bobinho wrote:The OP hasn’t actually said OR suggested that this individual is strung up without being proven guilty.

The OP has suggested exactly that;

'Vile vile monster and he should be put down.'

As have a number of other posters.

And you take from that they don’t want him tried?

It’s highly, highly unlikely he’s not the right man, but there should of course be a trial. I think they want the process to be carried out. I think you know they would want that also, or am I being really naive here? (Rhetorical, but go on, answer that if ya must )

bobinho wrote:And you take from that they don’t want him tried?

It’s highly, highly unlikely he’s not the right man, but there should of course be a trial. I think they want the process to be carried out. I think you know they would want that also, or am I being really naive here? (Rhetorical, but go on, answer that if ya must )

There are a number of people on this thread, including the OP, who have said that this man should be killed - despite the offences which he has been accused of being unproven. It’s there in black and white, I don’t need to interpret the comments.

Rileybobs wrote:There are a number of people on this thread, including the OP, who have said that this man should be killed - despite the offences which he has been accused of being unproven. It’s there in black and white, I don’t need to interpret the comments.

Think this is the main point Bobinho

Basically Wild West Vigilantism

Whenever there is a debate about law and order, those who take the strongest line tend to resemble the very psychopaths they purport to want to save us from.

Bfcboyo wrote:Wouldn't be justice for this animal. I didn't realise until reading this tonight how close to us this monster had got . Vile vile monster and he should be put down.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48178799" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok, just for my own peace of mind, can you confirm whether you want due process to occur and for him to be found “guilty” by a jury of his peers before executing him, or do you want the execution to go ahead based on him being suspected of the crime?

Thanks for clarifying.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think this is the main point Bobinho

Basically Wild West Vigilantism

Maybe you are both correct, but I have asked the OP to clarify simply because I can’t believe anyone would just want to execute someone else based purely on suspicion, irrespective of how compelling that suspicion is.

bobinho wrote:Maybe you are both correct, but I have asked the OP to clarify simply because I can’t believe anyone would just want to execute someone else based purely on suspicion, irrespective of how compelling that suspicion is.

Very easy to interpret the OP as wanting him executed at the time that he wrote it; at a time when he has not been found guilty.

Yes, I agree if you wanted to interpret it that way, you could. I don’t want to interpret anything. His clarification will help I think, in making sure what I say next is based on fact rather than supposition. God forbid anyone rushes into a judgment BEFORE knowing ALL the facts.

Remember Colin Stagg anyone?

Totally innocent of all the crimes he was accused of yet there is absolutely no doubt many on here thought he was guilty and would see him hanged.

Never trust the police in those circumstances as they knew he was innocent!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the- ... -85cmwlg89" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bobinho wrote:Yes, I agree if you wanted to interpret it that way, you could. I don’t want to interpret anything. His clarification will help I think, in making sure what I say next is based on fact rather than supposition. God forbid anyone rushes into a judgment BEFORE knowing ALL the facts.

No interpretation is needed. The OP has made up his mind that the person arrested is guilty, is a vile animal and should be put down. Theres no ifs buts or maybes, its him, the person in the link, that man right there, he's done it and he should die.

I really don’t think anyone is suggesting the death penalty until someone is proven guilty. The reason it was abolished was largely due to the Evans case and the the Ruth Ellis case. The latter was murder although because she was female and some classed it as a crime of passion it didn’t sit easy with some of the public. We have methods now such as DNA testing that we didn’t have then. Having recently read Pierrepoint’s book I feel the death penalty can be carried out in the correct manner. This question is constantly raised with some MPs calling for its return recently and the last petition I saw had 25 thousand signatures on it with comments from parents whose family including children had been butchered by monsters. The Moors Muderers unfortunately just missed out on this type of punishment. Whilst I support it and accept others don’t i don’t think it will be brought back in the UK. I notice how the UK is softening its approach to other counties who may use the death penalty for crimes committed by UK citizens not committed on UK soil. Of course human rights activists are not comfortable with this even if the perpetrators committed multiple murders.

Blackrod wrote:I really don’t think anyone is suggesting the death penalty until someone is proven guilty. The reason it was abolished was largely due to the Evans case and the the Ruth Ellis case. The latter was murder although because she was female and some classed it as a crime of passion it didn’t sit easy with some of the public. We have methods now such as DNA testing that we didn’t have then. Having recently read Pierrepoint’s book I feel the death penalty can be carried out in the correct manner. This question is constantly raised with some MPs calling for its return recently and the last petition I saw had 25 thousand signatures on it with comments from parents whose family including children had been butchered by monsters. The Moors Muderers unfortunately just missed out on this type of punishment. Whilst I support it and accept others don’t i don’t think it will be brought back in the UK. I notice how the UK is softening its approach to other counties who may use the death penalty for crimes committed by UK citizens not committed on UK soil. Of course human rights activists are not comfortable with this even if the perpetrators committed multiple murders.

