"Pyromancer" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but I disagree. Those who rape and murder multiple victims
deserve neither life nor rights. Those who hurl lumps of concrete at
trains and busses to the severe risk of injury transport staff and
members of the public deserve at the very least a public flogging and
confiscation of a large proportion of their personal wealth.

Humans are fallable and imperfect, as is the justice system. Your extreme
penalties would inevitably fall on those who were ultimately innocent - and
you could be one of them, remember. What makes us different from rapists
and murderers is that we have a uncomprimsiming respect for human life and
the quality of it, including theirs. Of course they should lose their
liberty, but not their life, nor their basic rights.

True justice requires an element of vengeance - so the victims (or their
relatives) can feel that the state has used its strength to inflict real
and serious suffering on the evildoers who harmed them.

Vengeance is an ugly, medieval concept. Where is your human compassion?
Where is your forgiveness? Where is the scope for rehabilitation?

- The fact that someone is being punished does not mean that your other
actions should not be proportionate. Someone in prison is being
confined as a punishment and/or for the public safety, not to act as
a punchbag (physically or mentally) for psychopaths (whether in
uniform or not).

Agreed - thuggish prison guards are the bane of any fair justice system
(see numerous worked examples across the world) - but so are cushy
prisons where the inmates get better medical care and better food than
poor but honest people living outside.

You should find out more about the justice and penal system in this country
rather than reading The Sun/Mail or wherever else you get this. I suspect
your views would be somewhat different if you did.

I am *not* saying that we should not punish wrongdoers. But we should
apply the appropriate punishment, and only the appropriate punishment,
in a consistent manner.

I'd agree with you completely there. Though I suspect we have very
wildly differing views on what counts as "appropriate".

You believe in almost limitless pain, suffering and torture for those who
are found guilty of breaking your rules. That sends a chill down my spine.
A human being with no humanity.

Rich

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Rich
Mallard breathed:
"Pyromancer" wrote in message
.. .

Sorry, but I disagree. Those who rape and murder multiple victims
deserve neither life nor rights. Those who hurl lumps of concrete at
trains and busses to the severe risk of injury transport staff and
members of the public deserve at the very least a public flogging and
confiscation of a large proportion of their personal wealth.

Humans are fallable and imperfect, as is the justice system. Your extreme
penalties would inevitably fall on those who were ultimately innocent - and
you could be one of them, remember.

I could also be a victim of a thug who was allowed to go free, in fact
on several occasions I have been a victim of railway vandals, once when
a lad of 10 or so hurled a half-brick at the 303 I was sitting in from
about 3' away as we departed Bogston, and twice between Leeds and
Sheffield when the trains I was on hit obstructions on the line.

I had eye contact with the brick-thrower for several seconds after the
bang. He was scowling, annoyed that he'd missed his target. His aim
was bad and the brick had hit the window pillar by my head, instead of
the window by my face. Had it struck three inches ahead, or had the 303
accelerated fractionally slower, it would have come through the window
and hit me in the face. I don't know what a half-brick driving shards
of glass would do in those circumstances, but I doubt it'd be pretty.

What makes us different from rapists
and murderers is that we have a uncomprimsiming respect for human life and
the quality of it, including theirs. Of course they should lose their
liberty, but not their life, nor their basic rights.

Why not? Why "of course"? Honestly, I've never been able to understand
why we are so fussy about the "rights" of those who have committed
terrible crimes and inflicted horror and misery on innocent people -
shouldn't the care be with the victims?

True justice requires an element of vengeance - so the victims (or their
relatives) can feel that the state has used its strength to inflict real
and serious suffering on the evildoers who harmed them.

Vengeance is an ugly, medieval concept.

Indeed. Shattered families and slaughtered victims are also ugly
concepts, sadly not confined to the medieval age.

Where is your human compassion?

With the victims.

Where is your forgiveness?

With those who genuinely show remorse and atone for (or at the very
least, never repeat) their crimes.

Where is the scope for rehabilitation?

That depends on the crime and the criminal. Someone who rapes once may,
perhaps, be rehabilitated. Twice, and I'd have grave doubts. Three
times or more? Anything short of execution is leniency gone mad, and a
sure sentence of torture, misery and suffering to whatever victim he (or
she, though that is rare) next selects.

Agreed - thuggish prison guards are the bane of any fair justice system
(see numerous worked examples across the world) - but so are cushy
prisons where the inmates get better medical care and better food than
poor but honest people living outside.

You should find out more about the justice and penal system in this country
rather than reading The Sun/Mail or wherever else you get this. I suspect
your views would be somewhat different if you did.

I don't read newspapers, but I do know that we now have the concept that
if someone is "in the state's hands", the state has a duty to maintain
what's regarded as a good life regime for that person. I feel this
tilts things too far in favour of the criminal.

You believe in almost limitless pain, suffering and torture for those who
are found guilty of breaking your rules.

Utter nonsense. I believe in penalties that inflict a proportionate
degree of suffering on the perpetrators of crime, forcing them to pay
for their actions, nothing more. Note "proportionate". No-one's
suggesting flogging old ladies for stealing tins of beans, or executing
brick-throwing yobs. And as was already said, these things need to be
done consistently and fairly.

The rules aren't mine, they are society's in general, and we all should
abide by them. It's not that difficult, most of the time, to tell right
from wrong, or work out whether a given course of action is dangerous
(to self or to others) or not. It's certainly obvious to anyone that
putting bricks through the windows of passenger trains isn't going to
improve things for those inside.

That sends a chill down my spine.
A human being with no humanity.

You exaggerate just a little!

I watched "The Green Mile" the other night. Ok, it's fiction, but it
shows both the horror of the electric chair, and the humanity of (most
of) the guards in the prison. And yes, it's also an object lesson in
how fallible justice systems and blind prejudice could send an innocent
man to his death. I cried at the ending.

I would not ever want to see a system like that implemented. And (as I
already knew, but the film re-enforced) the electric chair is an utter
abomination who's continued existence is a blight on all civilised
people. But I still believe that serial rapists and serial murders
should be executed, humanely. And that people who throw bricks at
trains should suffer a short, but painful and frightening penalty.

Of course, until detection is improved such that the perpetrators are
more likely to be caught than to get away, any penalty is irrelevant. On
that I suspect we both agree.

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.