Both shocking cases-neither man should be allowed out of prison.
No, that's the Tia Sharp murder, not the April Jones one.
We don't know what this Bridger guy did exactly to that little April.![]()
FACT.
Although, a bullet in both their heads would be my preferred option.
True, if found guilty, this man is twisted individual, and should be punished, but killing these types of people won't solve the problem, rehabilitation will, however. Also, the death penalty is not morally justifiable as a punishment, as well as the obvious risks that the death penalty may kill convicted people who were in fact innocent.
What happened to the principles of 'innocent before proven guilty', it is probable that this man is guilty, but he's innocent until he's proven guilty by his peers.
If you are going to jail someone for life (as in never release them) as BSB has said above then how are you going to rehabilitate them anyway? And what would be the point?
In this day and age with the improvements in DNA technologies and the like, I, personally, do not see why the death penalty cannot be brought back in cases where it is without question that person. If there is an iota of doubt then just enforce the strictest penalty possible.
You say it is not morally justifiable but that is not fact, that is your opinion, and surely comes down to your own individual morals. Personally, I feel that if you make the decision to sexually assault, rape and then kill children then you should not have the chance of rehabilitation. You should also not have the right to a life, but again that is just my opinion.
I did not want my comment to turn this thread into another for/against debate on the death penalty as we have been through it many times and for what it's worth I can see both sides of the argument. I also do not think the death penalty will ever return in this country, however, it does not stop my feelings that this world would not miss the deaths of these two individuals as well as the likes of Huntley.
The thing about the death penalty is they're getting out of it too easily. It's worse punishment for them to spend the rest of their lives behind bars, taking some serious shit from some of the other inmates.
As for innocent until proven guilty. That's fine, I completely agree with that. Apart from one of these men changed his plea to guilty and got sent down and the other one has all but admitted it but he doesn't remember anything. He'll be sent down, the case against him is way too strong.
Edit: LG, that last paragraph wasn't aimed at you!
Thing is they are so protected the other in mates can't get near them costing thousands per year
If you are going to jail someone for life (as in never release them) as BSB has said above then how are you going to rehabilitate them anyway? And what would be the point?
In this day and age with the improvements in DNA technologies and the like, I, personally, do not see why the death penalty cannot be brought back in cases where it is without question that person. If there is an iota of doubt then just enforce the strictest penalty possible.
You say it is not morally justifiable but that is not fact, that is your opinion, and surely comes down to your own individual morals. Personally, I feel that if you make the decision to sexually assault, rape and then kill children then you should not have the chance of rehabilitation. You should also not have the right to a life, but again that is just my opinion.
I did not want my comment to turn this thread into another for/against debate on the death penalty as we have been through it many times and for what it's worth I can see both sides of the argument. I also do not think the death penalty will ever return in this country, however, it does not stop my feelings that this world would not miss the deaths of these two individuals as well as the likes of Huntley.
Just bear in mind that my comments, although relevant to this crime, were more general.
How is the death penalty moral justifiable? Killing people who kill people is revenge not justice, also, killing someone no matter the circumstances is moral. If killing is against your morals then that would automatically make death penalty immoral, surely?
I'm certainly glad that the judiciary condemn people, not ordinary people! Otherwise crime and punishment would be ridiculous.
I'm not going to go into much detail, but I think anyone can be rehabilitated, it's all operant conditioning, we learn certain behaviours, therefore, the same behaviours can be unlearned, people aren't born killers. On this nature v nurture debate, I think natural genes e.g. aggressiveness can be suppressed by reinforcement.
Not relevant here. But crime, on the large part, is down to socio-economic standing, poorer people are more likely to commit crimes like theft, murders and gang related crimes because they have had a traumatic chilhood e.g. abused children more likely to be murderers. They are my convictions.
The whole point justice, to me, is eradicating the problem of crime, and killing people or harsh justice does not solve the problem nor is much of a deterrent, overall, it's lazy.