And what about rape? How can you prove that beyond all doubt?

Spijed wrote:And what about rape? How can you prove that beyond all doubt?

What odds will you give me on the guy who was nicked up a tree yesterday is guilty and how much can I have on it at those odds ?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:What odds will you give me on the guy who was nicked up a tree yesterday is guilty and how much can I have on it at those odds ?

I'm thinking more of the cases of rape such as the Ched Evans one, and others where people end up in situations where it's one word against another.

Rileybobs wrote:I’d like to think not but who knows. I fail to see how that’s relevant though as if a loved one of mine was a victim of sexual abuse I wouldn’t be thinking coherently.

In any case would you think it fair that said suspect is tried and found guilty before given the electric chair? Or is that a little on the liberal side?

Dont see where I remotely suggested that McCann is guilty without a trial. He has the same rights under the law as anybody else. However , if guilty, he has by his own actions lost his right to live.

Blackrod wrote:I really don’t think anyone is suggesting the death penalty until someone is proven guilty. The reason it was abolished was largely due to the Evans case and the the Ruth Ellis case. The latter was murder although because she was female and some classed it as a crime of passion it didn’t sit easy with some of the public. We have methods now such as DNA testing that we didn’t have then. Having recently read Pierrepoint’s book I feel the death penalty can be carried out in the correct manner. This question is constantly raised with some MPs calling for its return recently and the last petition I saw had 25 thousand signatures on it with comments from parents whose family including children had been butchered by monsters. The Moors Muderers unfortunately just missed out on this type of punishment. Whilst I support it and accept others don’t i don’t think it will be brought back in the UK. I notice how the UK is softening its approach to other counties who may use the death penalty for crimes committed by UK citizens not committed on UK soil. Of course human rights activists are not comfortable with this even if the perpetrators committed multiple murders.

With a bit of research, you will find that DNA testing is in no way bullet proof; though the science is sound it is often incorrectly applied, mis-used, mis-handled and mis-interpreted. There continues to be huge miscarriages of justice despite development in forensic techniques, because people are flawed even if the science isn't. It's almost impossible for a jury to know if what they are presented with as fact, is indeed the smoking gun DNA evidence is perceived to be.

FCBurnley wrote:Dont see where I remotely suggested that McCann is guilty without a trial. He has the same rights under the law as anybody else. However , if guilty, he has by his own actions lost his right to live.

But what happens if there has been a miscarriage of justice?

:P :P

FCBurnley wrote:Dont see where I remotely suggested that McCann is guilty without a trial. He has the same rights under the law as anybody else. However , if guilty, he has by his own actions lost his right to live.

No, if guilty he has lost his right to be free.

FCBurnley wrote:Dont see where I remotely suggested that McCann is guilty without a trial. He has the same rights under the law as anybody else. However , if guilty, he has by his own actions lost his right to live.

1.) I didn’t say that you said he was guilty without a trial.
2.) You used the ridiculous scenario of ‘what would I think if I was a relative of the victim’. The family of a victim of crime is in the least suitable position to decide on a punishment for the accused.
3.) Your last sentence is just plain wrong. If guilty he hasn’t lost his right to live, you may think he has but under UK law he hasn’t.

Rileybobs wrote:1.) I didn’t say that you said he was guilty without a trial.
2.) You used the ridiculous scenario of ‘what would I think if I was a relative of the victim’. The family of a victim of crime is in the least suitable position to decide on a punishment for the accused.
3.) Your last sentence is just plain wrong. If guilty he hasn’t lost his right to live, you may think he has but under UK law he hasn’t.

1) you implied that in your initial reply
2) my scenario was not ridiculous and I sincerely hope you are never put in the position to find out
3) in my opinion when a person is found guilty of such serious crimes against fellow human beings, they forfeit all rights including the right to live. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

Clearly we will never understand each others views on this subject.

FCBurnley wrote:1) you implied that in your initial reply
2) my scenario was not ridiculous and I sincerely hope you are never put in the position to find out
3) in my opinion when a person is found guilty of such serious crimes against fellow human beings, they forfeit all rights including the right to live. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

Clearly we will never understand each others views on this subject.

And what about any wrongful conviction? Can hardly say sorry once they are dead!

