I would use it to cut certain Soham murderin b******s

throat

people have tried, it was also the anniversary of jamie bulger the other day, another pair of cnuts throats that should have been slit, if they had a shred of decency they would have slit thier own throats

I think the likes of them people should have a very very slow and painful death at the hands of the relatives of the victims.

just a quick humane death would do, dont wanna be like them evil *******s, knowing your own time of death must be torture enough

I know we live in a civilzed society (supposedly) but I have to agree with the above comments. If we had capital punishment instead of bleeding heart liberal justice, then we would not have these low-life deviants inflicting their evil on the world......

 

.......but no; these days we put them up in a holiday camp-style prison and segregate them from those who might dispense "real" justice; at our (the tax payer's) expense!!!

 

I am not condoning or encouraging violence; but please? What about the rights of the victims and the families they leave behind?

 

Richard:angry:

A cousin of mine was murdered ten years ago this summer, 16 years old minding his own business when he was punched from behind and then kicked and stamped on by someone who had had an argument with their girlfriend and "was just in a bad mood".

 

The hope is he would have lived the rest of his days in squalour in a rat infested prison. He actually got sentenced to six years in a young offenders institute (despite being 19), out in three for good behaviour (how are you supposed to behave in prison???), within six months done exactly the same thing again and strangely enough he got sentenced to less than last time and he got five years!

 

As for killing murderers it would be nice but real justice in my mind and my aunties, uncles and cousins would be a horrible prison for the rest of his life. Killing them young is too good, I'd rather their spirit was broken and they were left a crying insecure mess.

 

It seems in this day and age there is no justice either way.

i used to think that the death penalty would be great if we could prove without a doubt that the person was guilty, i once had a drunken conversation with an uncle once about the same thing and he changed my mind (even though i hated him for doing it)

 

he told me to remember the case of the lady solicitor that was once convicted without a doubt of murdering her babies in their sleep, an "expert" was used and it was the nail in her coffin so to speak, she was convicted and senteneced to life with his testimony about how mothers kill their children (not sure on the exact reason why they killed them), years of fighting and new evidence proved the children died of cot death and the "experts" testimony was thrown out of court and he was discredited she was released as an innocent woman

 

she evetually wrote a book and then comitted suicide with the pressure, but she was innocent, but at the time was guilty wothout a doubt in a court of law, she would have been given the death penanlty and would have been hanged

 

its because of this that i have doubts about having the death penalty, although the two cases above really give a good case as to why we should have it

i used to think that the death penalty would be great if we could prove without a doubt that the person was guilty, i once had a drunken conversation with an uncle once about the same thing and he changed my mind (even though i hated him for doing it)

 

he told me to remember the case of the lady solicitor that was once convicted without a doubt of murdering her babies in their sleep, an "expert" was used and it was the nail in her coffin so to speak, she was convicted and senteneced to life with his testimony about how mothers kill their children (not sure on the exact reason why they killed them), years of fighting and new evidence proved the children died of cot death and the "experts" testimony was thrown out of court and he was discredited she was released as an innocent woman

 

she evetually wrote a book and then comitted suicide with the pressure, but she was innocent, but at the time was guilty wothout a doubt in a court of law, she would have been given the death penanlty and would have been hanged

 

its because of this that i have doubts about having the death penalty, although the two cases above really give a good case as to why we should have it

 

i class beyond reasonable doubt as what happened in Colorado at the darkknight rises premier, also the columbine shootings and also the Virginia tech shootings, the dunblane massacre and a few others like that, although columbine / Virginia and dunblane, incidence the perpetrators killed them selves, had they not, then that is what is considered beyond reasonable doubt.

i know what your saying, but without a reasonable doubt and convicted in a court of law this woman had killed her children, it was proven with the evidence and testimonys given, she want caught red handed or had a tape saying she did it, but the whole world was sure of her guilt

 

its a tough one, but we cant have the death penalty for some and not for others, its a sad fact that if we had it that maybe, just maybe someone who is innocent will have their life taken away, its for this reason we cant have the penalty

i class beyond reasonable doubt as what happened in Colorado at the darkknight rises premier, also the columbine shootings and also the Virginia tech shootings, the dunblane massacre and a few others like that, although columbine / Virginia and dunblane, incidence the perpetrators killed them selves, had they not, then that is what is considered beyond reasonable doubt.

 

in a court of law its the mind that kills, not the body hence why insanity is a sure way of escaping the proper sentence which should imho be dealt...i myself support the death penalty but a lot of these Colorado like killings are so bizare and unusual that any 2 cent defence team could and mostly do obtain an insanity plea which instantly cancels out the death penalty so "beyond reaonable doubt" is still not a sure fire way to spool up old sparky.

i know what your saying, but without a reasonable doubt and convicted in a court of law this woman had killed her children, it was proven with the evidence and testimonys given, she want caught red handed or had a tape saying she did it, but the whole world was sure of her guilt

 

its a tough one, but we cant have the death penalty for some and not for others, its a sad fact that if we had it that maybe, just maybe someone who is innocent will have their life taken away, its for this reason we cant have the penalty

 

I completely agree with this - while there are some scum of the earth that IMO completely deserve to be killed for their actions actually implementing that presents many problems.

 

Killing even one innocent person makes the whole of society that support this just as bad as murderers IMO - if you search you will find loads of cases where it has been found that the wrong person has been executed - how do you ever get over that, think what that has done to a that persons family.

 

As much as there can be overwhelming evidence to support the guilt of a person much of what is presented in court are views & opinions - even what would appear to be 100% evidence of someones guilt may later prove to be incorrect.

 

Just my 2p's worth

I completely agree with this - while there are some scum of the earth that IMO completely deserve to be killed for their actions actually implementing that presents many problems.

 

Killing even one innocent person makes the whole of society that support this just as bad as murderers IMO - if you search you will find loads of cases where it has been found that the wrong person has been executed - how do you ever get over that, think what that has done to a that persons family.

 

As much as there can be overwhelming evidence to support the guilt of a person much of what is presented in court are views & opinions - even what would appear to be 100% evidence of someones guilt may later prove to be incorrect.

 

Just my 2p's worth

 

I concur entirely with that statement, if you have a great Barrister who can talk the talk, chances are most people would get off or have a lighter sentence, you have a below par Barrister or one who is in the pocket of prosecution even if you are innocent then you are stuffed.

In a lot of cases, not all, you are at the mercy of the jury, who may have no forensic knowledge or know the jargon, but take the word of a so called expert.

 

What really defines an expert anyway? just because someone has trained in their field and had experience, it doesnt make them infallible.