ivan Milat is a thousand that could be spent on the very young preventing them developing psychopathic tendencies.

The same argument could be had about everyone in prison so should we just shoot everyone caught breaking the law to save money on jails?

80% of crime is committed by lib and lab voters and supporters

this is a desecration of the divine feminine

pornography and violence all over your media

all over movies TV advertisement radio

and satanic freemasonic lodges

manipulating dupes and unsuspecting types

into committing atrocities and ritual

abuses and sacrifice.

i send LOVE and eternal blessings unto all hearts

concerned

namaste

Anyone care to tell me why a Adrian Ernest Bailey, a sicko convicted of 16 charges of rape is out prison and allegedly murdering that poor girl?

Our system is the true one at fault here.

This same sicko was charged with king hitting a man several months ago.

Once again why was this monster freed by authorities to roam the streets and commit rape again then murder.
It is time we the people demanded a complete overhaul of freeing habitual violent prisoners.

They should be locked up then we throw away the key. Screw rehabilitation let them rot in prison until they die.

Everyone who knows me knows that I am against the death penalty for many good reasons - but I sincerely hope this psychopath spends a lot of nights with Bubba and the Boyz in Cell Block B....

What a pity the prison system has a duty of care..... I hope he was introduced to the back steps at the police station.

For all - YES it is disgusting that women cannot walk the streets in safety - at the same time - those people ARE out there, and recommending prudent precautions is not blaming the victim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3WQ4CaBiLE

Love of the Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine

Published on Sep 28, 2012 by sacredsarrah
The emergence within the Masculine of its Divine Feminine and the acceptance within the Feminine of its Divine Masculine create the perfect state of union. To read my article that is the basis for this video, go to http://sacredspaceswa.com/documents/TheLoveoftheDivineFeminineandDivineMascul...
Category:
Education

red baron wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

Anyone care to tell me why Adrian Ernest Bailey, a sicko convicted of 16 charges of rape is out of prison and allegedly murdered that poor girl? Our system is the true one at fault here. This same sicko was charged with king hitting a man several months ago. Once again why was this monster freed by authorities to roam the streets and commit rape again then murder. It is time we the people demanded a complete overhaul of freeing habitual violent prisoners. They should be locked up then we throw away the key. Screw rehabilitation let them rot in prison until they die.

We need to be able to vote for the death penalty.
The politicians are all too weak to vote on our behalf.

You've got my vote Bobby and I was a Police Officer for 18 years, sick of seeing left wing bleeding heart judiciary members let these monsters back on the streets once we locked them up.

red baron wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

You've got my vote Bobby and I was a Police Officer for 18 years, sick of seeing left wing bleeding heart judiciary members let these monsters back on the streets once we locked them up.

Thanks Baron,
I should become a politician - everyone would vote for me.  :)

I'll vote for the Baron and you, too.  Get on the job now.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 8:38pm:

I'll vote for the Baron and you, too.  Get on the job now.

But you'd have all the scum of society being hanged in
the main city square just like in the movie - Hang em High -
every Sunday after church.

Watch & see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsMQABEiRMc

Well - as long as they hung 'em gently (grinch, grinch)....

Ummm - still opposed to capital punishment - but a stretch on the equivalent of Devil's Island wouldn't go astray - surely.

Seriously - that guy had a string of really nasty things against him and was walking the streets.

BTW: I'm the Convenor of Australia's Wrongfully Convicted - doesn't mean I offer real scum a free ride!  JUSTICE!

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 9:25pm:

Well - as long as they hung 'em gently (grinch, grinch).... Ummm - still opposed to capital punishment - but a stretch on the equivalent of Devil's Island wouldn't go astray - surely. Seriously - that guy had a string of really nasty things against him and was walking the streets. BTW: I'm the Convenor of Australia's Wrongfully Convicted - doesn't mean I offer real scum a free ride!  JUSTICE!

Well - it's actually a pity to have to hang someone but
some people just need to be cleaned up - & out of society.
They also give back to society by providing a deterrent to other's.
Some people are like a wild dog with rabies.
You would shoot a dog like that but we give our worst scum:
a holiday camp -
where they don't have to work -
get 3 meals a day,
their own TV to watch etc.

What sort of deterrent is that?

So basically the hardliners and fascists are using this poor womans murder to their own totalitarian fascist ends... :( :(

Prevailing wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 10:03pm:

So basically the hardliners and fascists are using this poor womans murder to their own totalitarian fascist ends... :( :(

Better than a holiday camp for rapists & murderers.

What should be done with the violent offenders in this video?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faML0QvVb2A

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 10:11pm:

Prevailing wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:03pm: So basically the hardliners and fascists are using this poor womans murder to their own totalitarian fascist ends... :( :( Better than a holiday camp for rapists & murderers.

Come on, hardliners only care about using tragedy as an excuse to remove more civil liberties from the people... :( :(

Quote:

Anyone care to tell me why Adrian Ernest Bailey, a sicko convicted of 16 charges of rape is out of prison and allegedly murdered that poor girl? Our system is the true one at fault here.

It got me to thinking that surely this madman (at the age of 41) had prior offenses to his name. People don't usually just turn into these creatures overnight.

If this is correct that he already had so many prior convictions to his name, then it's a crime against the public for not warning them of what they had living in their vicinity.
We seem to live in a society where common sense is not worth a mention.

Prevailing wrote on Sep 28^th, 2012 at 10:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:11pm: Prevailing wrote on Sep 28th, 2012 at 10:03pm: So basically the hardliners and fascists are using this poor womans murder to their own totalitarian fascist ends... :( :( Better than a holiday camp for rapists & murderers. Come on, hardliners only care about using tragedy as an excuse to remove more civil liberties from the people... :( :(

Prevailing - don't tell me you're soft on crime?

You'd be the kind of magistrate who would give rapists
a good behaviour bond.

Its important that we dont let the hardliners win and use this womans death to strip away more civil rights...the more repressive they make our society the more violent...I blame the hardliners on this thread morally for this womans murder...the violent and merciless create violence without mercy...It was a hardliner who raped and killed this woman...this was all about power gthrough violence... :( :(