The problem for some is that simply loosing liberty is not punishment enough, today's prisons seen as far too cushy. People have no where to go when judging a punishment suitable for a crime. If there is some middle ground between cushy and death, such as X number of years hard labour North Korea style, maybe there'd be less of a clamour to bring back hanging.

Blackrod wrote:We have methods now such as DNA testing that we didn’t have then.

I remember touching on this in a course I did at uni as an example of how stats can be misleading.

The basic premise was that the prosecution would stand up in court, proclaim that DNA testing is accurate to 1 in 10,000,000 or whatever and, given those odds, how could they not be guilty.

The issue is obviously when you look into this. It may be 10m from a random sample of the world's population but when you look down into it those stats can quickly drop. If you're looking at somewhere with the same ethnic makeup, lots of shared heritage, members of the same family, etc the stats drop right down. (And there are also issues with the quality of the sample, etc)

It's quite difficult to get this across to a jury though. 1 in 10,000,000 is way catchier than discussion of random sampling.

Rileybobs wrote:As a reasonable human being I find the death penalty abhorrent. However, if it was re-introduced in this country I would prefer it if the suspects were tried and found guilty of their crimes before being executed. If that makes me too liberal for you then you are a wazzock.

Well said ....and as a further point one might like to pose the question as to whether the death penalty ever actually deters crimes. As said by someone else - it would probably deter convictions.

mealdeal wrote:Obviously he’d be remanded you moron, he’s been arrested for a serious offence not nicking some sweets from the corner shop.

You might think you are being clever trying to conflate the remand system with death penalty but all you are doing is serving to prove you’re an idiot

Bit harsh. Sorry I didn't realise the police and press were stitching him up with the information they released.

Strange breed you rapist and peado sympathisers.

Obviously kill him once convicted you buffoon.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Stop being so rational, this thread is for deranged loons to out do themselves on who can be the most daft.

Your right. Have you got the Just Giving page up and running for him yet?

bobinho wrote:Ok, just for my own peace of mind, can you confirm whether you want due process to occur and for him to be found “guilty” by a jury of his peers before executing him, or do you want the execution to go ahead based on him being suspected of the crime?

Thanks for clarifying.

Obviously once convicted , people have tried to make a bigger issue of this without trial thing than there is. The police generally don't release so much information on a whim. We are all living in the real world and assume he will be found guilty in twelve months time.
Once the wretched detail comes out we will revisit the question and ask all these people getting all angry at the thought of the death penalty, have their minds changed?
They won't of course as their blind principle outweighs any chance of common sense prevailing.

Bfcboyo wrote:Obviously once convicted , people have tried to make a bigger issue of this without trial thing than there is. The police generally don't release so much information on a whim. We are all living in the real world and assume he will be found guilty in twelve months time.
Once the wretched detail comes out we will revisit the question and ask all these people getting all angry at the thought of the death penalty, have their minds changed?
They won't of course as their blind principle outweighs any chance of common sense prevailing.

People like you are the reason we don't have the death penalty. If you decided who had the right to life then I imagine hundreds, if not thousands of people would be sentenced to death every year.

I'm sure the list would include all rapists, child abusers and murderers or am I wrong?

Then you'd have to also include people already in prison for those crimes and of course anyone who had committed those crimes but had served their time and been released.

Then, as you got oldier and angrier and even more bigoted you'd turn your attention to others who outrage you, probably muslims or immigrants.

This is why people like you, with extremely low intelligence, are kept away from making any decisions that affect our civilised way of life.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:What odds will you give me on the guy who was nicked up a tree yesterday is guilty and how much can I have on it at those odds ?

Not the point. Its about whether you believe in the rule of law, or not.

Look, the way the same posters casually ignore the laws on just about everything so they can indulge themselves in their prejudices and beliefs is more than a little worrying.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not the point. Its about whether you believe in the rule of law, or not.

Look, the way the same posters casually ignore the laws on just about everything so they can indulge themselves in their prejudices and beliefs is more than a little worrying.

Possibly, but once he is found guilty (which most normal people can accept this guy is) I have no issue with him no longer being alive. If wishing this person no longer shares the same planet as me makes me a wrong un I can easily live with that.

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Possibly, but once he is found guilty (which most normal people can accept this guy is) I have no issue with him no longer being alive. If wishing this person no longer shares the same planet as me makes me a wrong un I can easily live with that.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, most people thought Colin Stagg was guilty of a brutal murder.

And then what?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:

Possibly, but once he is found guilty (which most normal people can accept this guy is) I have no issue with him no longer being alive. If wishing this person no longer shares the same planet as me makes me a wrong un I can easily live with that.

