Kindergarten Children Attacked in Germany

[Mups]

Mups, I think use of terms such as punishment or penalty are inappropriate.  It isn't us, the state who has chosen to terminate anyone's life,... the decision was and is solely down to the perpetrator.

How can the perpetrator decide his own sentence?

They can decide their fate to a point,  but not their sentence.    Or have I misunderstood you?


They just said on the news a few minutes ago, that various authorities  were aware of this killer,  but it seems like they did not share information with each other.

[dextrous63]

How can the perpetrator decide his own sentence?

They can decide their fate to a point,  but not their sentence.    Or have I misunderstood you?

If the system states that such a murderous act will lead to a cessation of life by the perpetrator, and it it publicised so there is no doubt, then it is entirely their choice whether to follow that path or not.

If I go to a cashpoint machine, put my card in and press a series of buttons then I know exactly what will come out.

Similarly, if I take a knife out and deliberately stab and kill someone, then I (should) know and accept that my life will cease either at my own hands or with the assistance of the state.

No "punishment".  No "sentence". No "penalty".  Just an outcome of my own choosing.

[muddy]

Correct .

[Mups]

Correct .

But Muddy,  you have said yourself at times, that they need to bring the death penalty back?

Perhaps I'd best say no more. 

[dextrous63]

Mups, there is a world of difference between the state doing something to someone, and someone using their own free choice to determine their own "future".

Can't remember whether it's here or on the mothership that I stated my father's view that judges should refrain from saying "I therefore sentence you to..." and instead say something along the lines of "you have therefore decided to send yourself to prison for..."

[muddy]

But Muddy,  you have said yourself at times, that they need to bring the death penalty back?

Perhaps I'd best say no more. 

I have said it
And I am not alone .
Three MPs have today came  out in favour of the death penalty for these heinous cries .
Rupert Lowe
Nick Buckley
Lee Anderson

If there was a referendum on the subject it would be a landslide in favour .
It's not just punishment ,although it is a JUST consequence of such a terrible crime
It's for the protection of the general public .

It's  just a different set of confusing words that Dex is using .

[dextrous63]

I just don't think using the terms punishment and penalty are helpful, for the reasons I've already cited.

[Cassandra]

How can the perpetrator decide his own sentence?

They can decide their fate to a point,  but not their sentence.    Or have I misunderstood you?


They just said on the news a few minutes ago, that various authorities  were aware of this killer,  but it seems like they did not share information with each other.

In the case of Axel Rudakubana the Judge did a magnificent job in summing up today I do believe. The Defence had absolutely nothing to play with apart from limp handed shows by wets like the Lib-Dem 'Lord Carlile' of 'Prevent' an oxymoron of gothic proportion. His kind have been around for years the glutinous Lord Longford (Harriet Harman's Uncle) was another example of fawning sympathy for mass murderers of tiny children (see Myra Hindley). So at the last throw the losing team defending this monstrous little devil threw themselves upon the mercy of the bench suggesting age-barring clemency etc! The thing of horror that is Rudakubana was less than 14 days from it's 18th birthday at the time the slaughter undertaken. They also hoped that by pleading guilty at the last gate the court wouldn't hear the sordid descriptions and the wickedness of the vile actions in horrifying detail. Who knows perhaps others in tenuous approximation to the activities of 'alleged' cover ups were influential too herein? By rolling up rightly 52 years 191 days, he has more or less decided that the monster will die in prison. This case has confirmed the need for the blessed 'contempt of court act 1981' to be knocked down and re-built. Technically I believe Starmer had good argument for trying to prevent too much escaping before the trial. Rudakubana could have wriggled free by his defence playing on his age for the technical offside of deprecation before the accused was even in the dock. It was their best chance, playing the loophole and he could have maybe only served 9 years or less. For Starmer it's a complete headache. A rabid Human rights specialist on one hand, versus the baying pack on the other. The plain truth is this vile and horrible organism should have had his neck stretched, but because of his age it was never going to happen, think back to Craig and Bentley in the 50's!

[Mups]

Thank you for explaining your views, Cass. 

[dextrous63]

I agree with Mups, Cass and thank you.

Do you think cessation of criminal life will ever return to the statute book?

[GrannyMac]

Cassandra, I watched the judge's summing up, and I agree he was impressive. He was so clear in his wishes to apply the maximum sentence that was available to him.  

[Diasi]

Cassandra, I watched the judge's summing up, and I agree he was impressive. He was so clear in his wishes to apply the maximum sentence that was available to him. 

I agree, the Judge must have been fuming because he couldn't impose a whole life sentence.

The problem is that our legal system is not fit for purpose in so many areas.

My view is that everyone over the age of 10 should face the same level of sentences.

I don't accept the ludicrous 'everyone has the right to a defence' reasoning & I think that jury trials should be abolished in all cases where there is clear irrefutable evidence that a person has committed a crime & sentences should be imposed by a panel of Judges.

Also the mental health card should be abolished & the 'the voices told me to do it' killers should be imprisoned, with Broadmoor & Rampton being renamed as prisons & run like prisons.

[JBR]

I fully agree with all the above posts.  The real criminals of this country are having the freedom to enjoy themselves with little real punishment and the obvious consequence is a great increase in crime.

I have always believed that the most serious of crimes - murder - should be punished by death.  Our modern version of the traditional death penalty of hanging provides an instant and painless death when performed by an expert.  It is quick and cheap to perform compared to some other options. 

On example is the strangely complicated method used in America, which I believe entails a series of 'automated' injections of various cocktails of chemicals and takes several minutes to complete.  Another of their methods of terminating life is the electric chair which, I assume from appearances, must shake up and cause pain to the victim.
Another method which has been used in time of war has been shooting by a firing squad.  No doubt very quick and probably painless, but on the other hand relatively expensive compared to a reusable rope.

Yes, my vote goes to death by hanging but, in fairness, performed by an expert.  If it ever happens, we're going to have to learn how to do it properly as, I believe, we no longer have any people who have ever done it!

[klondike]

We won't need to bother once Shariah law takes over in the none too distant future the way things look.

[dextrous63]

A cliff would do just as well, and the tide should wash away any bodily fluids afterwards.