Crosswords3 mins ago
Nutter who killed the baby.
As a rule I disagree with the death penalty, but in this particular instance, try as I might, I just can't see a reason for keeping him alive - he is evil personified and has no redeeming features whatsoever.
What is the point in wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds keeping him alive?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the death penalty was removed with popular public support because it is unworkable and unjust, it will never be reinstated in this country � no matter how much the mob bay for blood and vengeance. I won�t bother going on as I don�t think this thread is for people with my opinions� enjoy the rest of your rant
undercovers
I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating. If it were someone I loved, I would want to exact my revenge on them - yeah...that would mean the death penalty.
...and that's why I don't agree with the death penalty. It turns us into cavemen/women. Look how we tut-tut when we see the extreme forms of punishment in the Middle East, but blimey - you scratch the surface here, and you've got people who sound not unlike lynchers from Louisiana in the 1930s.
This is why I don't think it should be reintroduced. It turns people into baying, thoughtless animals.
...and I include myself in that discription.
Oh, there nothing like this subject for stiring up the bloodlust! I have to wonder about those people who would volunteer to torture and kill someone themselves - the language they use indictae that they would enjoy doing it. In my view they are not much better than the guy who killed the baby. (And I am not a woolly liberal - I trust he stays inside for a very long time, but I am adamantly opposed to capital punishment on two grounds;
1. Too many cases of miscarriages of justice;
2. I don't want anyone killed in my name.)
I take great offence at your post Hal likening me to the man who tortured and eventually killed his own son because he was jealous of the attention that he was receiving. I am nothing like that piece of filth and yes I am better than him and all the other people who abuse and murder children. In my opinion he does not deserve to be treated like a human being and that is why I would have no problem whatsoever in seeing him removed from the face of the earth. I would not derive any enjoyment from seeing him executed as he does not deserve any of my time. If you step on a cockroach or kill a wasp does that make you a murderer? Would you lose any sleep over it? I wouldn't and I view him on roundabouts the same level.
Some people have intimated that if capital punishment were re-introduced then "we/the state" would also be murderers and what right do we have to take another's life etc. Using that logic surely as we can lock up somebody and keep them prisoner for however long we please we are all kidnappers or when the police seize criminals assets that makes them thieves as well.
Flip-flops original question related to a particular case and there is nothing that anybody could say that would persuade me that the "man" who tortured and killed his own baby son deserves to live.
gedk - I stand by what I said. I didn't specifically mention your post, but I have to say that anyone who would be prepared to burn another person alive, regardless of how terrible their crime, has reduced themselves to the same level as the criminal, in my eyes. Albert Pierpoint, the last official hangman in the UK, went out of his way to ensure that the condemned men and women had as quick and painless a death as possible. I don't agree with capital punishment, but if we do have it thats how it should be done. Burning people alive is appalling - the work of a barbarian.
Am amazed at some of the responses from the apologistas here: as I originally said I am, by and large against the death penalty for some of the reasons already mentioned - miscarriages etc... - however, where there is no doubt, such as this case, and where this thing is such a sub-human, surely the humane thing would be to put him down the way one would put down a rogue dog.
This thing has the human assets of reasoning and comprehension, something a dog does not have, and yet he still managed to commit one of the most sickening heinous crimes imaginable.
This is not blood baying or a rant or anything else, this is a genuine question - why would we want to keep somebody like this alive? Why? What is the point? I don't particularly want to see the guy tortured or tormented, but in a case as diabolically un-human as this, what is wrong with dispatching him as quickly as possible?
if it could be limited to the cases where there is not a shred of doubt that this person is guilty and the person is, as in this case, an evil maniac, then i can see a case for bringing it back.
if the evidence is in any way circumstantial then it shouldn't be employed.
the problem is who makes the choice?
bigots, racists, mysogynists etc etc??? people who really shouldn't work in that sector.
or sensible judges? who decides? there are so many miscarriages of justice all the time - 9 months for rape, 2 years for murder etc etc so to put these decisions in the hands of the average judge is possibly not the best thing to do
i totally understand your point flip flop its just unfortunate that it can never work in a foolproof way.
Its absolute nonsense keeping this man alive. The moment he deliberately broke his kids wrists he deserved 22 yrs in prison. Then breaking both legs and the poor kids ribs I would say the rest of his. Holding his baby's face to the gas fire, he deserves to be burnt at a steak but I wouldnt wish that on him. An injection, hanging, or electrecution however, would serve him well. I hope he gets hell everyday for the rest of his life.Not ashamed to admit either, and wont change my mind.
Joko is right sentencing in this country is arse.
I'm confused - if this guy is the epitome of everything wrong with humanity, why did someone choose to love him and have his child?
what the guy did was horrific, it sickens the stomach to think of a baby being put through what he inflicted on it, but to say that he is evil and dismiss the fact that he is a human being like us is to hide our heads in the sand about what it is we are doing if we kill him.
what the guy did was horrific, it sickens the stomach to think of a baby being put through what he inflicted on it, but to say that he is evil and dismiss the fact that he is a human being like us is to hide our heads in the sand about what it is we are doing if we kill him.
In answer to your question El D, I would say 'stupidity'. She probably got with him & had his baby for the same reasons the other women he fathered babies with ~ they thought they might change him, or he would magically change all by himself?
Apparently he was not allowed contact with the other children he had due to his violence. Fortunately for them, they are now safe. Unfortunately this little baby paid the price for his parents actions.
I will never understand that even though she knew he was violent & had already abused the baby, she left him alone in order to go & visit her mother. It beggars belief.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.