You just conceded Lancaster had a point, then completely undermined it instantly. Where's the judicial process in saying "most people accept this guy is guilty, so I'm fine with this one getting the chop".

willsclarets wrote:You just conceded Lancaster had a point, then completely undermined it instantly. Where's the judicial process in saying "most people accept this guy is guilty, so I'm fine with this one getting the chop".

Which followed "once he is found guilty" which you decided to ignore and leave out

Bfcboyo wrote:Your right. Have you got the Just Giving page up and running for him yet?

Of course not, I'm letting justice take its course.

Hey, you could try that!

Blackrod wrote:The taxpayer will pay the additional cost to segregate the monster in prison. It would be cheaper not to bother. Once he’s been finished off by other inmates just throw him in the prison incinerator. Job done. Rapists and paedos will never offer anything good to society and can’t be made better by counselling and therapy.

Been saying this for years. Anyone over the age of 16/18 who`s convicted of a sexual offence against a child should never be let out and should be placed in the general prison population. I think the powers that be would realise that`s the best therapy for them.

We call other countries barbaric for their death penalties. Should we be barbaric too?

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Which followed "once he is found guilty" which you decided to ignore and leave out

Miscarriages of justice happen. Lies are told. People can be released from prison and compensated, they can’t be brought back to life.

The death penalty is extremely costly, because realistically “beyond all reasonable doubt” is not enough when it comes to ending somebody’s life. Hence the extremely long appeal process in the USA.

It is of no consequence anyway. As bad as our politicians may be, I doubt they’d be reckless enough to submit to mob rule on this level.

SGr wrote:Miscarriages of justice happen. Lies are told. People can be released from prison and compensated, they can’t be brought back to life.

The death penalty is extremely costly, because realistically “beyond all reasonable doubt” is not enough when it comes to ending somebody’s life. Hence the extremely long appeal process in the USA.

It is of no consequence anyway. As bad as our politicians may be, I doubt they’d be reckless enough to submit to mob rule on this level.

If there are votes in it, then certain politicians certainly will

Coincidentally I watched a show last night looking into the problems that the US are having with the death penalty at the moment.

It was largely about the logistics of the executions. Unsurprisingly doctors refuse to be involved so the procedure is carried out with incorrectly trained personnel. America doesn't produce the drugs themselves and can't source them so is having to make do with using a sedative rather than anaesthetic (and the choice of drugs themselves has also been made without input from doctors).

Setting aside the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, are those who are pro-death penalty happy for it to be carried out if it can't be done "humanely"? Are you in agreement with a civilised country torturing people to death? Would you be in agreement if the sentence was to be carried out by stoning for instance?

I think one state is looking at reintroducing the firing squad.

At last. Tommy Robinson can now start a campaign against Caucasians.

On the fence regarding the death penalty. Until we rid the police of some of the corruption and can be 100% sure someone is guilty then we wil get cases of wrongly accused people. It would surely be a good deterrent though.

I think the way forward is to stop pandering to the human rights of the most vile criminals. Serial murderers, serial rapists like this guy, terrorists. In my eyes they forego those when they destroy those of others. We need top level prisons where they are locked away 22 hours a day. No TV, no contact with the outside world. Little to no contact with prisoners other than those they share a cell with. Ideally provide them with a noose, razor blades and a bottle of arsenic. Let them choose their way out if they want. Think of the food and oxygen we will save, not to mention the saving to the taxpayer.

This is a proper classic UTC thread.

He hasn't even been found guilty yet and people are arguing for him to be sentenced to death.

Falcon wrote:This is a proper classic UTC thread.

He hasn't even been found guilty yet and people are arguing for him to be sentenced to death.

Can you see him being found not guilty? I see your point but i think we are debating the inevitable.

Somethingfishy wrote:Can you see him being found not guilty? I see your point but i think we are debating the inevitable.

I haven't a clue. It's probably unlikely. But in a modern liberal society you've got to have due process.

Somethingfishy wrote:Can you see him being found not guilty? I see your point but i think we are debating the inevitable.

...said the judge on the opening day of trial.

Rileybobs wrote:...said the judge on the opening day of trial.

Can you really not see what i am getting at?? The guy was fleeing from the police in a car known to have been used for abducting people that day..and he hides up a tree. Hardly the actions of an innocent man. Yes I agree due cause has to be seen to be done but I will ask again. Do you think he is not guilty? Do you think he will be found not guilty? Do you think the police have got the wrong man? I would say the odds are well in favour of a guilty verdict. It is just the reality of the situation. The evidence is stacked against him. I would say the vast majority of the people commenting are thinking the same.

Barry George (Bulsara), not even compensated.

Police choosing to ignore evidence that might clear their prime suspect, not for the first time. AC12 needs more funding.